Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/12/1994 - Airport Relations CommissionAGENDA REGULAR MEETING EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE EAGAN, MINNESOTA EAGAN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY APRIL 12,, 1994 7:00 P.K. I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. OLD BUSINESS A. Public Comment - Part 150 Program for Homes in Commercial -Industrial Guided Areas IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Runway 4/22 Extension Revised Draft EIS - Additional Operating Configuration B. MSP Long.Term Comprehensive Plan - Scoping Decision Document V. STAFF REPORT A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor B. Dual Track Airport Planning Process C. MASAC Meeting of March 22, 1994 D. ENAC Update VI. VISITORS TO BE HEARD VII. INFORMATIVE VIII. NEXT MEETING - Tuesday, May 10, 1994 IX. ADJOURNMENT Auxiliary -aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City of Eagan will make every attempt to provide the aids, however this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 681-4600 with requests. • MEMO —city of eagan MEMO TO: CHAIR MIRICK AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN DATE: APRIL 7, 1994 SUBJECT. EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING OF APRIL 12, 1994 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee will be held on Tuesday, April 12, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. 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 adoption by the committee. If. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the March 8, 1994 meeting are enclosed on pages (v through 10 for your review. These minutes, as presented or modified, are in order for approval by the committee. 111. OLD BUSINESS A. Public Comment - Part 150 Program for Homes and Commercial - Industrial Guided Areas—This item was discussed at the open house meeting for residents on March 7 and at the regular committee meeting on March 8. Residents have been notified by correspondence that public comment will be taken at Tuesday's meeting from affected residents relative to the Part 150 aRematives for areas guided for commercial/ industrial use in the long run. Attached by way of reminder is a memorandum tabulating questionnaire results. A copy of the.correspondence to affected residents in mid-March, the questions and answers from the questionnaires, sound insulation flyer and the questionnaire comments are enclosed on pages _L�_ through gj As noted in the tabulation, there's a fairly even split between those who want ins l tion and purchase if both were to occur in a similar time frame. If insulation were to occur in the short term and purchase were to occur in the long term, a substantial majority would prefer insulation. Also enclosed on page is copy of a questionnaire received this week which reinforces that pattern but is not included in the tabulation. Also enclosed on pagesr2 ` ` through' ) s a copy of correspondence received from John and Mary • Beth Neska discussing their home at 908 Lawrence Avenue. You will also recall that at the March meeting, Lance Staricha referenced a property tax abatement program for physical im rovements to older homes. A memorandum from Mr. Staricha is enclosed n page ( covering a copy of a Minneapolis brochure on pages through summarizing the criteria for the program. As noted in Mr. Stancha's memo, the program is limited to houses over 35 years in age. He also notes that it may be best to encourage interested persons in the McKee area with homes over 35 years of age to discuss the potential ramifications with the assessor's office before making up their minds on the nature and scope of improvements. For those homes which do qualify, the typical improvement is less than the $25,000 maximum for homes 35 - 70 years In age. If the commission wishes, future correspondence to Part 150 neighborhoods could incorporate this discussion. Please refer to your March packet for additional background information with respect to this item. In particular, pages 21 and 22 of the packet outline policy issues and criteria to be considered. One criterion not mentioned there is the phasing and timing of any improvements. In the past, there has been discussion to give first priority to areas guided to remain residential, second priority to areas expected to stay residential for the foreseeable future and third priority, two areas which have a chance of being converted to commercial -industrial use in the near future. • Staff has also received information from the Metropolitan Airports Commission indicating that the FAA will not permit cities to continue to use lotteries to select eligible participants for these programs. As a consequence, it will be necessary to work with MAC staff to develop a phasing plan which would allow the City to go on more of a block by block basis. The committee may still wish to recommend that the pre -1978 priority be given and that those homes be done before homes occupied by people since that time, but the phasing would have to be based on criteria other than a lottery. It would still be necessary on an annual basis to ask residents to submit applications for the program. As in the past, it someone has submitted an application but has not been selected in a given year, they would be permitted to simply continue their application until their home is selected. