Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/08/1994 - Airport Relations CommissionAGENDA • REGULAR MEETING EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMIT EAGANy MINNESOTA EAGAN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY MARCH 8t 1994 7:00 P.M. PLEASE NOTE THAT A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE WILL BE HELD ON MONDAY, MARCH 7. 1994 AT 6:00 P.M. AT ST. THOMAS SECRET CHURCH 1080 LONE OAR ROAD PRIOR TO THE PART 150 OPEN HOUSE FOR THE ELECTION OF COMMITTEE OFFICERS I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA A. Organizational Business 1. Ratification of Officer Elections 2. Recommendation of MASAC Alternates II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. OLD BUSINESS • A. Discussion - Part 150 Program for Homes in Commercial -Industrial Guided Areas B. Policy Review - New Development in Noise Zones IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Dual Track Planning Process - New Airport Site Selection - AED Comments B. MASAC Complaint Category Review V. STAFF REPORT A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor B. MASAC Meeting of February 22, 1994 C. ENAC Update VI. VISITORS TO BE HEARD VII. INFORMATIVE VIII. NEST MEETING - Tuesday, April 12, 1994 IS. 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: ALL MEMBERS OF THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE • FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR DATE: MARCH 3, 1994 SUBJECT: AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF MARCH 7 AND MARCH 8, 1994 A special meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee will be held on Monday, March 7, 1994 at 6:00 p.m. at the St. Thomas Becket Church at 1080 Lone Oak Road for the election of committee officers. The meeting will be immediately followed by the Part 150 neighborhood's open house. A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee will be held on Tuesday, March 8, 1994 at 7:00 p.m., in the Eagan Municipal Center Council Chambers. Please contact Jon Hohenstein at 681-4603 if you will be unable to attend this meeting. I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA The agenda, as presented or modified, is in order for approval by the committee. A. Organizational Business --At its meeting of February 8, the committee continued consideration of a portion of the Organizational Business to permit more ongoing members to be present. Those items are in order for consideration at this time. 1. Ratification of Officer Elections --At the special meeting of March 7, it is anticipated that officers will be elected by the committee. It would be appropriate to ratify that action at this regular meeting. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To ratify the election of Chair and Vice Chair from the special meeting of March 7, 1994. 2. Recommendation of MASAC Alternates --The City is entitled to one voting membership on the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council and an unlimited number of alternates. Dustin Mirick is currently in the third year of a three year term as the City's MASAC representative. Eagan has chosen in recent years to have two alternate members chosen annually. Lois Monson and Jon Hohenstein currently serve in that capacity. Interest should be gauged from the members present and a recommendation made for Council consideration in this regard. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To recommend two persons to serve one year MASAC alternate terms for Council consideration. 0 II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • The minutes of the February 8, 1994 meeting are enclosed on pages I throughfor your review. These minutes, as presented or modified, are in order for approval y the committee. III. OLD BUSINESS A. Discussion - Part 150 Program for Homes and Commercial -Industrial Guided Areas -- The purpose of this business item is to discuss the outcome of the Monday evening open house for the noise impacted residential areas that are guided for commercial -industrial land use. Staff will attempt compile comment sheets received at the meeting for review by the committee. In addition, enclosed on pages ./2 through are copies of questionnaires received to date. At a previous meeting, the comZatively a had requested complaint data for the areas invited to the meeting. Enclosed on pageis a compilation of those complaint numbers. Despite the fact that the numbers are low, the areas involved are exposed to such significant noise without operational alternatives to diminish it that many of the residents in the area have indicated they've given up calling in their complaints at all. While no spec recommendation is anticipated at Tuesday's meeting, the committee should begin identifying what additional information it may need and what criteria it may wish to apply to decisions to sound insulate, recommend purchase or do nothing in the areas described. As a reminder of the background policy issues relative to this matter, enclosed on pages � ,/- � through � is a copy of the staff memorandum from the January meeting which begins outlining the policy issues the committee will need to address when making recommendations in this regard. It may be appropriate to view Tuesday's meeting as an opportunity to frame the issue for a possible joint meeting with the Advisory Planning Commission in early April. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To discuss the outcomes of the public open house for homes in commercially -industrially guided areas and direct staff to prepare additional information to assist in the development of a recommendation in this regard. B. Policy Review - New Development in Noise Zones --At its meeting of February 8, 1994, the committee considered this item and continued it to permit additional. input from members who were unable to be present. Staff would encourage all members to review the background data relative to this item in the February packet as well as the minute of the meeting covering discussion to that point. The memorandum enclosed on page was requested by the committee to be forwarded to ft -Advisory Planning, Commission for its information. Also enclosed on page rough _ are the pertinent sections of the Met Council aviation chapter. Staff would encourage specific review of page 146 which outlines potential actions for affected local governments.. These include: 1. Possible adoption of the land use compatibility guidelines. 2. Possible development and implementation of appropriate local ordinances and codes 3. Possible implementation of land use planning strategies to reduce, prevent or • mitigate aircraft noise impacts. The issue before the committee and Planning Commission is whether it would be appropriate to formally adopt the guidelines or pursue other strategies which will mitigate or prevent noise impacts within the noise zones. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To recommend to the Advisory Planning Commission and City Council land use compatibility standards for developments within the Metropolitan Council noise zones. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Dual Tia Planning Process - New Airport Site Selection - AED Comments --Enclosed on pages �througlf2,L is a memorandum outlining the AED process and the executive summary for the new airport site selection AED. Staff has informed the City Council that in order to meet the March 10, 1994 deadline for comments, that staff will be forwarding the Airport Relations Committee's comments to the MAC following Tuesday's meeting. The Council is also given an opportunity to comment in this regard and, to date, staff has not received specific comments from them. In general, staff has reviewed the AED and finds it to be technically adequate on the issues reviewed. The commission may identify other issues or suggest additional analysis if appropriate. It should be noted that the• full document encompasses over 250 pages of technical data and analysis. If any member of the committee wishes more detail on the item summarized in the memorandum, please contact staff and I would be happy to provide that to you. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To identify comments for the public input portion of the New Airport Site Selection Alternative Environmental Document. B. MASAC Complaint Category Review --As can be seen on the second page of the MASAC operations and complaint summary included under the MASAC staff report item, eight categories are included under nature of complaint which categorize calls received by the MAC noise complaint line. Staff has received a request from Don Grant, an ENAC member who lives at 1275 Towerview Road, that the City consider requesting that MAC include a category for aircraft flying outside the corridor. Mr. Grant was concerned because he has been filing complaints regarding aircraft outside of the corridor for a number of years and be was informed recently that no such category existed. It is assumed that most complaints relative to aircraft outside of the corridor are recorded under the excessive noise category. The committee may wish to consider whether to recommend to the City Council that a category be added for complaints about aircraft outside the corridor or that the current coding system is appropriate but should be augmented with a separate tally if the main• complaint is characterized by the complainant as relating to aircraft outside the corridor. Another option would be for the committee to recommend no action if it is felt that the current system is sufficient. 3 Any recommendations made by the communities or the public relative to MASAC report • information is forwarded by the MASAC body to its operations committee which recommends whether or not to adopt the proposal. The committee and City have made several recommendations in this regard in the past. Some have been incorporated and others are still pending. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To recommend an action with respect to the MASAC complaint categories relative to compliance with the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor. V. STAFF REPORT A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor --Enclosed on pages ? throughvis the most recent dual track update concerning the airport planning process. This item is being included for information purposes only. B. MASAC Meeting of February 22, 1994 --As noted above, enclosed without page number is the January Operations and Complaint Summary distributed at the MASAC meeting of February 22. Please use the larger of the two airport overlays with which you have been provided to compare flight tracks with community boundaries. If your copy does not match the scale or if new members have yet to receive the new overlay, please contact me and I will provide it to you as soon as possible. C. ENAC Update --Any member of the Eagan Noise Abatement Council who is present at Tuesday's meeting can make a presentation regarding the group at this time. VI. VISITORS TO BE HEARD Any visitors present at Tuesday's meeting wishing to address the committee may be heard at this time. VII. INFORMATIVE Enclosed on page an invitation from the city of Richfield'for an informational briefing to be held on Thursday morning, March 10 at 8:00 a.m., concerning that city's opposition to the 4-22 extension. Staff will be present for this meeting. Any member of the committee who wishes to attend is invited to do so. You should RSVP as noted in the letter if that is the case. VIII. NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee will be on Tuesday, April 12, 1994. 0 IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn no later than 9:00 p.m. unless extended by a majority vote of the members present to complete business pending before the group. JDH/jeh E E S MINUTES OF THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE • Eagan, Minnesota February 8, 1994 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee was held on Tuesday, February 8,1994 at 7:00 p.m. Present were Pat Todd, Bob Cooper, Mike Schiex, Steve Soderting and Lance Staricha. Absent were Dustin Mldck, Jane Vanderpool, Lois Monson and Rita Younger. Also present was Assistant to the City Administrator Jon Hohenstein. ACTING CHAIR As neither the past Chair nor Vice -Chair had been reappointed to the Committee, Pat Todd was selected to act as Chair for the meeting. OATH OF OFFICE Hohenstein administered the Oath of Office to members Pat Todd, Michael Schlax, Steve Soderling and Alternate Lance Staricha. Following the Oath, Committee members introduced themselves and Identified what background they had In committee work or the Issue area. AGENDA Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Schlax, all members voting In favor, the agenda was approved as presented. • ELECTION OF CHAIR & VICE -CHAIR 0 Because a number of continuing members were unable to attend Tuesday's meeting, it was determined to waif until the March Committee meeting to elect officers. Upon motion by Schlax, seconded by Soderling, all members voting In favor, the election of Chair and Vice -Chair was continued to the March 8, 1994 meeting. MEETING TIME & DATES Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Soderling, all members voting in favor, the 1994 meetings were set for the second Tuesday of the month at 7:00 p.m., with the exception of the November meeting which will be on Monday evening, November 7. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Schlax, all members voting In favor, the Committee's convention of adjourning no later than 9:00 p.m. uNess extended by a majority of those present was Wended. MINUTES Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Soderling, all members voting in favor, the minutes of the January 11, 1994 meeting were approved as presented. 611 Page 2/EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING • February 8, 1994 PART 150 PROGRAM FOR HOMES IN COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL GUIDED AREAS Hohenstein Introduced the hem and reviewed the background Information provided to the Committee. He stated that If the MAC were to receive the grant funds it Is requesting, all eligible homes in the City of Eagan could be Insulated within a period of three to four years. He also reviewed cost estimates for acquisition and relocation of homes guided to be commercial and Industrial. He stated that If the City were to acquire and redevelop the commercially guided and residential properties eligible for the program, it would cost just over $5 million for all areas excluding the McKee Addition and just over $19 million for all areas including the McKee Addition. By comparison, the City could amass between $2.5 million and $3.5 million for acquisition over the next four years If the MAC receives the grant funds it is requesting. If the MAC continues to receive the same grant level they received In 1993, however, the City would have only $578,000 allocated In the program. Hohenstein stated that he had briefed the Advisory Planning Commission concerning this matter and the APC is Interested in participating in informational meetings and a joint meeting with the Airport Relations Committee relative to this matter. Hohenstein also stated that he had tentatively scheduled time at St. Thomas Becket Church on Monday, March 7, 1994, for the public information meeting. He stated that the action before the Committee was whether to move forward with the public meeting on March 7 and provide feedback on the distribution materials for that meeting. Schlax asked If there was any urgency to move this matter along quickly. Hohensteln stated that there was not an extreme urgency, but that the City needed to Identify what it Intended to do with all of the 1994 allocation as soon as possible. Schlax asked If there was any reason to broaden the area included In the Informational meeting. Hohenstein stated that he did not know of any reason to Involve homeowners • who are not eligible for the program. The Committee agreed that it should be focused on eligible home owners. Cooper asked If any Issues had been decided for certain. Hohenstein stated that the St. Thomas Becket space had been penciled in but that no plans had been made which could not be changed. Cooper asked If it would be possible for the Committee to meet in special session before the open house to elect officers so that the leadership would be in place prior to the meeting with the public. Hohenstein stated that the Committee could make that decision if they wished. Schlax stated that it may make sense to postpone the meeting until after the next Committee meeting. Cooper stated that it was Important to get neighborhood Input and keep the process moving along. Sodeding stated that he agreed and that he wanted to see the Issue move ahead. Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Sodeding, all members voting in favor, the Committee directed staff to move ahead with the public open house Informational meeting on Monday, March 7,19D4 at 6:30 p.m, at St. Thomas Becket Church with a special meeting to begin at 5:30 p.m. to precede the open house for the purposes of electing Committee officers and with direction to staff to contact those members who were absent regarding the distribution items outlined in the packet Schlax asked if written notices had been effective for public meetings In the past Hohenstein stated that they had been effective and that press releases would also be given to the media for this purpose. NOISE ZONE 4 - POLICY DISCUSSION Hohenstein Introduced the ftem and stated that staff Is beginning to encounter a number of nolse- sensftive land use development proposals within the Met Council's noise policy planning contours. He stated that the Advisory Planning Commission have also been briefed on this Issue at their meeting of January 25 and that they were open to Airport Relations Committee feedback In this regard. Cooper stated that it was his understanding that the City discourages residential land uses In the noise zones. Hohenstein "�7 Page 3/EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING • February 8, 1994 stated that the City has discouraged these uses In the past but that R may be appropriate to consider formally adopting the Met Council's guidelines now for proposals that do not require Met Council review or those which are non-residential but still fall In the policy guideline language. Todd stated that she believes we've been very effective to date in preventing large amounts of new residential development In the area. Schlax stated that the City has allowed the Bur Oaks Subdivision to be developed within the last ten years. Hohenstein stated that it was his understanding that the Bur Oaks Subdivision had a pre-existing residential zoning which the developer wished to act on. At the time, the Council permitted the project to move ahead on the developer's promise that he would.provide notification and sound abatement Instruction techniques. He further stated that the City can make policies more stringent if conditions suggest R to be necessary. Cooper stated that it would be helpful to get additional perspective from the Committee members who were not present. Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Schlax, all members voting In favor, the item was continued to the March 8, 1994 meeting to allow further Committee review. In addition, the Committee asked staff to communicate to the Advisory Planning Commission that it is the Airport Relations Committee's understanding the City's past position has been to discourage residential development within the noise zones and the Committee would continue to strongly discourage residential development In these areas in the future. The Rem being continued is consideration of a recommendation on whether to formally adopt the Met Council standards and guidelines and that the Committee would expect to cooperate with the Advisory Planning Commission In a recommendation of this kind. LONG-TERM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - MINNEAPOLIS ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT • Hohensteln stated that the airport Is in the process of doing environmental reviews for its long-term comprehensive plan as part of the dual track airport planning process. He stated that the Rem before the Committee Is a scoping document requesting comments concerning types of information to be Included In the Alternative Environmental Document, the equivalent of an EAW for the airport planning process. He said that the AED Itself would be completed and returned to the City for comment at a later date. He stated that at the present time, the MAC Is merely requesting comments concerning the types of Information to be reviewed in the environmental review. • Sodeding stated that he would like to see flight tracking as well as contours In the final report. Schlax stated that he would like to see additional Information concerning the traffic potential 9 the airport were to move ahead with more parallel runways. Sodeding asked R the Committee had discussed relative Impacts of each expansion alternative In the past. Schlax stated that there were pros and cons to all alternatives he had seen. He also stated that air traffic control Improvements and reduced separations will tend to Increase traffic, underscoring the need for operational numbers for each alternative. Hohenstein stated that the City's previous position was to support Alternatives 5 and 6 for the north south runway because the Committee concluded that the addition of parallel runways require traffic to deviate from the corridor and cross Eagan neighborhoods sooner than the north south runway would and that both would open up new areas of noise Impact. He stated that the parallel runway options would put aircraft over new neighborhoods at a mile and a half from the runway and while the north south runway puts aircraft over new neighborhoods at three miles from the runway end. The Committee asked that Sodeding and Schiax's comments be forwarded to the MAC for Inclusion In the AED. 1 Page 4/EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING February 8, 1994 STAFF REPORT Hohenstein briefly overvlewed the FAA Advisory Circular regarding alterative departure profiles and MASAC Information from Its meeting of January 25. WELCOME TO NEW MEMBERS Cooper formally thanked the new members of the Committee for their participation and welcomed them to the Committee. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Cooper, seconded bySoderling, all members voting In favor, the meeting adjourned at 8:20 P.M. Date JDH Chairperson U Secretary • . • CITY OF EAGAN PART 150 LAND USE PROGRAM RESIDENT QUESTIONNAIRE 1. How frequently are you bothered by aircraf Never Monthly Weekly Daily a Day 2. How would you describe the aircraft noise impact at your home? Low ' Moderate Significant evere 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? InsulatePurchase Do Nothing S. What questions or concerns would you like to see addressed at a public meeting regarding this issue? S. What'is your address: 10 72. efe-Pe 54 Please return this completed form to the Open House on March 7 or mail it to: MG Iles EzxrroN Jon Hohenstein City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road - o Eapgna-n,// MN 55122 J� 01r LL(hfX Q Q//17 L1i19 L�f� i • UUU l-0 CITY OF EAGAN • PART 150 LAND USE PROGRAM RESIDENT QUESTIONNAIRE 2. Now frequently are you bothered by aircraft noise? Never Monthly Weekly ily 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 rchase Do Nothing S. What questions or concerns would you like to see addressed at a pub is meeting regarding this issue? 6. What is your address: Please return this completed form to the Open House on March 7 or mail it to: Jon Hohenstein City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 • • • CITY OF.EAGAN PART 150 LAND USE PROGRAM RESIDENT QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Now frequently are you bothered by aircraft noise? Never Monthly Weekly Daily Several Times a Day 2. Now would you describe the aircraft noise impact at your home? Lov Moderate Significant Severe 3. If you could have your home sound insulated or purchased to deal with the noise nuisance, which would you prefer? Insulat 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 a public meeting regarding this issue? /� i 6. What is your address: % d y y li L Please return this completed form to the Open Nouse on March 7 or mail it to: Jon Nohenstein City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road - Eagan, MN 55122 la- CITY OF EAGAN • PART 150 1AND USE PROGRAM RESIDENT QUESTIONNAIRE 1. How frequently are you bothered by aircraft nois Never Monthly Weekly Daily Several Times aDay 2. How would you d:�cribe 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 d. What questions or concerns would yc.0 like to see addressed at a public meeting regarding this issue? �f'-� �' � � � -��?�� SC ct, anti o � • C`nr f� i till L v , tt� L t%- �- c kj Y V- u- w c._ � Q_ ✓ G- S c�'�..F -t, t�.S S V < <i � c t.� 6. a�K9:�)biee-- -�4Lcc "!3+-� -" cP-Av kO: sa- What is your address: /D el / Ker-f 'e- S ► `t Please return this completed form to the Open House on March 7 or mail it to: Jon Hohenstein City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 n U FEB 24 P. 22 0 l 612 726 5296 02-24-94 04:36PM P002 #44 TO: CHAIR RING AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE C17Y ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN DATE: JANUARY d.1994 SUBJECT: PART 150 LAND USE PROGRAM SOUND ABATEMENT ALTERNATIVES FOR COMMERCIAWNDUSTRIAL GUIDED PROPERTIES The purpose of this memo is to frame the discussion of the aircraft noise, land use compatibility options for properties guided to be commercial -industrial In Eagan's Comprehensive Land Use Guide Plan. Ultimately, this issue will also need to be considered by the City's Advisory Planning Commission. Due to the nature of the ARC and its relationship with the funding sources which might be available for the various options discussed, the Issue Is being brought before the Committee first. This is not a simple Issue and, therefore, it Is anticipated that this discussion will take a number of meetings to resolve. Despite this, MAC deadlines and other priorities may require that the Committee and City take Interim positions on aspects of this Issue while working to resolve It in general. The City of Eagan anticipates that a broader area of the City will become eligible for Part 150 Noise Compatibility Funding during 1994 when the FAA approves an expanded 65- DNL contour submitted by the MAC. A Copy of the revised contour is attached. This expansion will result In the addition of No residential areas to the program that have commercial or Industrial Comprehensive Plan designations. These areas are denoted on the attached Zoning.Map and Comprehensive Guide Map. Enlargements of the individual areas are also attached. Previously, the City determined to confine Its. Part 150 Program to sound insulation of eligible Mmes because the costs of property acquisition were beyond the short-term resources of the program. 0 Since that time, three factors have changed. The MAC's Part 150 Grant has been funded at higher levels than the initial year of the program. The City's proportion of the grant has • Increased due to a modification of the MAC's funding formula. In addition, the City of • Richfield was successful In working with the MAC to request additional federal funds for the purchase of the New Ford Town neighborhood, thus broadening the potential funding sources for other alternatives. Before moving forward with sound Insulation of the five area Identified, It appears appropriate to revisit this policy Issue and consider all aspects of any decision on the City's approach to the area The three alternatives currently Included In the MAC Part 150 application are: 1) Sound Insulation, 2) Purchase Assuranoe and 3) Acquisition. Descriptions of each are attached. The cities eligible to participate In the program are Minneapolis, Richfield, Bloomington, Mendota Heights and Eagan. To staffs knowledge, none of the cities In the MAC program are currently using the purchase assurance option. All of the cities are using the sound Insulation option. Mendota Heights and Bloomington have expressed Interest in exploring acquisition of certain properties and Richfield Is pursuing acquisition through other funding sources as noted above. AO of the programs are available anywhere within the eligible contour, although the FAA generally discourages the higher cost acquisition alternatives at the outer edges of the • 65 DNL contour. This fact should not preclude the discussion of potential acquisition in light of the unique characteristics of each of the areas In Eagan, but it Is an Issue to consider. The five eligible areas in Eagan which are guided for commercial -Industrial uses vary from free standing homes to dusters of large lots to the 108 lot McKee Addition. Their age also varies, but typically they are of a 1950.60's vintage construction. Some of the free standing homes are somewhat older. The properties tend to be well maintained. Most are served by City utilities, although some maintain well and septic systems. Due to the age and type of housing and the noise and development environment of the area, many of the homes tend to offer affordable housing opportunities to younger families and senior, foxed -income households. 1. Area 1 (Pilot Knob Road north of Avalon Avenue) consisting of two single family homes on medium sized lots flanking a gift shop across Pilot Knob Road from the Eagandale Business Campus. Noise Considerations - This area Pies within the 65 DNL contour and Is the closest of the five areas to the 70 DNL contour. It Is approximately two miles from the runway and and is adjacent to the extended runway • centerline of Runway 11 R/291- h receives noise Impacts from both arrivals And departures. Runway 11 R/291- is also the primary runway for night-time operations. . Lend Use Considerations - Both properties are zoned Agricultural (A). They • are bounded to the east, west and north by property zoned for Commercial Planned Developments (PD). Highview Acres subdivision to the south is zoned Single Family (R-1). The Lost Spur Country Club Des to the west as well. One of the homes Is currently for sate and the other is a rental property belonging to an adjacent home owner. The scale of the property is smaller and probably less complex than the other areas under review. One possible redevelopment scenario would be to Incorporate the property Into the Wyndham Corporate Center PD, although no activity has occurred on this property since the Wyndham Gardens Hotel discontinued Its project for the site. 2• !!EW (Lexington Avenue between Lone Oak Road and Hwy 55) consisting of eight single family homes to two dusters on either side of Knox Lumber. Lots In the area vary In size ranging from medium to large. Noise Considerations - This area lies between the southeast edge and the middle of the 65 DNL contour. it is approximately three miles from the runway end and is under and between the extended runway centerlines of the parallel 11/29 runways. it receives noise impacts from both arrivals and departures. Runway 11 R/291. is the primary runway for night-time operations. • Lend Use Considerations - Seven of the properties are zoned Agricultural (A) and one is zoned Light Industrial (LI). The southerly duster is bounded on all sides by Light Industrial (LI) and Commercial Planned Development (PD) -uses. The northerly duster is bounded by Light Industrial (U) the McKee Addition (R-1) which Is Area 3 and I -35E. Knox Lumber (U) lies between the two. Lot 2, Block 1 Eagandale Center Industrial Park No. 10 Addition wraps around the southerly duster and includes a large pond and one or more smaller wetlands. As a consequence of limited access to the site from Lone Oak Road and Lexington Avenue, it would appear that any redevelopment oithese properties would need to be considered together with the surrounding lot. Even without Incorporation of Lot 2, itappears that the only feasible redevelopment of the area is the combination of all four of the parcels in this duster. An additional factor in the southern duster is Dakota County's need to acquire a_ portion of the property for the 1994 upgrade of the Lone Oak Road -Lexington Avenue intersection. The County Highway Department has made a preliminary contact with the City to gauge interest in acquisition of the entire property for noise purposes, potentially changing the economics of the project cost for the road improvement The northerly duster is Irregular and triangular in shape with a significant area of potentially excess 1-35E right of way on the west side. If It is to be redeveloped, it may be worthwhile to attempt to acquire and combine this Part of the ROW into the parcel to give It a more developable configuration. Despite their similarity of circumstance and bcallon, the two dusters are not directly dependent upon one another for redevelopment and will obviously develop as two separate uses whenever that occurs. 3. drgg 3 (McKee Addition) - consists of a five block 108 single family home subdivision dating back to the 1950's and 1960'x. While It Is actually three subdivisions, It functions as a single, Integral neighborhood. The typical home In the area Is a single level with two or three bedrooms and a detached garage. Lots In the area range from 10,000 to 11.000 square feet. Noise Considerations - This area lies at the end, near the middle of the 65 DNL contour. It Is approximately three miles from the runway end and Is under and between the extended runway centerlines of the parallel 11/29 runways. h receives noise impacts from both arrivals and departures. Runway 11R/29L is the primary runway for night-time operations. Land Use Considerations - The McKee Addition Is zoned Single Family • Residential (R-1). The area is bounded on all sides by Ught Industrial (U) and Commercial Planned Development (PD) uses, with the exception of the western edge which Is partially bounded by the northerly duster of Area 2 which Is zoned Agricultural (A). The McKee Addition Is the largest of the five areas under review, comprising Just over 30 acres. It it were to be acquired and redeveloped, It appears that a commitment should be made to do It In total as there is no logical means of dividing the area. At this size, however, It offers significant flexibility for potential redevelopment The most significant challenge to redevelopment would probably be that few individual users require this much property. As a consequence, the City and the MAC may need to pursue a public-private partnership with a private development firm or request proposals for development of a multiple user project as is being done with the Metropolitan Corder property. 