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive public comment and recommend a Part 150 strategy involving sound insulation and/or purchase of noise affected homes eligible for the Part 150 Land Use Program for consideration by the City Council. IV. NEW'BUSINESS A. Runway 4/22 Extension Revised Draft EIS - Additional Operating Configuration— The committee has previously provided comment relative to the Runway 4/22 extension environmental review documents. In general terms, the City's position has been to oppose any expansion of the current facility at MSP. until a final decision is made on the • dual track airport planning process and, within the 4/22 assumptions the City opposes the introduction of any new flight tracks east of Cedar Avenue. At a meeting held on March 10, 1994, the city of Richfield reviewed detailed concerns it has regarding the revised draft EIS relative to the runway extension project. Those concerns are summarized in the Airport Noise Report which is enclosed on pageo—a— through :;�b. Essentially, Richfield's concern is that ground side operational congestion will dramatically limit the to i benefit of the runway extension. Also enclosed on pages 31 through �e the distribution items from the meeting of March 10. Richfield's essential argument is that only 2.3 heavy aircraft per day will need the full length of the runway and that substantial complexities exist which will essentially prevent the preferred configuration of landing on the parallels and department on the cross wind runway to the same time periods as are available today. As a consequence, they have asked whether $50 million is justified for 2- 3 aircraft per day. In addition to this general information, a specific item with respect to the City of Eagan was pointed out at the meeting which deserves consideration by, the committee. This situation has been noted in responses to the revised draft EIS but..has not been -_ evaluated. Essentially, the FAA has identified an operating configuration_which does not currently exist at the airport which would permit landings on the parallel runways from the northwest and departures on Runway 22. Because no aircraft would be operating southeast of the airport in this configuration, the FAA has raised the potential for departures on Runway 22 to fan from the northwest across Richfield, Bloomington and Burnsville all the way to the east across Eagan, Inver Grove Heights and potentially Mendota Heights. While the City has opposed the addition of flight tracks which have been identified in the EIS to date, this new configuration would substantially exceed what the Cady has been opposed to in the past. A copy of the rrespondence from the FAA relative to this item is enclosed on pages n throug for your review. The portions re ' e to this configuration are racketed on a right margin. Also enclosed on page is a copy of an airport area map in which the area described in the FAA letter is s a ed. The dashed line to the southwest is the current operational boundary from Runway 22. The dotted line to the south is the proposed boundary for Runway 22 operations if landings are occurring from the southeast on parallel runways. The shaded area represents the new area the FAA indicates would be occupied by aircraft if there were departures on Runway 22 and landings from the northwest on the parallel runways. Eagan is in the lower right hand comer of the map and can be identified by the locations of 1-494, 1-35E and Trunk Highways 13 and 55. The question before the committee is whether or not to reconsider or amend the City's position with respect to the runway extension given the additional information provided. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To recommend to the City Council that • the City either retain_ or modify its policy position with respect to the Runway 4/22 extension project. B. MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan - Scoping Decision Document—The • committee has previously reviewed the long term comprehensive plan for the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport and provided comments concerning its elements. The MAC is in the process of preparing a draft aftemative environmental document for the long term comprehensive plan and additional information has become available for committee review. The first item is reflected on page Z.In an effort to shift the state safety zone to the east side of 24th Avenue South, the MAC is proposing a slight shift of the north/south runway to the east. While it does require the removal of additional facilities both on the airport property and in Bloomington, it does diminish the air space conflicts with 24th Avenue and removes the Mall of America parking ramp from the state safety zone. The total shift will be less than two degrees. Despite that, staff has requested that the MAC prepare revised noise contours which reflect this relocation. Essentially, the extended runway center line will still enter Eagan at approximately the intersection of Cedar Avenue and Trunk Highway 13. The second item relates to the location of the terminal in throposed