4. Area 4 (Kolotski's Plat at Hwy 55 and Lawrence Lane) consists of No single family homes on medium to large lots now the former Airliner Motel. Noise Considerations - This area Nes at the eastern edge near the middle of the 65 DNL contour. R is approximately three and one-half miles from the runway and and Is under the extended runway centerline of Runway 11L/29R. It receives noise impacts from both arrivals and departures. Lend Use Considerations - The area Is zoned Commercial Planned • Development (PD) and Is included to the larger Robins Planned Development which takes up much of the property between ME, 1.494, Hwy 55 and Hwy 149. The PD does not have a current specific development plan. However, It has been discussed in the past as a location for retail or office uses to take advantage of the freeway intersection visibility. Despite Its visibility, however, access to the site from the Interstates is not obvious which may present a challenge to Its future development. Despite Its Inclusion In this PD. It appears that the homes have riot been acquired by the Robins interests and that individuals still own them. The area is surrounded on the north, east and west by the remainder of the PD. The property south, across Hay 55, is zoned Light Industrial (U). The obvious redevelopment, scenario In this case would be to incorporate the ownership of the sites under the Robins PD either before or at the time that development moves forward for the overall site. 5. Area 5 (Blue Gentian Road north of Hwy 55) consists of eleven single family homes on large lots immediately above the intersection ME and I- 494. Noise Considerations - This area lies near the middle of the 65 DNL • contour. It is approximately three miles from the runway end and is under the extended runway centerline of Runway 11L/29R. h receives noise Impacts from both arrivals and departures. Land Use Considerations - The portion of the area north of Blue Gentian Road is zoned Single Family Residential (R-1), while the portion south of the road is zoned Agricultural (A). Like the McKee Addition, the area tends to function as a neighborhood, although it does not have the same scale and numbers of homes. The area Is adjacent to the Robins Planned Development which takes up much of the property between ME, 1.494, Hwy 55 and Hwy 149. As noted above, this PD does not have a cement specific development plan, although retail or office uses have been discussed in the past Again, an obvious redevelopment scenario would be to Incorporate the ownership of the sites under the Robins PD either before or at the time that development moves forward for the overall site. The area Is strategically located at the high point of the property above the Intersection and offers the best potential visibility for the overall site from the interstates. K it were not incorporated Into a masterplan for the area, it would probably develop at a less intense level than the remainder of the site and, as a consequence, may be underutilized. Staff has yet to undertake 8 detailed analysis of property values In the area. Any analysis will also be affected to the extent that some property owners may pursue premiums above the residential value of properties due to their potential reuse for commercial or Industrial purposes. Not all of the acquisition costs are unrecoverable, however. By way of example, ff atypical home In the McKee Addition were to sell for $70,000, standard federal relocation assistance of $22,500 would make the cost of acquisition $92,500 per home. At 108 homes, the total cost of acquisition would be approximately $10 million for the entire addition. An exact estimate of the cost of preparing the property for redevelopment is not available at this time. As a comparison, however, the City of Bloomington is estimating that demolition, relocation, administration and contingency costs for 77 homes would be $4.3 million or $56,000 per home. Using the same multiplier would add approximately $6 million, bringing the total cost of acquiring the McKee Addition and preparing it for sale to $16 miAion. At current market rates, the resale value of the thirty-one acres would be one dollar per square foot or $1.35 million. This amount could be recaptured to lower the net cost of the acquisition or it could be reallocated for other acquisition or sound -insulation projects under Eagan's Part 150 Program. The current MAC funding formula gives each of the five eligible cities under the Part 150 Program five percent of the annual grant total as a base with the remainder spread among the cities on the basis of the number of eligible households. Eagan has 2.1 percent of the total homes. Together with the base, this equates to 6.57 percent of the annual grant total. In 1994, the MAC submitted an application for approximately. $10 million. Of this, Eagan's portion would be $657,000. In recent meetings, the FAA indicated that the MAC should anticipate a grant award similar to that In 1993 which was roughly $4 million, of which Eagan's portion would be $262,800. VA* either amount is substantially above the $110,000 reoeived'In the first year of the program, it would still take a significant number of years to make substantial headway on acquisition of the largest areas. K areas are to be acquired, It is apparent that Par 150 funds can only leverage a fraction Of the overall cost. K may be necessary to approach the MAC as Richfield and Bloomington have done concerning a separate grant process to provide additional funds for this purpose. it may be possible to acquire the smaller areas In a reasonable period with Part 150 funds, however, If the McKee Addition could be acquired under a separate • grant 0/0 Conversely, If it is determined to move forward with sound Insulation of the 150 total • Eagan homes eligible under the 1996 contour, it will take four to ten years at the proposed funding levels to complete the project. The policy issues associated with this matter vary. Some relate to the properties generally and others will relate to the individual circumstances of each area. It may be VW the City will differentiate between the circumstances and apply one approach in one area and another in others. it may also prioritize, the areas on the basis of circumstance or feasibility. The task before the Committee and ultimately the Planning Commission is to provide an analysis and options for Council consideration In this regard: 1: IMPOG s on Future Redevelopment . The primary issue Is whether it is prudent to Invest in capital improvements In residential uses that are anticipated to become commercial or industrial in the long nm. Any sound Insulation Of properties will tend to extend their fives and will likely make their ultimate cost of acquisition higher when private or public efforts to redevelop them do occur. This is complicated by the time frame within which any redevelopment may occur. If it is in the distant future, the investment now may have an incidental impact on the ultimate cost. 2. Nature of Improvements - The time frame of redevelopment also bears on the human element. Many of the residents of these properties have lived with noise as a nuisance for a substantial period of time. Either relocation or sound Insulation will assist these people. Relocation does so permanently, while insulation incrementally improves the living conditions Inside the home. 8. long -Term Noise E sure - Mother issue relates to the expectations of the City with respect to the impact of a quiet generation Stage 111 fiest after the year 2000. Is it perceived that the area of severe impact will shrink sufficiently to make some or all of the identified areas more liveable? 4. Social Impacts - it Is also Important to consider whether the dislocation associated with accelerated redevelopment is worth the effort. Acquisition of entire areas has social and human impacts beyond the obvious financial ones. Do the benefits of converting some or all of these area to commercial use justify all of the costs? L Affordable Housino - Should the areas be maintained in their present or an Improved state to provide affordable housing options? n LI C� 0 6. Private Redevelopment . Another Issue is the relative likelihood that areas Will ultimately convert to their guided use without public participation. it could be argued that some of the smaller areas which are adjacent to larger Proposed developments could be easily Incorporated into those developments. In the case of Area 4, this is already the case. A single large subdivision, such as the McKee Addition probably will never redevelop Without public participation. Is it therefore prudent to consider it now rather than later? 7. Market Environment . The current state of the commercial -industrial real estate market must also be considered. While the MAC could dear and hold the property until development pressures make it financially feasible to sell it, the property would be off of the tax roles In the Interim. M addition, It would compete with other evadable undeveloped property, meaning that the public benefit needs to justiy the competition with the market. 8. Noise E=sure - Ultimately, the .Issue also relates to the perceived seriousness of the Impact in the area and whether it is appropriate to permit residential uses to be maintained in areas of that level 06 noise exposure. 9. Other Imperatives - Do circumstances such as the County's Interest in acquiring property for the County road improvement project affect the priorities N this regard? 10. other - The Est above is preliminary and may be expanded or modified on the basis of discussions of this matter. As noted at the outset, this memorandum Is intended to frame and initiate the discussion of this Issue. it Identifies the areas in question, their characteristics, the resources available and the general policy questions apparent. at the present time. Additional information will be provided as necessary and as requested. K you have any questions before the meeting, please do not hesitate to call me. AREA 5 it .�i • � ^ jil� I� ;"�, ,'_' r = '��•• .":.r . _ ` ..:..' ' : i,i .:. •�' 7 �"''; �°. ��� � ! � ' : •* > �• .� AREA 4 -.AREA 1 -• - �e- _ ,, :.�' - AREA 3� '' s • - .t. .a; •� AREA 2 1 I 9 c : •- Fr - 7 Is _'�/ _ i � k• '� 1 .�•��.�. •+• , � . ♦♦ i�! .,• � it � •- r .i• !•.tri • ` •+ �•��' •' {•V •. r ;. � •— � � ;I • _ �,�' , � , is •�:. � '� •�.. - � � ! «,�. � 41 __. �.•.� � .,: ;�.� 1st ..li se .1 lI 1, .• •+ tLly �/ 7ll�l w � ...,... •.� E � Z, ` !• {NZ� � !� .• y1 9 • w � .•jw I 1C I ,7 jaA�. Zoning Map - City of Eagan :et e.p man Ind�rinp Fp� N I oi. I x IN 49 N I \111\� _� e It :.iii///•��—// /� �\`// j / — t IN A own w AA.6Y/VJ sow•.... ..- WS IL �• �` 00, I \\�/�.o1lily�l i 1 111 / ,Ili\r/ 1 1 I ♦ (\1\\\\�\ \\�� `\�_/ �///// �/ / I \ w— ,/,..r 1 \:1!p`♦\\1\111, \r ��� //'NA i///, Mks � • li�l'•...� .h��\1��•� /r//. /I/.i1�1//1�/! /rr�!\\Ily. / 1 "i' • ; /1 AREA 2 ' //7 : 01ti. //t �/ /ALrI!•/iJ /Of ;� / / r ` •' ••�• ,/• 711 '�iZ/�' fie' //1 �/f 9//%/ I '•'(+f' \/1'•, tl � ••. )' � 'i/�;'. We /o 10 If // '�_ � j ,•' '// i J7�'/% //////� �— /���. � / ♦1111 10, ���1��' � � f '�//O 'i i //' j/ i� i%' �//, �/ r _ _ /• r ' , / t 111 i' j/,�j(. /i i/ /I;`O��.1 f 1%—/ //ice/��el - 1 rvqtv +" �.' , 1 d f. r % / / • I 4b ad tr"z \ `/� \ // r / ' i i'� % / / ////J� t•/ ' r �/ 11111 r tet. "� ' k, `\ ie , `•`- c fp pff .If I yOfff pill / 'E �' �//// ►111\\\ \ 14�, I off LINE I ///� ///�r//a% r/tet �/ /I l/1 11/%/7 ..`.;;��,e�e��•�,\ /mil:_. i - :.1 . Iit ,� / I/ / / (/ / 1 \ `\ \ 1 \�� =� - ,i' �' •1•� / I i 1. •/ � / �/ iS •/ / / / / r7 -`C1 �� C = mer. i�tln la 1� \ yy n • /r % �. / .Q `Z"—'�+.—aa.g. �� ere �'. 0" '. s c \ AREA 3,11 1 i i Lr '-- - ---' - l �' 1 lav\—r�i_�—�/ / 11•.1 I I C .L� I a W- ItitAln Af / 1 '- 4 n � 11. ;/ I JIM —Sn " I . wool" — — — L (4A ^ ' I I Lit, At Quit I of q11q 'fill; / 111few \AII 1 1 1 ylll\\ I 1 fill 1 cl I Ile 1 fill I /1111 •r• \ p�-2R1/llll/I'1�111/1�1�`� \\\`\ 1 \`�,_._. / 1\\hsw �\\\� / / \ 111 \�\ 1 / \ \\\ �\\AM \ AREA °5D a?eve � 1 / I ♦hll /1 �^ �\ ; \� \ _/sem � ��/. -, , \ , 4% / %\ %yam//.✓� =�t� _� -�_. 1. ``, ill '•� //i i /' // bI) 110 1 \i1•Z \ lIt p m-/ �: �. �\\I\\ :`'\ {�� 1 `— ICT°•• ;: o c Al OW1, 1 VII/ ;/llf illl -♦ Itl V� � `.fi���lll�lll„o�IJ I� tll 111I\ r/I'eIr{ �1Ii ) ///• / �/ i/ *AV r A sound insulation program is a corrective land use measure intended to alleviate the impact of aircraft noise by providing indoor locations where normal activities can be enjoyed without interruption. .The program involves modifications to reduce the amount of noise entering from the outside. Priority will be given to the sound insulation of single and multi -family residences, and schools. Homeowner participation in the program is not mandatory. but is encouraged. Program eligibility will be limited to homeowners residing within the previously - approved 1992 Ldn contours in neighborhoods identified by each individual city. When the 1996 Ldn contours are approved by FAA after MACS December '91 submission, they will be used to determine program eligibility. The program will be implemented on a block -by -block basis. The individual cities will determine if a house -by -house priority system within the blocks will be established. Within these guidelines, the responsibility for selecting and prioritizing specific blocks will be assigned to the individual cities. Once a block has been identified by the city as eligible, the homeowner will be responsible for submitting an application to the program admininstrator requesting participation in the program. If a homeowner chooses not to participate in the program at the time it is initially offered, he may later submit his application and be eligible for funding. Each individual city can determine what the priority will be for homeowners who delay participating in the program. The criteria to be used in the program is essentially to achieve an interior level not exceeding Ldn 45. Whereas this standard is probably applicable to the largest airports, it does not take into account the very high single -event levels - up to Sound Exposure Levels (SELs) of 110 db - experienced at many of the homes adjacent to MSP. The noise reduction proposed for residences will be designed to provide an interior noise environment similar to that provided by the Ldn 45 standard at the largest airports. Typically, this means that habitable rooms directly exposed to aircraft noise would be provided with the following additional noise reduction (NR): 3\. ftopaed WWIMU a UAXW ® AVE Cort I& Area Avg NR Ina m NR Inaro NR Inaene Pwiecdom 73 13 de 10 b, 3S dB gZ2, M25,000 70 a dB S dB 10 dB $11,504.22„500 65 3 d 0 d AdB.. $0.22Aw Page 1 of 3 12.16-91 3\. • me actual amount of additional noise reduction required within the 5,10, or 15 dB Pages for any given directly -exposed room would depend on the exterior DM, the type of construction, and the window -wall area ratio. Other habitable rooms in each home that are not directly exposed to aircraft noise would receive additional noise reductions equal to, or less than the amounts shown above. Air- conditioning and ventilation will be provided as part of the sound insulation package - 0 Homeowners would have some limited ability to select alternative modifications to some elements, i.e., windows or walls, provided that the overall sound insulation was not degraded by more than a specified amount. MAC will contract with an outside agency or firm who will administer the sound insulation program among the five eligible cities. This would include program management, engineering, quality control, and supervising the remodeling eontractor(s). In the event homeowners want to upgrade to a higher level of sound insulation, or make other mise. improvements, additional work can be done simultaneously_ by the same contractor at the homeowner's expense as long as the proposed changes are consistent with the scope and character of the work being performed. Construction guidelines for sound insulation and lists of approved material suppliers will be provided to eligible homeowners who wish to remodel their homes prior to the availability of the program in their area, and to homeowners living outside the 1996 Ldn 65 noise contour who wish to add sound insulation treatments at their own expense. The costs of this remodeling would not be reimbursable. Program participants would sigh an Avigational Release as a condition of participating in the program. Eligible homeowners who grant an avigation release to MAC would not be required to contribute toward the cost of the program (according to FAA guidelines). throe not granting such a release would be required to contribute 20% of the cost of modifications to their home. Page 2 of 3 12.16-91 During the consti uction of the sound insulation modifications to each of the eligible residences, the program will pay and provide a& for the following finishing work:- Walls ork:Walls and ceilings of treated rooms would be repainted either *off-white or with a paint provided by the homeowner. Surfaces modified or altered by the sound insulation construction would be restored with a Shish surface of similar materials comparable to the surface prior to construction. (For example, existing "sculptured" surfaces would be replasterued.) • All mouldings would be replaced. • Any exterior stucco and ahuninum window trim would be replaced. All. applicable building permits must be obtained by the contractor or homeowner prior to sound insulation modification work. There will be a $25,000 cap on sound insulation modification work to be done on single residence. The individual homeowner will have the ability to reject recommended sound insulation modification plans, as long as the final insulation • modification plan selected has no less than 5 dB of attenuation in any directly - exposed room. Homeowners with hot water heat would be able to keep their existing heating system, in the event they received an air-conditioning (forced air) package through the sound insulation modifications. Each ary will be responsible for determining how long a participant in the Sound Insolation Program must wait before being eligible for another Part 150 program. Page 3 of 3 12.16-91 0 ZIR !► Y J . l IGRJ ' Jelcj :: li • �;w IV Im ► * ' Intended to retain NesidenW status of land tree. ' voluntary program for homeowners residing within 1996 Ldn 65 contour. ' Priority: single and multi -family residences, schools. ' Block by Bloch' implementation. ' City will be responsible for wlecgag and W,prigziny blocks for program participation. ' . Degree of sound insulation modification packages determined by: Exterior noise level Construction type of house Window/wall area ratio * A recommended sound insulation modification package will be drafted for • each home within the Idn 75, 70 and 65 noise contours as follows: Ldn Average NR Minimum NR Maidmum NR Average Acis laaeate himase laQeue Suet 65 3 dB 0 dB 5 dS = 0.22,500 per Lome 70 6 dB 5 dB 10 dB $11,500 - 22,500 per home 75 19 dB 10 dB 15 dB !22,500 - 25.000 per home • Homeowners can modify recommended packages, select from an •approved. contractor' list and determine window, door, wall replacement type based on FAA guidelines. • Air conditioning and ventilation will be included in program modificatim • . Signipg of an Avigation Teleaw. • MAC will contract with a central agency to administer the program among the S participating cities. 0 12.1691 n u In general, a land acquisition program is a corrective land use measure intended to alleviate noise effects in areas of incompatible land use. Under the land acquisition program for the MSP International Airport, . property would be acquired only at the initiative and approval of the local jurisdiction where it has established there is a reasonable consensus among residents to vacate the area. Program eligibility will be limited to homeowners residing within the 1996 Ldn 6S noise contour in neighborhoods identified by each individual city. The neighborhood boundaries will be identified by each participating city to include areas which may be outside of the Ldn 65 noise contour. (Areas outside of the IAn 6S noise contour are subject to FAA approval through the MSP Part 150 Update/FAA review process.) Acquisition priority will be based on the location within the noise contours. The homeowner must have lived in the home for two years prior to the implementation of the program unless adequate funds are made available to allow the purchase of AU properties within the identified area at the same time. Property will be acquired by voluntary agreement with the homeowner or through standard condemnation proceedings. The fair market value of all properties identified for acquisition will be determined by the current federal and local guidelines. Property to be acquired will be identified by the individual cities on a block -by- • block basis. Once a property has been acquired, homeowners will be processed through normal appraisal and closing procedures, as with any other type of property sale. No specific timeframe for completion of the transfer of property will be defined. The payment or reimbursement of moving/relocation expenses will be determined by current federal regulations (Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act). The property will then be cleared immediately to reduce maintenance and upkeep costs. All acquired property will be held by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). If the property is not to be converted for airport use, it will be released by MAC for resale as a compatible land use (non-residential), as soon as possible. 12-16.91 0 3' J LAND ACQUISMON PROGRAM DEFINMON chanp Intended to J• • residential I • to either airport or I on- • JI • Eithcrvoluntaryorcondemnationpropamfbrhomeownaaresidinswithin 1996 Ldn 65 contour. • Block by Block" implementation. City will be responsible for selecting and prioritizing blocks for program participation. •• program includes payment or reimbursement of moving/relocation expenses in addition to "fair market value" reimbursement. • Avigation Easement to deed • 12-16.91 F9 L In general, a purchase guarantee program is a corrective land use measure to alleviate noise. effects in areas where neighborhood stability can be maintained and eidsting residential development is considered a compatible land use. With most purchase guarantee programs, if aircraft noise levels are found to be intolerable by individual homeowners, and the owner has made a 'bona fide" effort to sell the Property, the property is acquired at a fair market value and returned to residential use with appropriate sound insulation measures, releases, and restrictions. (rhe fair market value of all eligible properties will be determined by the current federal and local guidelines.) Homeowner participation in the program will be voluntary and based on the city -specific implementation decisions. The purchase guarantee program is not intended nor designed to acquire all, or a substantial portion, of a designated area but rather to provide the homeowner the opportunity to sell his home at a guaranteed fair market value on a "house by house" basis. Purchase Guarantee Program eligibility will be limited to homeowners residing within the 1996 Ldn 65 noise contour in neighborhoods identified by each individual city. Each participating city will be able to determine the location and number of homes eligible for participation based on their yearly Part 150 dollar allocation. • The participating home must be owner -occupied. (Owner -occupied condominium units are also eligible.) Homeowners must have resided at the property for at least two years prior to being offered participation to enter the program once a home has been deemed eligible for participation in the Purchase Guarantee Program, a fair market value will be established for the property through a certified appraisal process that meets federal and local guidelines. Then, a Letter- of-Intenr will be signed by both the homeowner and the program administrator (Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC)). The Letter will be a binding contract which describes the program elements, such as: • Predetermined length of time that property will be listed for sale before owner receives reimbursement of fair market value. (Note: this defines a "bona fide effort" and is based on the Multiple Listing Service data (MLS) for each individual neighborhood provided by each city.) • Sound insulation package modification details and schedules. • Granting of an avigation release to the MAC. Page 1 of 2 12-16-91 0 There are two posh-ble methods within the Purchase Guarantee Program to transfer the ownership of a participating home. 1f the house 11= sell on the open market before a predetermined period expires, the transfer of ownership is similar to a normal open market real estate transaction. If the house does npl Sell on the open market before a predetermined time period, then the owner is reimbursed the fair market value of the home and the property is re -listed by the administrator (MAC) on the open market until it is sold. Each home participating in the Purchase Guarantee Program will receive a complete sound insulation package modification based on its location within the Un 65, 70, & 75 noise contours and its construction. In the event the house sells before the predetermined listing period, sound insulation modification will be done immediately after the new owner takes possession. In the event the house does not sell during the predetermined listing period, then sound insulation modification will be done in the interim period gf= the original owner is reimbursed the house fair market value and before it is re -listed on the open market by the administrator. (It should be noted that before being re -listed, the home will be re -appraised to determine a new fair market value that reflects the sound insulation improvements.) MAC will develop an educational program that participating realtors will be required to attend in order to become "certified" by MAC as having a working knowledge of the purchase guarantee and sound insulation programs. This will insure that prospective homebuyers are aware of the location of the property within the noise contour, that the home will receive sound insulation treatment as a condition of the purchase, and of the avigation release. Additionally the homeowner would be certain that his home is being marketed by a qualified realtor. Note 1: Based on the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act for voluntary programs, the Purchase Guarantee Program will not include payment or reimbursement of movbWrelocation Asa. Note 2: Any adjustment of the 1996 Idn 65 boundary to determine eligibility will be subject to FAA overall approval. Each dry will be responsible for determining the length of time for either acceptance, or refusal of program participation, once a homeowner becomes eligible. This determined length of time may be different among participating cities, based on each city's specific yearly implementation phasing goals. in the event of refusal, each city will be responsible for determining how long a ' participant must wait before being eligible again for another Part 150 program. Page 2 of 2 12.16.91 3� Intended*nWd=W status I 11 V0Iu •Program for homeowners• 1within Ldn Only "owaer-occupied" homes with a minimum of 2 years owner residency. douse. by douse" implementation. ' Cfty will be responsible for selecting (program participation and eligi'biiliity) and ping homes for Program participation. • Participating homeowner is guaranteed' fair market value" reimbursement. • Sound insulation modifications are included. ! Process for eligible homes: Fair market appraisal process Determine length of time home will be marketed before homeowner is reimbursed Signing of 'letter of Intent". • SCENARIO 1: House gds before predetermined period. Normal real estate transaction (with Avigation Release to new owner) New owner is given sound insulation modifications. ' SCENARIO 2: House doesn't sell before predetermined period. Original homeowner is reimbursed fair market value. Home is taken off market and given sound insulation modifications. Home is re -appraised. • Home is re -listed on market and sold to new owner (with Avigation Release). 12.16-91 0 r1 LA F -I L AVIGATION RELEASE nFFfNR7oN • Recommended replacement for easement. ' "Release on current and future noise litigation from Part 150 program participating homeowners. ' Signing of an Avigation "Release" before implementation of Sound Insulation and Purchase Guarantee program. • Release language would be based on attrsat noise levels from operation and maintenance of existing MSP runways. ' Any increase of 13 db (I.An) of more over a yearly Ldn base contour will invalidate the Avigation Release. • Ldn base contours will be updated yearly. • 12.16.91 —dly of eagan MEMO TO: PEGGY REICHERT, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 1994 SUBJECT: AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE DISCUSSION - AIRPORT NOISE LAND USE ISSUES At its meeting of February 8, 1994, the Airport Relations Committee reviewed two matters which have also recently been discussed by the'Advisory Planning Commission: the Metropolitan Council policy contours and use of the Part 150 noise abatement funds. In the case of the Met Council standards, the Committee continued the business Item regarding a recommendation to the Advisory Planning Commission and City Council concerning the possible adoption of the Metropolitan Council standards as City standards In considering proposed developments which may not be consistent with the policy contour standards. The Committee took this action in order to receive additional input from some longer tenured members who were unable to attend the meeting. The Committee does anticipate action on this item at the March 8, 1994 meeting. In continuing this item, the Committee did ask that it be communicated to the Advisory Planning Commission that the City has discouraged residential development within the noise zones in the past and that the ARC would continue to strongly discourage residential development in the noise zones, recognizing that ultimate land use decisions are the responsibility of the APC and City Council. Vliith respect to the other Item, the Committee moved forward to hold a public open house on Monday evening, March 7,1994, from 6:30 to 9:00 p.m. at St. Thomas Becket Church at 1060 Lone Oak Road for purposes of discussing noise abatement alternatives with affected residents In the Part 150 eligible area. A separate notice will include all APC members. Any members wishing to attend may wish to pencil this date in on their calendars now. I will provide follow-up to you on both of these items as developments occur. ff you have any questions, please let me know. A#istani to the City Administrator JDH/vmd 0 0 : APPENDIX ji `• GUIDELINES EMAN 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 the Metroloo sten Development 9W& 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, 1963. Two sets of guidelines are included in this appendix: One for land uses in 1 j communities around the Minneapolis -SL Paul International Airport where most noise problems occur (see Figure B•1) and the SL 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-6). 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 irregular 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 1976 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 base 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-1 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-bour values, zones for the SL Paul airport include both busy -hour and average annual exposures. Figure B-2 shows the noise exposure zones for the SL 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 stases 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. IS The intents to select specific land use, zoning, topographic and other boundary conditions that increase the reasonableness of noise zones for noise abatement activities. 125 FIGURE s.L AIRCRAFT NOISE ZONES FOR MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 0 Roseville Note: NOW Paeoy Centaur kr MSP lb a updated kaMing MompoWm C~" wAWappwid d MSP LapTom C,wwoMnO" Plan wjwdukd kr wmpNem M toot. • The four aircraft noise exposure zones for major and intermediate airports can be classified as • severe, serious significant and moderate, respectively. They are described below. NOISE EXPOSURE ZONE I Zoite 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 90 LEO (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 nonose -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 hand 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 n 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 Al 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 m is exposed to aircraft noise of 70 to 75 LEO for takeoffs and 65 to 70 LEO for landings during the busiest boors 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 arterior 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 TV is best described as a 'gray' area where aircraft noise exposure might be considered moderate. It is exposed to aircraft noise 65 to 70 LEO during the busiest hour:. Noise exposure 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 airlxirt 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 center). '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 tical 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 constricted so as to achieve the interior sound levels described in Table B-1. 129 "� • Table B -I STRUCTURE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS' Land Use Residential Educatlonal/Medical Cultural/Entertainment/Recreational Office/Commercial/Retail Services Industrial/Commimication/Utility Agricultural Land/Water/Area/ Resource Extraction Interior Sound Level' 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 policy zones are: MSP, one-hour LEQ, and St. Paul Downtown, combination of annualized Ldn for Zones 1, II, and Ill 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 pan of its review of amendments to each community's comprehensive plan. CONDITIONAL LAND USE REVIEW FACTORS When a local goverment 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 coodidonal uses: 1. Specific nature of the proposed use, including anent of associated outdoor activities. 2 Relationship of proposed use to other planning considerations, including adjacent land use activities, consismiq with overall comprehensive planning 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 tracks and aircraft on -ground operating and maintenance areas. S. Location, site design and construction restrictions to be imposed by the community of.the proposed use with respect to reduction of exterior to interior ooise transmissions and • shielding of outdoor activities. 1301-- "" 6. Method community will use to inform future occupants of proposed building of fx,tentinl • noise from aircraft operations. 7. Extent to which community restricts the building from having facilities for outdoor activities associated with the use. 8 Distance of proposed use from existing or proposed runways, parallel taxiways or engine run-up areas. • 0 •* • Table B-2 LAND USE COMPATIBRM GUIDELINES FOR MAJOR AND W ERMFDIATE AIRPORTS, NEW DEVELOPMENT AND MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT NOISE EXPOSURE ZONES IMA Use Type t 1 n DI IV Residential Swille/Multipla vub Individual Fnuance INCOt INCO INCO CONW MatdplWApanmeot vial Shared Entrance INCO INCO INCO COND Mobile Home INCO DICO INM GOND Education and Medial CDND PROV PROV CNST Scbools, Churcbet, Hospitals, Nursing Hames INCO INM INCO PROW Cultural, Entertainment, RetaeaUnnal CNST GIST CNST CNST but" COND GOND GOND PROV Outdoor COND GOND COND CNST° ORice, Commercial, Retall GOND PROV PROV CNST Tonsponation-Passenger Facilities COND PROV PROV GIST Transient Lodging INCO PROV PROV PROV Other Medical, Healtb and Educational Services COND PROV PROV CNST Otber Service CDND PROV PROV CNST b iustrlal, Communication, UtWty PROV CNST CNST CNST Agricultural land, Water Ansa, Resource EmneYuo CNST GIST CNST CNST J Nate: For WK remoswafm and additions, even though certain land uses are generally inconsistent to a given zone, extenuating Birt umssaocea Gould Justify the project and the community abould address thtt in its ptaG smeadmem, as appropriate• rApplicable for GQ -airport we my. r [NCO meaos toemwtent. s GOND means conditional. PROV meant prwi&k=L S GIST means Table B-3 LAND USE COMPATIBIIJTV GUIDELINES FOR MAJOR AND INTEIMIEDIATE AIRPORTS, WFILL DEVELOPMENT AND RECONSTRUCTION OR ADDITIONS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES NOISE EXPOSURE ZONES Vna Use Type' 1 H HI IV Residential Single/Muhtples with Individual Entrance COND' GOND COND GOND MuhlplWApartmmt with Shared Fnumner GOND PROV' PROV PROV Moline Hame GOND GOND COND GOND Education and Medical Schools, Cbumlwsa Hospitals, Nursing Hanes COND GOND GOND PROV Cultural, Eatertalameot. Recreational PROV PROV PROV Other Medical, Heahh and Educational Set- GOND Indoor COND PROV PROV PROV Outer GOND COND GOND CKST4 Office, Commercial, Retall PROV PROV PROV CNST Services Transportation -Passenger Fadittea COND PROV PROV CNST Transient lodging GOND PROV PROV PROV Other Medical, Heahh and Educational Set- GOND PROV PROV CNST Other services GOND PROV PROV CNST Industrial, Cummasicatioe, Utility PROV CNST CNST CNST Agricultural land, Water Anne, Remoom Extraction CNST CNST CNST CNST Noce. For infill, reoarstruabn and sdefitkmk even though certain land um are genemi y hnmrn o em in a ghen note, emenuathrg dre umrtasecs could Justify the project and the community Would address this to in plan asrendnam, s appropriate. ' Apptirable for off ahv,rt use mly. r COND mem nota itloseL r PROV mum provisional. c CNST mum consistent. 4.1 133 0 • • • MON BY AGENCIES A�1 LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNITS Implementation of the guidelines in particular and the promotion of land we compatibility in general includes the following agencies, governmental units and actions. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL • Encourage federal and state cooperation to reduce source nose. 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 nose 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 edent 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 nose exposure zones. • Review comprehensive plans and land use agreements. The Council will review consistency of local plana with the Metropolitan Development 2W& - Monitor 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 bass 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. • 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 amendment; 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: IL 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. L 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 local 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 MPGA board reviews variance requests from the standards. Aviation Policy 9 states that airport operations and land uses surrounding an airport should be compau'ble with each other and the role and functions assigned to the airport Where an incompatibility exists, 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 its the preparation and financing of a program to address existing incompatible land uses at all airports under its operation. 146 �/ In the case of MSP, the MAC has adopted a 27 -point noise abatement program to addrecs • 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 noise 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 1W will be used as the basis 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 response lities 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. Its 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 it based on earlier estimates, the proposed facility will clearly not meet the noise 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 basis for IN community to establish appropriate land use controls and administrative procedures for • siting of a freestanding heliport facility. 147 1 u E is MEMO —c67 of eagan TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 1994 SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION NEW AIRPORT SITE SELECTION ALTERNATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Attached is a copy of the Executive Summary of the Alternative Environmental Document (AED) for the New Airport Track of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. As noted In the Introduction, the AED is an in -process environmental review aftemative to a succession of Enviommental Impact Statements (EIS) for each planning phase. An overall EIS will be prepared at the end of the Dual Track Process to analyze and compare the relative impacts of the preferred alternatives in each track. That being the case, the New Site AED is intended to be used to scope the differences between the candidate sites in the New Airport Track. As a consequence, any comments at the present time should focus on the adequacy of the document in analyzing that track as opposed to commenting on comparisons between the tracks. As a matter of previous policy, the City supported site alternatives 2 or 3 over site 6 when the new site selection process was undertaken. Site 6 placed more flight tracks over Eagan at about five miles from the runway end. This would tend to shift noise Impacts from Eagan's industrial corridor to south and southeast Eagan where existing land uses minimize the opportunities for preventive or mitigative land use measures. The principal environmental benefit of sites 2 and 3 is the greater distance of approximately ten miles to the runway ends. The practical disadvantage is the greater travel time to the more distant site. Roadway improvements would be necessary for any of the alternatives and many of them would occur in Eagan. This would bring the double edged sword of increased economic activity, as concentrations of 1-494 uses would extend further into Eagan, and Increased traffic and potentials for congestion. 5� a� Comments are due to the MAC no later than March 10. The AED was not available at . the time of the last. Airport Relations Committee meeting and ARC next meets on March 8. Ordinarily, comments are recommended to the Council by the ARC before being forwarded to the MAC. In this case, staff would suggest that any comments by the Council and the Committee be combined and forwarded to the MAC on March 9. Staffs review of the AED finds it to be generally adequate and similar issues and impacts should be included in the differential analysis when the final Dual Track EIS is prepared. Therefore, if the Council wishes to make any comments on the AED's adequacy or provide any information to the Committee for its consideration of the item, it should do so at Monday's meeting. H you have any questions on this matter, please let me know. Assi nt to'the City Administrator 11 • METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION TO: FROM: Minneapolis -Saint Paul International Airport 6040. 28th Avenue South • Minneapolis. MN 55450-2799 Phone (612) 726-8100 0 Fax (612) 726-5296 Interested Persons and Agencies Nigel D. Finney, Deputy Executive Director - Planning and Environment DATE: February 11, 1994 RE: Final Alternative Environmental Document (AED) New Airport Site Selection Study Dual Track Airport Pianning Process Enclosed for your review Is a copy of the Final Alternative Environmental Document (AED) for the Site Selection Study for a possible new airport in Dakota County. The Final AED includes responses to comments received on the Draft AED. This document was adopted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission on January 27, 1994. • Written comments on the adequacy of the Final AED should be directed to Jenn Unruh, Metropolitan Airports Commission, 6040 28th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55450. Comments are due by March 10, 1994. This AED is one element of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process mandated by the Minnesota Legislature, and is being conducted under the Alternative Environmental Review Process approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board in March, 1992, and in general conformance with Federal Aviation Administration requirements. • The Metropolitan Airports Commission Is an affirmative action employer. DUAL TRACK SITE SELECTION AED EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A Dual Track Airport Planing Process — designed to study the region's long-term aviation needs — was established by the Minnesota Legislature's '1989 Metropolitan Airport Planning Act.' One track addresses ways to provide the needed capacity and facilities at Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP). The other track provides the needed capacity and facilities at a new., replacement airport In the Dakota Search Area. A third, 'no build' option will also be examined, along with any other feasible alternative. The consideration of environmental Impacts Is on Integral part of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. An environmental review process for the development of s new airport and MSP has been approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (see Figure A following page x). ,The process Is Identical to the process for preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in terms of addressing issues and potential environmental impacts, but is different In the treatment of alternatives. An Alternative Environmental Document (AED) substitutes for an EIS In the site selection for a new airport, the new airport comprehensive plan, and the MSP Long -Term Comprehensive Plan. The AEDs address alternatives to the decision at hand — only alternative sites for the site selection AED, for example. The analysis in the AEDs focuses on differences among alternatives, not total airport Impacts, since the purpose of the AED is to help select among the alternatives. 0 The EIS will include the best MSP alternative and the best new airport plan. Other feasible alternatives, Including the no -build alternative, and their impacts are not addressed in the AEDs, but will be covered In the EIS. In order to eliminate duplication with state and local procedures, the federal EIS will draw • extensively from the AEDs. This Executive Summary provides a general overview of the environmental analysis included in the AED, and of the results of the analysis for specific environmental impact categories. Seven potential airport sites were considered in the Search Area designated by the Metropolitan Council. Four of the sites were eliminated from further consideration (Sites 1, 4, 5 and 7) and three ('Candidate Sites') were selected for further study (Sites 2, 3 and 6), as a result of the scoping process outlined in 'Scoping Decision Document, New Airport Site Selection Study.' The location of Sites 2, 3 and 6 are shown In Figures B, C and D, respectively. Site 3 is selected by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), based on an extensive site selection analysis using 65 evaluation criteria. Sites 2 and 3 have similar Impacts since they are in the some general location. However, Site 3 is preferred because it would have less Impact on the City of Hastings than Site 2. Site 6 has the advantage of being closer to the Metropolitan Area than Sites 2 and 3, by an average of 11 minutes in ground travel time. However, the proximity of Site 6 to the Koch Refinery would result in adverse Impacts to aircraft operations, due to emissions from the refinery stacks. Also, both the refinery and the airport would be limited In their ability to expand, since the airport's runways would Omit stack heights at the refinery and the refinery would limit'runway development to the north of the airport she. In addition, Site 6 would have airspace conflicts which would dose South St. Paul Municipal Airport and adversely affect aircraft operations at St. Paul Downtown and Airlske airports. Site 6 would also displace the City of Coates and impact the most wetlands. • S-? A L Search Area -The Search Area is located in Dakota County, In the southeastern quadrant of the Greater Minneapolis -St. Paul Metropolitan Area, and -measures 17 miles In the east -west direction by 6 miles In the north -south direction. Within the Search Area are the cities of Coates and Vermillion, the townships of Empire and Vermillion, a part of the City of Rosemount, and portions of the townships of Nininger and Morahan. The Search Area encompasses approximately 115 square miles. Land Use - The Candidate Sites, which are each approximately 10,000 acres in size, are in a largely { agricultural portion of the region, except in areas adjacent to urbanized land which includes Hastings i in Sites 2 and 3 and Rosemount in Site 6. Future land use Is expected to be essentially unchanged in the Search Area without a new major airport, except adjacent to urbanizing areas in Rosemount and • Hastings. The other major use of land in and adjacent to Sites 2 and 3 is conservation, which Is also forecast to remain the some. The residences in the area are generally those associated with farms; however, there are about 100 acres affected by aircraft noise from Site 2 and 300 acres from Site 3 that are used or planned for residential development. Although land in and adjacent to Site 6 is predominately agricultural, a substantial amount is designated for public uses. In addition, nearly 750 acres adjacent to the site are used or designated for Industry. Most of the industrial land is in the Pine Bend area of Rosemount. A proposed update of Rosemount's comprehensive plan also redesignates roughly an additional 500 acres from agricultural to industrial " uses. 1 Principal Utilities and Facilities - Principal public and private utilities and facilities within and adjacent to the Candidate Sites include landfills, compost sites, pipelines, wastewater treatment plants, and overhead powerlines. One noteworthy land use is the Koch Refinery located immediately north of the • Search Area in Rosemount. The refinery's production process frequently emits large steam plumes ? which have been observed to reach heights of up to 2,500 to 3,000 feet above ground and to drift as much as 4,000 feet laterally from the refinery. These observations, which were made over a limited * time, do not Include the full potential range of conditions that could occur. ! Population, Industrial and Commercial Growth - The Search Area is located on the periphery of a rapidly `1 growing sector of the Twin Cities region. However, because of the predominance and preservation of agricultural land uses within the Search Area communities, the population growth rates of these communities have been relatively stable. By about 2015, however, it Is expected that the supply of • developable land In the most rapidly growing cities will be largely exhausted, thereby exerting natural development pressures to urbanize more of the western and northern portions of the Search Area. Industrial and commercial (non-farm related) growth in the Search Area has also been limited by the preservation of agriculture and by the growth management policies of the Metropolitan Council, which controls de facto the extension of utilities and related infrastructure needed by businesses. Most of the industrial and commercial growth has been in the communities of Apple Valley, Eagan and Lakeville; however, there are small pockets of Industrial and commercial development within the corporate limits of Coates and Vermillion, as well as In township cress. Employment within the Search Area communities Is derived from highway -oriented establishments, automotive repair, light manufacturing and assembly plants, retail goods and services, gravel mines, school and community services, and farm -related businesses. In 1880, the largest employment 1 concentration was in Eagan (26,000), followed by Apple Valley, Hastings and Lakeville 16,000-7,000 each), with total employment of approximately 107,000 In Dakota County. Solis and Geology -The surface landscape has been shaped by glacial forces of erosion/deposition and t by water erosion. Soils occurring under all three Candidate Sites are mostly well -to -excessively drained silty and loamy sediments formed over outwash sands end gravels. All three sites ere underlain by • dolomitic limestone, sandstone and shale bedrock at depths that range from less than 50 feet, to 400 i g r 1 feet under Site 6 and 500 feet beneath Sites 2 and 3. Sinkholes have been mapped within Sites 2 and • 3, and north, east and southeast of these sites. No sinkholes have been mapped in Site 6, but the bedrock at this site is similar to that found in Sites 2 and 3. The probability of sinkholes is rated as 'moderate to high' at Sites 2 and 3, and 'low to moderate' at Site S. Construction activities that entail altering natural drainage patterns, dewatering or the construction of lakes, lagoons or holding ponds increase the probability of new sinkhole formation. Wetlands. Floodplain, and Wild and Scenic Rivers - Approximately 2,500 acres of wetland exist in the Search Area. The vast majority of this acreage occurs in the southwest corner of the area, in the Empire Wetland Complex. Much of the acreage has been partially or completely drained. Floodplains In the Search Area are concentrated near the watercourses of the Vermillion River. There are no wild and scenic rivers in the Search Area. However, the Lower St._ Croix National Scenic Riverway and the Cannon River are near the Search Area. Blade Communities - The agricultural lands, which comprise over 90 percent of the Search Area, are inhabited by typical farmland wildlife species. The Vermillion River and Its South Branch constitute the primary riverine habitats within the Search Area. Most of the westerly reaches of the river are relatively unaltered and provide excellent habitat for ducks and wading birds. The river supports a variety of warmweter fish species. There are a number of habitat features in and around the Search Area which represent potential attraetions to birds that could ultimately conflict with future airport operations. These include Spring Lake and Spring Lake Park, the Shiely gravel mine pits on Grey Cloud Island, Lake Rebecca and Lake Rebecca Park, Gores Pool Wildlife Management. Area, the Vermillion River heronry, State Protected Wetland 341W, the northwest corner of Empire Township, the Pine Send landfill, and possibly the Empire Wetland Complex and Lake Byllesby in Cannon Falls. The primary potential migratory bird flightpoths would link the Spring Lake -Grey Cloud Island -Rebecca Lake area to Gores Pool, the northwest corner of Empire Township and Byllesby Lake. • Rare biological features in the Search Area include 9 natural communities, 11 plant species and 12 animal species. None of the plants and animal species are on the federal list of rare, threatened or endangered species, although some are candidates for federal listing. Over 20 percent of known statewide locations of the loggerhead shrike, which is listed in Minnesota as a threatened specie and Is a candidate for federal listing, are in Dakota County with about one-third'of those locations found within the Search Area. Three significant natural areas are within the Search Area. The Hastings Sand Coulee has a high diversity of plant and animal life,. and harbors one of three known Minnesota populations of James' polanisia, a state endangered plant. The Empire Wetland Complex supports two state threatened species, Valerian and Blending's Turtle (federal candidate). Chimney Rock supports a population of state endangered kitten -tails (federal candidates). The Mississippi River in the Spring Lake-Heatings-Red. Wing area has long been recognized as an Important migration corridor and winter feeding/night roosting area for bald angles. Since the mid- 19B0s. this area has also become recognized as an Important angle nesting area. There are a number of essential habitat areas for bald eagles along the Mississippi River corridor adjacent to the Search Area, but none exists within the Search Area. Parks and Preservation Corridors - There are approximately 5,400 acres of park and recreation land In the Search Arse. The most dominant is the Bellwood State Game Refuge, located In the east central section of the Search Area abutting its eastern border. Areas Immediately adjacent to the Search Area Include Spring Lake Park, the Meetings Wildlife Management Area, and the Richard J. Darer Memorial Hardwood State Forest. Other parks in the Search Area include community parks in the cities of Vermillion and Coates. Archaeological Properties -Two mein categories of archaeological properties have been Identified within the Search Area — Native American heritage sites and late 19th/early 20th century Euro -American sites. In the immediate vicinity of the Candidate Sites are two rock formations — Lone Rock just west • of Site 6 and Chimney Rock just southeast of Sites 2 and 3 — of known Importance to past and S'� :• Present Native Americans as well as to early Euro -American settlers and visitors. Both are listed in the Minnesota Inventory of Geographic Features of Historic and Cultural Significance. Architectural and Historic Resources - Architectural and historic resources within the boundaries of the Candidate Sites and areas that may experience significant levels of aircraft noise, principally include sites associated with the Gopher Ordinance Works — representing the legacy of World War 11 — and some farm properties that reflect the area's agrarian heritage. Some of these properties may be eligible for listing In the National Register of Historic Places. Noise - Ambient noise levels In the Search Area based on population densities are estimated to be in . the DNL 50.55 range. Measured levels range from a high of approximately DNL 62 in Inver Grove Heights to a low of approximately DNL 52 in Rosemount, with these levels Including noise from aircraft operations at MSP and other nearby airports. A6 Ouallty -The Metropolitan Area is designated non -attainment in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for carbon monoxide ICO), sulfur dioxide (S02) and particulates of 10 microns or less (PM -10). The state is seeking redesignation from non -attainment to attainment for SO2 and will revise the SIP to Include administrative orders for selective sources. Transportation control measures have been adopted to reduce CO emissions and concentrations. Background CO monitoring at two sites within the search area indicated that existing CO levels are well below state and federal ambient air quality standards. Water Ouellty - The two main water bodies in the vicinity of the sites which could potentially be impacted by runoff or wastewater discharges are the Mississippi River and the Vermillion River. Dissolved oxygen (DO) is a major indicator of water quality in surface waters. Dissolved oxygen standards for surface waters require a minimum concentration of 5.0 mg/liter (mg1l) except that for the Mississippi between the Metro wastewater plant and Lock end Dam No. 2 near Hastings the minimum is 4.0 mg/1 during the winter. Modeling analyses of waste load allocations Indicate that dissolved oxygen levels in both the Mississippi and Vermillion rivers approach the minimum DO standards at times. This Indicates that the rivers' ability to accommodate additional discharges is limited. The Vermillion River watershed encompasses the area containing the potential airport sites. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) hydrologic studies have defined flows, floodwaye and floodway fringe areas for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain maps and flood Insurance purposes. Other hydrologic studies done for the Vermillion River Watershed Management Commission (VWMC) indicate that additional flood control storage may be needed to maintain the flows and flood elevations identified in the earlier USACOE analyses. Therefore the VWMC requires that new development must not only provide management and storage for increased runoff due to development but also an appropriate portion of the additional storage required to maintain flood elevations and flows on which FEMA floodplain maps are based. The majority of the area of each of the Candidate Sites has a high potential for transfer of contaminants from the surface to the groundwater table. A large number of water supply wells, including many multi - aquifer wells, are a potential source for groundwater contamination within the she areas. In addition to permitted municipal supply wells that draw from several aquifers, groundwater in the area provides water for sewage treatment facilities, livestock watering, golf courses, and major crop irrigation. The Prairie du Chien -Jordan aquifer is the most Important bedrock aquifer beneath all three sites, with the upper (Prairie du Chien) portion being more susceptible to surface contamination than the deeper (Jordan) portion of the aquifer. Solid Waste - Solid waste collected in Dakota County may currently be transported to any of the appropriate processing/disposal facilities in the Metropolitan Area or to landfills with appropriate environmental protection outside the area. A designated portion of the waste must be recycled. Burnsville and Pine Bend landfills are the only two solid waste landfills in Dakota County, and the only two In the Metropolitan Area anticipated to remain open after 1995. There are also two specialty landfills in Dakota County, one for demolition and construction wastes, in Inver Grove Heights, and one for the treatment/disposal of non -hazardous Industrial wastes. Other waste management facilities include the county's recycling center. N V� Contaminated Sites - There are nine potentially contaminated areas within or near the Candidate Sites. - Little useful Information on these areas is currently available. However, property transfer files list registered underground storage tank installations and leaking underground storage tanks, as well as information regarding spills of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products in Inver Grove Heights, Rosemount and Coates. Most sites have been or are in the process of being cleaned up. Famdand - Prime farmland contained within the Candidate Sites total about 6,000 acres in Site 2, 6,200 acres in Site 3, and 7,100 acres in Site B. Agriculture preserves are approximately 3,400 acres in Site 2, 4,000 acres in Site 3, and 2,900 acres In Site 6. These farmlands Include family farms and Commercial crop farms and nurseries, as well as unique farmlands. The Rosemount Agricultural Experiment Station and the Rosemount Research Center occupy approximately 8,000 acres and are located within the affected environment of Site 6. Crop Equivalency Ratings (CERs), which provide a rating of the economic return per acre of soil, range from 0 to 90 for the farmlands within the Candidate Sites, on a scale of Minnesota CER values that range from O to 1 D0. Surface Traffic - Ground traffic data indicate that the Search Area communities have ties to the greater portion of the region. Daily trips are made to virtually every part of the region from the Search Area. Some of the strongest ties (outside of central Dakota County) are to the Shakopee -Prior Lake -Burnsville area, the Bloomington -Richfield -Edina area, southwestern Washington County, and to the Inver Grove Heights -South St. Paul -West St. Paul area. Environmental Conseauences Noise - One descriptor of aircraft noise Is the Day -Night Sound Level (DNL), which provides an indication of overall noise exposure resulting from an accumulation of individual noise events occurring over an average 24-hour period. Although individual reactions to noise vary widely for a given level, the aggregate response to speech Interference and sleep disruption and the desire for a quiet environment are predictable. These responses relate well to measures of cumulative noise exposure such as DNL. The FAA and other federal and state agencies have used DNL to evaluate community exposure to noise. Noise exposure of DNL 65 or greater Is characterized as significant, and moderate to slight between DNL 60 to DNL 65. Year 2000 forecast population exposed to these levels of noise associated with anticipated year 2020 aircraft operations have been estimated. Site 6 has the fewest residents 150) within DNL 65 or greater, while Sites 2 and 3 have 320 and 220, respectively. Site 6 also has the fewest residents 1415) between DNL 60 and DNL 65, compared with 620 for Site 2 and 710 for Site 3. Land Use Compatibility - The compatibility of existing and currently proposed land use adjacent to the Candidate Sites is evaluated based on continuation of agricultural use in current designated areas, restriction of single-family housing and commerciallndustrial uses to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and designated rural centers, restriction of housing in areas within the DNL 60 noise contours and state safety zones, and land use consistent with local comprehensive plans. Most of the area adjacent to the Candidate. Sites meets the compatibility criteria. Planned residential land use adjacent to the sites that fall within the DNL 80 noise contours or the state safety zones include about 95 acres for Site 2, 308 acres for Site 3, and 6 acres for.Sits S. Impacts on existing housing could be mitigated with acoustic treatment to limit Indoor noise levels. Social Impacts - Social impacts Include displaced persons and jobs that would require relocation, as well as impacts to places of worship, health care facilities, schools, cemeteries and other noise sensitive uses. About 700.750 persons, 200.230 households and 11 businesses would be displaced by each of the sites. The number of displaced employees would be about 60 for Site 2, 90 for Site 3, and 500 for Site 6. Ground Access Impacts - Roadway traffic will Increase significantly with a new airport In the area. Improvements to the roadway system will be needed to accommodate the increased traffic volumes. Regardless of the site selected, roadways that would need improvements include the section of TH 55 V that Is common with TH 149 as well as the segments south of TH 149 to TH 56, and TH 149 south of 1-494, which would serve as the most direct link to the west between TH 55 and the interstate system. The impacts on river crossings would be the some for each site. The Site,2 access would use the CSAR 65 right-of-way to connect to TH 55. Up to eight lanes would be needed. In addition, TH 55 between the airport access road and U.S. 52 would need additional ' lanes and upgrade to freeway standards. Site 2 would also require elimination of CSAH 47 (Northfield Boulevard) and relocation of U.S. 61 along with elimination /relocation of several minor County roads. The impacts of Site 3 on the roadway system ere the some as She 2. The She 6 access would use a new right-cf-way alignment to reach U.S. 52. Up to eight lanes designed to freeway standards would be needed. U.S. 52 from TH 55 to TH 56 would have lass demand with Site 6 than with Sites 2 and 3. Beyond that point the Impacts are similar with all three sites. CSAH 42 between U.S. 62 and CSAH 31, however,'would need improvements with Site 6. Socloeconomic Impacts - The construction of a new airport in the Search Area would generate additional socioeconomic growth in the airport environs. For any of the three sites, an estimated f 47,000 jobs and 1,400 households would be Induced by the new airport into Dakota County by the year 2020. The induced population growth is estimated at about 4,600 for Sites 2 and 3, and 3,600 for Site 6. Ah Quality - A comparison of CO emissions from access traffic indicated that traffic associated with Sites 2 and'3 would generate 9,600 tons per year more emissions than for Site 6. Emissions from aircraft operations will be essentially the same for the three new airport sites and for MSP. A preliminary evaluation of CO concentrations at critical at -grade intersections in the study area identified three intersections as having potentially high CO concentrations, assuming construction of a now airport in Dakota County. Water Quality - Stormwater runoff was modeled to estimate very conservative. flows and contaminant loadings by assuming the entire site would be Impervious, since the area within any given subwatershed within the sites could be completely impervious. Site design has not progressed to a point to permit a more refined analysis. The runoff varies somewhat between sites (on the order of 10 percent); however, this does not constitute a substantial distinction between sites. Total potential runoff quantities are estimated at about 5,000 acre-feet, with the increase In runoff being about 1,500 acre- feet over present conditions, based on a 100 -year storm event. Contaminant loadings to receiving waters would also increase substantially based on the conservative i analysis. Since the Vermillion River and the Mississippi River above Lock and Dam No. 2 are water - quality limited, such increased loadings would potentially result in noncompliance with water -quality standards H not mitigated. Also, runoff contaminated with deicing fluids would have high oxygen demand and therefore would require treatment prior to discharge. I Stormwater runoff will require facilities capable of meeting flood -control requirements by managing the estimated runoff quantities. Treatment facilities will be needed to reduce contaminant loadings to receiving waters to comply with water -quality standards. Sanitary sewage flow from the new airport, regaraless of the she, Is estimated at about two million gallons per day (mgdl in year 2020. However, a required treatment capacity of four million gallons per day has been assumed, including an amount of glycol contaminated Stormwater equivalent to the daily volume of sanitary sewage. ! Wastewater from the airport facilities will require new, on-site treatment facilities or expansion of treatment capacity at an existing treatment plant. The Hastings and Rosemount plants have limited potential for expansion sufficient to accommodate the additional wastewater from a new airport. The r Empire plant has potential to expand to handle the anticipated volume from the airport. However, because flows in the lower Vermillion River are already heavily affected by discharge from the Empire plant, an airport treatment facility would undoubtedly be faced with extremely stringent limitations and • vi vestment requirements for discharge into this river. It is also possible that an additional discharge to • this river ,might only be acceptable if a cap were placed on the expansion potential of the Empire treatment facility. Such a capacity cap could have negative consequences to the planned provision of sewer service to serve forecast growth in Dakota County. Discharge into the Mississippi River upstream of Lock and Dam No. 2 would probably require some level of advanced wastewater treatment to protect water quality standards. Discharge downstream of Lock and Dam No.2 would require only secondary treatment because Increased flows from the confluence with the St. Croix River would provide for the maintenance of water -quality standards without requiring advanced levels of treatment, at least for the assumed four mgd from a new airport. However, because of concerns for the water quality of Lake Pepin, a new discharge may be required to provide phosphorous and ammonia removal in addition to conventional secondary treatment. There is also the possibility of conveying wastewater effluent from env of the three sites to the metropolitan Interceptor in northern Inver Grove Heights, for treatment at the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant. However, until phosphorous discharge limits for this facility are known and long-range system plans are completed, it Is uncertain whether sanitary sewage Nowa from the new airport could be accepted at that facility. Considerable care will be needed to prevent and/or contain surface spills or subsurface leeks of hazardous materials from contaminating the groundwater at any of the sites. The Prairie du Chien aquifer is regionally important and is extensively used for domestic and agricultural water supplies. In locating wet basin storage, it will be necessary to locate and properly abandon all existing wells In the selected site, in addition to avoiding areas with shallow cover over bedrock. Section 4(f) Properties - Coates City Park is the only community park that would be displaced Iby Site 6). There would be unavoidable historic, architectural, archaeological and cultural resource impacts associated with avoiding this park, however. There are no community perks affected by Sites 2 or 3. Also, there are no publicly -owned perks, recreation lands, trails, protected 'wildlife or waterfowl refuges of local, state or national significance located within the year 2020 DNL 65 noise contour for any of the aites. Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources - Impacts to archaeological properties occur when construction would physically disturb the site. An assessment of these impacts cannot be made until more specific airport plans are developed. Site 6 could affect 17 archaeological properties, while Sites 2 and 3 could affect less than half that number. However, H necessary, mitigation through data recovery may be feasible for most properties, with the exception of Chimney Rock and the Euro - American cemeteries. In the case of historic and architectural properties with potential National Register eligibility, Site 6 effects six properties and one district (Gopher Ordnance Works), Site 3 affects six properties, and Site 2 affects three properties. As with archaeological properties, preservation in place is preferred. When this is not possible, documentation for the Historic American Buildings Survey or the Historic American Engineering Record is typically considered appropriate mitigation for significant resources of the built environment. Biotic Communities - The potential for bird -aircraft hazards are based on the wetland acreages within 10,000 feet of runway ends and the presence of other significant conditions, such as landfills within five miles of each site. However, there are no firm, research -based altitude or distance thresholds for use In analyzing bird -aircraft hazards. In addition, the construction of a major new airport is likely to result in unforeseeable changes in bird movements in the surrounding area. It is therefore impossible to identify with certainty the conflicts then will occur and specific_ mitigation measures that will be needed to address those problems, &aide from selecting a site that minimizes the amount of air traffic around known bird concentration areas. For this reason, mitigation measures oriented toward avoiding, minimizing or correcting specific bird -aircraft hazards are best developed after a new airport is completed and post -construction bird movements can be analyzed. H potential mitigation measures are �J vii Lc'3 �• not considered, Site 2 appears to have the highest potential for bird -aircraft hazards, Site 6 appears to have the least potential, and Site 3 appears to be midway between the other two sites. 1 Endangered and Threatened Species - No impacts to rare plants or plant communities are anticipated. However, Sites 2 and 3 each offer significant benefits In that either of these sites would allow the acquisition, protection and management of plant communities harboring such plant species. The loggerhead shrike Is the only state rare, threatened or endangered animal specie known to exist within the three sites. Two known shrike locations in Sites 2 and 3 and three locations in Site 6 would be affected. tNo Impacts to bald eagles are anticipated. Flight tracks appear to place aircraft at sufficient altitudes to avoid potential impacts even for direct overflights. Site 6 appears to represent the least potential for Impacts. She 2 would place aircraft closest to a known eagle nest, and Site 3 would place aircraft slightly farther away. Wetlands and Floodplain - She 3 would require no wetland drainage or filling. Site 2 would have ■ relatively minor wetlend Impacts, given the size of the project and that these impacts — approximately 11 three acres — could be readily offset through on-site wetland replacement. The mitigation required for Site 6 would be more extensive, at 128 acres, 68 acres of which would need to be replaced off -she. Given the federal and state regulations governing wetlands, a very substantial public benefit from Site 6 would be needed to regard it as the -only feasible alternative. 3 For each site, a small portion — 130 to 180 acres— of the floodplain would be filled by the airport construction. The amount of floodplain.that would be filled In each she could raise the peak flood elevation. The Vermillion River Watershed Management Commission does not allow any increase in maximum flood elevation. However, there Is adequate space within each site for replacement of the floodplain storage that would be lost due to the airport construction, so that the flood elevation would r not be increased. ! Farmland - The farmlands that would be acquired within the boundaries of the selected site, as now configured at this early study stage, may leave land remnants outside of the site. The remnant pieces may no longer be viable, depending on their size and configuration and access to the property. The more detailed planning of the selected site will address such affected individual farmland parcels and will make recommendations as to their disposition — for example, acquisition of the whole parcel by the airport for inclusion within the airport boundaries and leasing out the acquired land for continued agriculture use. Energy Supply - Energy consumption by building facilities would be essentially the same at all Candidate Sites. Local suppliers that may supply electricity and natural gas to a new airport include the Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant and the Koch Refinery. Energy consumption by aircraft and surface vehicles will differ between sites by virtue of their locations relative to the Twin Cities Area. Differences In vehicle fuel consumption on the regional network within the study area have been estimated. Fuel consumption for Sites.2 and 3 would be 16 million gallons greeter than that associated with Site S. Light Emissions - Light emission sources include airfield and aircraft approach lighting, building lighting and surface transportation facility lighting. These will be visible during nighttime hours through open vistas for most of the southeastern Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, but will be most Intrusive to remaining farmsteads and rural residents near the alrpom Solid Waste - it is estimated that the new airport will generate about 40,000 tons of solid waste in the year 2020 at any of the sites. This would represent about one percent of the region's year 2010. forecast quantity and eight percent of Dakota County's without any recycling. The Metropolitan Area's solid waste management system Is in transition towards increased emphasis on recycling and a more integrated regional system. The potential Impact of solid waste generated by the new airport will depend on the extent of these transitions. ` Construction Impacts - Construction impacts would be essentially the some for all sites. They include • short-term impacts to the natural and human environments that cause temporary air, land and water resource disturbances and disruption of community services and facilities. General Visual Impacts - Visual Impacts common to each of the Candidate Sites would be the Interruption of horizontal vistas and sightlines as a result of the new airport structures. The most scenic vista that would be Impacted — by Site 2 — is the Chimney Rock Sandstone Column. 1 Noise - The aircraft flight tracks used in modeling the DNL noise levels were developed to derive the J full capacity of the runway system, while avoiding overflight of residential. development. The flight tracks will be adjusted to further minimize noise impacts with more detailed planning of the selected site. Other noise mitigation measures that might be integrated Into a new airport environment include aircraft noise abatement procedures and land use measures. Social Disruptions - Comparable and available replacement housing In the area will be difficult to locate for residents displaced from housing associated with farmsteads. Comparable housing would need to be located in a similar, rural area. Rural residents that live on large lots where the principal use of the property remains residential, would be less difficult to relocate. A detailed residential relocation study will be performed for the selected she. Surface Transportation - The section of TH 149 which connects TH 55 to 1-494 will be significantly Impacted H the airport Is built in Dakota County. A possible mitigation that would need further study is the addition of a half -diamond interchange from TH 55 to 1-494 directed towards the west. Also, H an improved transit option were provided, with attractive connections to the rest of the region, the level of transit usage could be improved and the level of auto traffic reduced. Water Guallty - A stormwater management facility for the new airport will be designed to reduce the increase in the peak rate of runoff and simultaneously reduce pollutant loads to receiving waters, to ameliorate preconstruction conditions. The reduction in both the peak rate of runoff and pollutant loads will serve as design criteria for the stormwater management facility. Based on a 10 -year storm event, up to 1,000 acres of detention basins would be needed, H wet detention basins are used. Sites 2 and 3 have adequate area available on-site to place such basins In areas not susceptible to sinkhole formation, but Site 6 has limited suitable area available on -alto. Deicing fluids will be contained and recycled to the extent feasible. Runoff contaminated with glycol (aircraft deicing agent) would be segregated from the normal runoff collection and storage system. Glycol contaminated stormwater may be discharged to a sanitary sewer, wlth or without pretreatment, H adequate sewer capacity is available. Pretreatmentcould be accomplished by aeration in collection basins and addition of nutrients for promotion of biological breakdown of the glycols. H an on-site treatment system is used for all sanitary wastewater, additional capacity could be provided to treat glycol contaminated stormwater. Since glycol is also fairly biodegradable in soil, a land treatment approach may be feasible. In addition, research and development continues on alternative deicing substances which have less environmentai.consequences. Wetlands - Wetlands mitigation would require approximately 6 acres of replacement wetland for Site 2 and 117 acres for Site 6; none would be required for Site 3. These acreages assume that the present wetlands regulatory framework remains In place at the time the selected she is constructed. Ught Emissions - Mitigation of light emissions will include the shielding of lights, angular adjustments and berming where appropriate to reduce impacts to rural residential areas and farmsteads. Visual Impacts - Visual impact would be mitigated by Incorporating high-quality design standards within and adjacent to public building and access areas, uniform standard directional signage, and controls on advertisinglelectronic mediums. The scale of the cluster of buildings typically associated • I with the terminal area of a major airport provides the opportunity to create a unique visual element to the landscape. ble Adverse impacts that appear to have little chance for adequate mitigation include, at Site 2, noise impacts on cemeteries, and at Site S, elimination of the City of Coates and protected wetlands, height restrictions on development of area industrial facilities, displacement of a church and a cemetery, and Impacts to parklands. X { E 0 E E ul E al ƒ -E ƒ 0 / / cl aE }a 7 T � \ E¢ !|! HIL � /2 al & � EL F \ ±. � !|! HIL � /2 al & � l ylES �!tS[IM u.s -MFT , W .I. a.I. «I: ust. wa Tt QAC. lam Ife", I.�. " o.i11u1 9 e r _. I�;:( VE VE I 4rA AT S V r m Al I A `4 kv OT a2 }}}N' s a IA 07► • N'a N .. '1.' �:: mv Q) IT ha 91 f N Candidate Site 2 d 0 0 0 Dual Track Airport Planning Process . ,. r , NNTB MAC Alternative Environmental Document Figure 29 • nr•t 2 Metmpo/llan Apo* Cominisslon MAC SELECTS SITE FOR POTENTIAL NEW AIRPORT The Metropolitan Airports Commission selected a site in Dakota County for a proposed Crew airport at a special commission meeting on Jan. 27. Known as Site 3, the location is southwest of [listings. MAC gave preliminary approval to the site at its September meeting for the purpose of public comment and environmental review. The 10,000 acre site was one of three locations in the Dakota Search Area which were evaluated during 1993 by a Site Selection Task Force and Technical Advisory Committee. The two other sites included one in a similar location to Site 3, but with a different runway orientation and a potentially greater impact on Hastings; and a location near the middle of the Search Area near the Koch Refinery. According to Nigel Finney, MAC Deputy Executive Director for Planning and Environment, the environmental study which was conducted for the three sires did riot identify any major environmental issues that would he an obstacle to development of Site 3. A Draft Alternative Environmental Document detailed environmental and operational impacts of the three alternatives. MAC and the Metropolitan Council will present a recommendation to the Minnesota Legislature in 1996 on which approach should be taken for future airport development — move to a new airport or expand Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP). In the meantime, MAC will prepare a comprehensive plan for a new airport on the selected site, update the MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan, and prepare federal and state environmental documentation. 1:109EMOUNT r, e -'�Ii •�/•,,: A'" i:.a_— w. I n I perl nl#�; .- L, _• & 'i'•.'j, i II COMES IN? LJC m •`-'� Varmll Ion '�( :figg EmYlre i r Cl C.' I l Site 3 �V> MSP Airport Long Term Comprehensive Plan Alternative Environmental Document Scoping Prrblicstoping Mining Tuesday, Feb. 15, 7 p.m. Washburn High School Auditorium 201 West 49th Street Minneapolis An Alternative Environmental Document (AED) will be prepared by MAC for a comprehensive development plan for the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport to satisfy the air transportation needs through the year 2020. The AED is one element of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process mandated by the Minnesota legislature, and is being conducted under the Alternative Environmental Review Process approved by the Minnesnta Environmental Quality Board. The AED also conforms to federal environmental analysis requirements. The first step in preparing the AED is to prepare a Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet and Draft Scoping Decision Document, which will serve as a blueprint for preparation of the AED. The public meeting will solicit comments on these documents. MAC TO FORM TASK FORCE, TECHNICAL COMMITTEES TO ASSIST WITH DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS • The Metmpnlitan Airports Commission is firming three gmups to advise the Cnmmissinn on the continuing work for the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. new groups include the Dual Track Task Force, Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport (MSP) Technical Committee, and the New Airport Technical Committee. The Task Force, chaired by Commissioner Patrick O'Neill, will provide policy guidance during the remainder of the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. The Task Force is expected to meet for the first time in February. The New Airport Technical Committee also begins work in February and will provide technical input during the development of the New Airport Comprehensive Plan. The MSP Technical Committee began work in November 1993 and will provide technical input during the update of the MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan. A draft LTCP Update is scheduled for completion this summer, with a final plan adopted by MAC at the end of the year. The current LTCP recommends construction of north -south runway and a new west terminal. A detailed environmental process, including preparation of an Alternative Environmrntal Document, has also been started for MSP The technical committees consist of community officials and representatives from the metropolitan area, including airport users, MAC, Metropolitan Council, and Minnesota Department of Transportation. FAA CAPACITY DESIGN TEAM COMPLETES MSP REPORT The FAA Capacity Design Team has completed its Capacity Enhancement Plan for Minneapnlis-St. Paul International Airport, acid presented its findings to the MAC on Jan. 27. The plan, published in December 1993, ,e The existing airport capacity, identifies Amential capacity enhancement projects, and quantifies the potential benefits of these projects for existing and future levels of aircraft operations. The report confirms that a new runway would be needed at MSP before activity levels reach 530,((10 annual operations, and that a north -south runway is among the best concepts for increasing capacity. The FAA study addresses the capacity benefits of specific projects, but intentionally does not consider the environmental, socioeconomic, physical siting, or political issues regarding the projects. The FAA findings will be incorporated into the MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan update, which will address these issues. The FAA Capacity Design Team was formed in July 1992 and met periodically throughout 1993. It included FAA representatives from air traffic control, flight Mr. Jon Hohenetein CITY OF EAGAN 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN _55122 standards and the Airport Capacity Office, as well as airport users and representatives form local and state agencies. The FAA has conducted, or is in the process of conducting, capacity design studies of all the major airports in the United States. Dial Track Update it published by the Metropolitan Airports Commission to provide information on the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. For additional information, please call Jean Unruh at 726-81 89. J 6700 Portland Avenue • Richfield, Minnesota 55423-2599 City Manager James P. Prosser February 25, 1994 Mr. Jon Hohenstein City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Jon: Mayor Council Martin Kirsch Don Priebe Michael Sandahl Susan Rosenberg Russ Susag The City of Richfield will be conducting an informational briefing regarding our review of the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the 4-22 Extension on Thursday, March 10 at 8:00 a.m. at Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue. The purpose of the briefing will be to accomplish the following: • Communicate the basis of the City's current opposition to the 4-22 extension. ♦ To seek input from other cities regarding potential resolution of issues identified by Richfield. • Solicit support for further efforts to resolve the issues in dispute regarding the 4-22 extension. Staff and elected officials from your city are invited to participate in this briefing. Please call if you have any questions. A light breakfast will be provided. Please call Cheryl at 861- 9701 no later than Tuesday, March 8 with the number of people attending from your city. Sincerelv. :cak Prosser / he Urban Hometown �b/ Telephone (612) 861-9700 . Fax 861-9749 0 • • JANUARY 1994 OPERATIONS AND COMPLAINT SUMMARY Table 1: OPERATIONS SUMMARY - ALL AIRCRAFT Runway Arrival % Use Departure % Use 04 146 1.1% 86 0.7% 22 66 0.5% 302 2.4% 11 4730 36A% 4923 39A% 29 8056 62.00/c 7186 575% Corrupt Data Files for January 30 and 31—No Flight Tracks Available Table 2: MSP JANUARY FLEET MIX PERCENTAGE Stage Scheduled Scbeduled ANOMS MSP 1993 1994 Count 1994 Stage 2 63.3 60.4 62.7 Stage 3 36.7 39.6 37.3 Table 3: AIRPORT JANUARY COMPLAINT SUMMARY Airport 1993 :1994 .- MSP 800 533 Airlake 0 0 Anoka 0 0 Crystal 0 0 Flying Cloud 4 1 Lake Elmo 0 0 St. Paul 9 7 Misc. 5 2 •; TOTAL: _ :. :.: 818 S43 :' Table 4: JANUARYOPERATIONS SUMMARY - AIRPORT DIRECTOR'S OFFICE 1993 1994 -. AIR CARRIER 678 685 COMMUTER 232 291 GA 185 106 MQJTARY 8 5 AIRFPM]fr 48 37 CHARnM 10 20 TOTAL :`.. 1161 .,," ;1144 MSP JANUARY 1994 COMPLAINT SUMMARY MSP COMPLAINTS BY CITY CITY—ARRIVAL 7 .,TOTAL :'PERCENT Arden Hills 3 9 12 21% Bloomington 0 8 8 1.5% Burnsville 1 8 9 1.7% (110%ka 1 0 1 0.2% Eagan 34 66 100 18.8% Eden Prairie 0 0 0 0.0% Edina 1 10 11 2.1% Hopkins 0 0 0 0.00/0 laver Grove Heights 7 94 101 19.0% Mendota Heights 4 9 13 2A% Minneapolis 66 115 181 34.0% Minnetonka 0 0 0 0.0% Plymouth 0 1 1 01% Richfield 12 39 51 9.6% Rosemount 1 1 2 OA% South St. Paul 0 0 0 0.00/0 St. Anthony 0 0 0 0.00/0 St. Anthony Village 0 2 2 04% St. Louis Park 3 2 5 0.9% St. PAW 6 28 34 6.4% Sunfish Lake 1 0 1 0.2% West St. Paul 0 0 0 0.00/c TIME OF DAY NATURE OF COMPLAINT f 'N TOTAI COMPLAINT 0000.05:59 25 Excessive Noise 424 06:00- 06:59 29 EaflyAAW 43 07:00 -11:59 177 Low Flying 12 12:00 - 15:59 75 Structural Disturbance 2 16:00-19-59 85 Helicopter 3 20.00 - 21:59 72 Ground Noise 15 22:00 - 22:59 42 Engine Run-up 23:00 - 23:59 28 Frequency 33 TOTAL � 533 ? TOTAL 533 f n January Tier Log Report n c. Percent of Hourly Use I-494 January Tower Log Report - Nighttime r22. I-494 �> Percent of E ourly Use t` 29L January Runway ~ise Report - All Operations , Percent of Operations 11R 29R' I-494 29L January Runway ise Report - Jet Operations Ar. // '�� 0 Percent of 0" �Q,syOperations I-494 11L 7Ni'.� ,11R �A ��AA��yy pp�b �atl k. Ri V I-494 ,11R V x 04 a y,� i r I-494 Metropolitan Airports Commission Jet Carrier Operations By Type January, M Akcraft Type Count Percentage B747 118 0.8 B74F 34 02 DC10 608 4.1 MDII 3 0.0 L1011 so 0.3 DC87 12 0.1 B727H 136 0.9 B757 1241 8.5 B767 1 0.0 EA32 1368 9.3 B733 518 3.5 FKIO 422 2.9 MD80 837 5.7 MD88 124 0.9 MD82 2 0.0 DC8 83 0.6 DC86 8 0.1 DCRS 44 0.3 B707 1 0.0 B727 2774 18.9 M 5773 39.3 B737 238 1.6 B73S 2" 1.7 FXn 44 0-3 Total '7777 373% Stage 3 62.7% Stage 2 Corrupt Data Res for January 30 and 31—No Flight Tracks Available Monday, February 21, 1994 min eapolis SL Paul i • 2 8 11 9 O 4 0 • 3. 0 10 6 • 0 S . .12 7' k6Wd 1� 23 20 . 18 D b ID 17 • 190 16 14 C7 B t� D Eagan O oe�4J ci Q Burnsville 10000 11 --' -"-- —" pple Valley Mendota I 13 d 24 CR' 21 s• Grove He •a2 bO Rosemont 5 .. Metropolitan Airports Commission Jet Departure Related Noise Events For January. 1994 Count Of Events For Each RMT RNITID City ,Approdmate Street location Events >65dB Events >8WB Events >90dB Events >1000 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 42nd St 359 51 2 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St 505 85 1 0 3 Minneapolis W. Elmwood St & Wentworth Ave. 1103 118 10 0 4 Minneapolis Oakland Ave. & 49th St 1764 291 24 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St 3772 1240 323 21 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 4202 1742 886 194 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave & 64th St 2304 534 72 1 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 1281 229 9 0 9 St Paul Saratoga St & Hartford Ave. 55 1 0 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 929 8 2 0 11 St. Paul Fmn St & Scheffer Ave. 165 4 1 0 12 St. Paul Alton Ave. & Rockwood Ave. 416 1 0 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 1099 113 0 0 14 Fagan First St & McKee St 976 127 14 0 15 Mendota Heights William Court & Thresea St 1168 133 5 0 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & vrlas Lane 1734 520 70 2 17 Bloomington 84th St & 4th Ave. 303 10 1 0 18 Richfield 75th St & 17th Ave. 1168 90 28 3 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 83rd St 340 65 17 1 20 Richfield 75th St & 3rd Ave. 517 22 4 0 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St 511 58 0 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 704 37 0 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kemmdon Ave. 1981 509 168 6 24 Eagan Chapel Lame & Random Road 1234 85 1 0 Monday, February 21, 1994 Metropolitan Airports Commission Jet Arrival Related Noise Events For January. 1994 Count Of Events For Each RMT RMTID City _ Approximate Street Location Events >65dB. Events >MB Events >90dB Events >1000 I Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 42nd St 1554 27 0 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 1341 144 1 0 3 Minneapolis W. Elmwood St. & Wentworth Ave. 1679 627 7 0 4 Minneapolis Oakland Ave. At 49th St 1623 371 1 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 2274 1197 158 0 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 2227 1225 163 6 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave & 64th Sc 618 10 0 0 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St 718 10 0 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga St & Hanford Ave. 44 12 1 0 10 St Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin Sc 332 20 4 0 11 St. Paul Finn St. & Scheffer Ave. 125 0 0 0 12 St. Paul Alton Ave. & Rockwood Ave. 270 0 0 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 357 2 0 0 14 Fagan First St. & McKee St. 2514 115 0 0 15 Mendota Heights William Court & Thresea St. 631 8 0 0 16 Fagan Avalon Ave. & Vilas Lme 3232 1492 15 1 17 Bloomington, 84th St. & 4th Ave. 87 20 0 0 18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 483 24 0 0 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & 83rd St. 70 2 1 0 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 172 0 0 0 21 Inger Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 68 1 1 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 1458 12 0 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kenn on Ave. 1827 42 3 0 24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Random Road 2882 42 0 0 Monday, February 21, 1994 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events RMT #13: Southwest End Of Mohican Court (Mendota Heights) DATETIME A TYPE MAXLEVEL ARR/DEP .01/03194 13:33:42 8727 89.4 D 0122/94 20:01:11 DC9 88.5 D 012519417:02:56 B737 88.3 D 0125/9418:38:15 B727 88.2 D 0126/94 9:29:20 DC9 86.7 D 01/1019410:12:29 B727 86.6 D 01/12!94 5:21:52 B727 86.6 D 01103/94 6:14:08 B727 86.5 D 01/02194 6:16:50 8727 85.8 D 01/03/94 950:54 B727 855 D RMT #14: 1st St. & McKee St. (Eagan) DATEMM Ra Un MAXLEVE L ARR/DEP 01/1519416:23:55 B727 96.5 D 01/15/9417:16:48 B727 95.0 D 01/10194 8:31:27 B727 94.7 D 01/1519416:59:45 B727 94.0 D 01/16/94 8:47:13 B727 93.6 D 0110319415:21:23 B727 93.0 D 01102!94 8:36:45 B727 92.6 D 01102/94 75421 B727 92.5 D 01/1519418:07:26 B727 91.9 D 0122/94 7:16:18 B727 915 D Monday, February 21, 1994 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events RMT #15: William Court & Thresea St. (Mendota Heights) DATETBE AIRCRAFT TYPE MAXLEVEL ARR/DEP 01/09/9416:56:28 B727 95.5 _D 01/10194 9:507 B727 94.9 D 01106/94 520:33 B-727 932 D 012219419:49:24 DC9 92.9 D 01/1019412:20:23 B737 90.6 D 0127/9417:17:44 B727 89.8 D 01/10194 9.49:05 8727 89A D 01/10/9411:35:50 DC9 88.9 D OWN% 9:50:35 B727 88.6. D 01109/94 9:40:22 B727 88.2 D RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & Villas Lane (Eagan) DATEEINE A CRAFT MAXLEVEL ARR/DEP 01/15/9416:23:31 B727 100.8 D 01/0219413:41:41 B727 1005 D 01/17/94 10:12:50 B727 1003 D 012619411.44:46 B727 100.0 D 0125/94 8:23:11 B727 99.7 D 0122/94 21:74:16 B727 99.7 D 0127/9413:35:54 B727 99.4 D 01/15/9416:59:27 B727 99.2 D 01/15/94 17:03:36 B727 99.1 D 01/27/9417:14:20 B727 99.1 D Monday, February 21, 1994 C Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events RMT #23: Kenndon Ave. (Mendota Heights) DATEnmE n�r MAXLLEVE, ARR/DFP 01/05/94 9:54:48 B727 101.3 D 01/10194 9:49:01 B727 101.1 D 01103/94 950,.27 B727 101.1 D 0110319413:28:26 B727 100.8 D 01/10/94 95&.25 B727 1005 D 01/02/9412:17:48 B727 1005 D 01/05/9417:09:31 B727 100.0 D 01/0319418:23:45 B727 99,7 D 01/03/94 9:48:01 B727 99.5 D 01/0319412:14:50 B727 99.0 D " RMT #24: Chapel Lane & Random Road (Eagan) DATEI7ME A CRAF I MAXLEVEL ARR/DEP 01/15/9418:1&.54 DC9 905 D 01A)2194 8:37:02 B727 90.4 D OIA9/94 858:09 B727 90.4 D 01/15/94 16:24:17 B727 89.0 D 01/22/94 17:33:06 B727 88.8 D 01/10/94 7:15:06 B727 88.8 D' 01/02194 4:28:39 B727 88.6 D 01/1519417:00:07 B727 87.6 D 01/03/9417:02:46 B727 87.5 D 01/03/9410:11:17 B727 86.5 D Monday, February 21, 1994 i; -:;: vcl, �. n . �:..:) �.1 :��^. j .:�: ....-._....._...�--.d�tA1t L I Ti� i. ...4:�; -.l~•i��`ti'�Y. �l'.�1 JAI. �,ti.• � ,�;' dt i� Minneapolis -St. Paul Analysis of Noise Events with Time/Date Between January 01 and January 311994 Aircraft Ldn dB(A) Noise Monitor Locutions DATE #I #2 #J #4 - #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 1 #11 #12 #13 #14 1 #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 1 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24 1 45.7 47.3 52.7 553 68.1 70.5 58.4 SIJ 40.3 38.7 0.0 33.1 45.6 49.4 47.9 60.5 54.8 65.1 60.5 51.0 46.4 47.8 57.6 56.1 2 56.7 59.0 62.1 623 70.0 72.8 60.3 57.7 45.0 60.8 54.5 55.2 60.9 60.2 61.6 68.8 58.9 60.0 47.7 48.9 61.5 611.6 72.0 61.7 3 55.1 60.5 62.9 62.3 6V 70.0 583 59.6 43.9 37.6 44.9 51.1 635 64.0 63.9 723 56.6 60.0 42.6 51.2 59.9 61.8 74.1 6511 4 54.9 SSA 595 62A 71.6 76.9 64.2 61.2 423 47.8 42.2 46.7 54.6 57.9 55.7 67.6 '61.2 65.3 673 49.9 54.1 56.2 66.9 61.7 5 63.0 64.2 69.2 65.7 73.1 71.2 60A 613 48.0 59.1 55.7 54.4 61.9 60.5 623 70.0 43.6 58.1 49.6 53.4 39.3 (415 72.1 63.6 6 55.2 57.1 61.9 625 72.8 75A 67.1 59.7 46.0 49.8 53.8 50.5 52.9 56.7 64.0 665 38.9 53.1 50.8 j 485 51.1 56.11 68.2 59.1 7 57.2 367 62.0 61.8 70.9 73.2 66.4 58A 49.2 • 4R.2 51.9 3.3.R 57.2 62.1 65.2 47.1 51.7 54.2 49.9 52.9 57.3 690 5X,7 8 53.0 53.6 63.1 60.7 72.1 73.9 66.7 56.7 43.6 51.4 43.7 46.4 51).1 59.3 53.4 67.4 55.5 65A 69.3 56.8 47.9 57.3 61.3 (4)'11 9 583 60.6 66.2 633 70.9 70.1 55.0 59.7 43.3 57.7 511.8 50.1 61.4 61.7 63.0 66.5 35.1 563 29.3 44.0 58A 61.1 69.5 62.7 10 55.7 %A . 61.9 62.9 71 A 75.4 64.2 • 43.0 57.2 411.6 .5.1-1 57.9 625 61.9 68.8 30.9 57.3 50.7 52.6 52.9 511.3 69.0 (41.7 II 53A 56.8 623 60.9 68.8 69.7 55.6 57.2 33.4 56.2 46.6 47.4 58.9 57.1 583 66.3 57.9 623 56.2 53.7 56.6 57A 66.3 59,2 12 54.9 563 583 61.8 70.9 75.1 67.5 59.2 41A 53.6 4.3.5 51.1 59.1 57.5 60.7 66.1 51.9 61.1 64.1 52.6 46.3 56.9 63.5 59.11 13 58.6 55.9 57.7 64.8 72.3 76.3 67.1 59.9 47.6 49.3 45.6 48.3 40.6 59.6 50.1 68.9 57.3 51.9 47.5 58.0 411 54.7 52.4 59.6 14 60.2 57.0 61.3 60.7 72A 76.7 69.3 60.6 48.7 46.1 43.5 44.2 40.0 65.3 49.6 71.5 49.6 54.7 48.9 57.9 51.6 511.7 55.5 62.7 Is 52.6 565 623 613 74.0 755 74.1 62.1 64.1 65.2 47.6 44.5 49.1 67.1 50.3 71.0 56,9 69.8 63.9 61.5 51.5 59.0 61.7 62.3 16 57.2 60.7 1 63.7 1 64.0 1 68.9 1 73.0 1 57.7 57.8 61.8 49.8 43.6 35.6 57.1 59.4 54.9 65.7 45.7 43.9 46.0 49.3 54.3 5.1.9 65.1 5�!4 17 49.0 57.0 59.3 63.fl 71A 75.8 1 67.3 59.9 49.6 50.9 49.1 44.6 47.2 66.1 42.6 70.9 51.0 56.2 55.4 55,5 43.4 61.9 57.6 Is 55.1 55.2 57.4 58.2 1 70.6 73.6 1 623 1 61.4 43.5 1 511.9 • 1 46.1 44.7 65.6 53.11 65.3 1 30.1 1 563 1 540 54.9 46.7 59.1 58!1 61,6 FdMWY 22, 1994 . . Minneapolis -St. Paul Analysis of Noise Events with Time/Date Between January 01 and January 311994 Aircraft Ldn dB(A) Noise Monitor Localions DATE 81 82 113 94 1 715 86 87 88 89 910 911 1 912 813 814 915 816 817 1 819 819 820 1121 #22 823 924 19 49.4 33.2 56.0 57.7 69A 723 6.1A 57.2 48.7 55.6 SITS 49.9 535 61.7 S.1.4 68.2 48A 63.6 58.2 5.1.6 52.11 545 66.5 3R.o 20 45.9 $43 59.0 59A 72.2 733 68A 55.6 36.0 49.1 • 50.2 54.6 61.5 57.8 68.6 46.1 59.0 32A 53.R 53.1 57.3 69.5 60.9 21 45A 553 38.2 603 70.6 74.9 653 57.7 3.1.5 543 41.9 53.2 56.8 3R.3 56.6 68.9 55.1 69.6 68.9 61.8 44.5 57.5 6fi.7 61.0 22 52.6 56.1 61.2 61.1 67.6 70.0 55A 55.9 51.9 54A 48.1 49.9 59.7 61.8 59.4 70.9 51.9 61.9 45.R 46.8 54.6 58.6 68.9 62.1 23 49.1 54.2 37.4 61.6. 693 74.7 64.5 583 44.6 56.3 49.1 S6.4 55A 60.2 37.8 67.6 51.9 63.9 64:4 583 40.2 59.3 62.2 61.9 24 55.1 55.3 39.3 59.4 45.0 68.4 63.7 59.2 50.9 54.7 49.2 49.2 55.6 43.0 58.3 57.0 52.8 47.7 62.1 59.2 42.7 46.2 63.9 43.8 25 62.5 63.6 67.2 65.0 70A 70.8 57.4 57.7 50.2 49.4 44.9 45.4 60.1 61.0 39.9 69.9 46.7 62.3 46.7 52.7 55.4 '57.2 67.4 61.4 26 59.0 62.2 65.7 64.4 70.9 1 69.9 1 51.6 61.1 33.6 55.6 50.1 48.7 60.0 59A 58.8 67.0 51.4 58.8 49.5 46.0 57.11 56.1 67.4 61.1 27 59.6 62.7 66.9 62.7 72.9 72.1 62.8 58.2 45.9 53.2 49.0 49.9 57S 59.4 57.2 70.6 58.2 59.9 47.9 53.1 52.6 SRA 65.4 59.9 28 52.2 54.9 593 63.7 735 75.6 685 59.8 26.1 49.3 48.5 40.8 42.8 60.6 50.6 67.9 513 57.5 47.6 55.6 511.2 59.1 39.3 61.6 29 43.1 55.6 593 61.7 73.7 74.8 67.1 60.9 41.2 473 46.2 40.6 52.R 59.7 51.4 65.6 56.S 59.4 48.1 54.6 44,9 57.2 S9.5 60.1 30 0.0 ao O.O 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.11 31 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ao 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.11 11.11 11.11 11.11 ao Hs Wss heotrfmr boon d dols -vs11n6b Ca p4 Dela Flim for jmmr3 38 sod 31 -No Flight T4 ks A,alla6le F,Moary 22. 1994 2