long term comprehensive plan scenarios. On pages . through are depictions of alternatives 5 and 6 which incorporate the north south runway. Aft rnative 5 shows an expansion of the Undberg terminal at the current location while alternative 6, the MAC preferred alternative, shows the relocation of the terminal to the west side of the airport near the intersection of Cedar Avenue and the Cross Town Highway. This would maintain concourses in roughly their current locations and a remote parking lot near the current rental locations. The other aspect of this design would be that it would permit a crossing between parallel runways near their southeast end. The. MAC has contracted with a consultant to provide additional confi ration altayives. Those are enclosed as alternatives E-10 and E-11 on pages through '( "i . Alternative E-10 would replace the existing northwest maintenance base with a remote ncourse and would require that the access road be tunnelled under expanded tarmac between the southeast ends of the parallel runways. The Undberg terminal would be expanded and reconfigured in roughly its current location. Aftemative E-11 puts the new terminal on the southeast side of the airport between the runways with the current concourse locations and roughly the same configuration as alternative 6. In the past, the City has opposed the relocation of the terminal in any expansion scheme due to the reduced accessibility from the Eagan portion of 494. The committee may wish to recommend revised comments to the City Council given these additional alternatives. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To recommend to the City Council that it retain or modify its position with, respect to the MAC long term comprehensive plan for the airport expansion track of the dual track airport planning process. V. STAFF REPORT A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor—Apart from the tracking information which you will find in the MASAC report, there is nothing to report at the present time on the corridor issue. B. Dual Track Airport Planning Process—Enclosed on pages S7through _ is a copy of the most recent summary brochure distributed by the MAC relative to the planning process. In addition, staff has a copy of the .MAC's annual report to the legislature on the dual track process. Because of its length, it is not reproduced here but is available for review by any member of the committee who wishes to see it. C. MASAC Meeting of March 22, 1994—Enclosed on pages through are excerpts from the February, 1994 operations and complaint summary distributed at the March 22 MASAC meeting. You will note that the flight track maps have City boundaries superimposed to help in your analysis. Dustin Mirick or Lois Monson may wish to comment on the activities at the last MASAC meeting. D. ENAC Update—Any member of the Eagan Noise Abatement Council who is present and wishes to be heard at Tuesday's meeting may do so at this time. VI. VISITORS TO BE HEARD Any visitors wishing to address the committee on items not on the agenda may do so at this time. VII. INFORMATIVE • / Enclosed on pagesthrough is an article from the Airport Noise Report concerning efforts at�fhe Raleigh-Durha Intemational Airport to require performance standards to be met between the 55 and 65 DNL contour for new development near that airport. This is similar to the recommendation the committee made with respect to residential development within the Met Council noise zones. At its meeting of March 22, the Advisory Planning Commission recommended denial of the Lone Oak Forest subdivision noting aircraft noise as one of the factors in the denial. This item will be going to the City Council at its meeting of April 19. A memorandum reflecting the committee's recommendation has been shared with the Advisory Planning Commission and will be shared with the City Council when the item comes to them. VIII. NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee will be on Tuesday, May 10, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. W. 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 noted on the agenda. Asfitlpttant to the City Administrator Subtect to Approval MINUTES OF THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE Eagan, Mlmesota March 8, 1994 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee was held on Tuesday, March 8, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. Present were Steve Soderling, Pat Todd, Dustin Mirick, Lois Monson, Bob Cooper, Mike Schlax and alternates Rita Younger and Lance Staricha. Absent was Jane VanderPoehl who had called to indicate that a legislative hearing would prevent her attendance at the meeting. Also present was Assistant to the City Administrator Hohenstein. AGENDA The agenda was approved by acclamation. RATIFICATION OF OFFICER ELECTIONS Prior to the public open house meeting concerning the Part 150 program on Monday, March 7, 1994, the committee met briefly to elect officers so that the leadership would be in place for the open house. It was indicated that it would be appropriate to ratify those elections at this regular meeting. Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Todd, all members voting in favor, the elections of Dustin Mirick as Chair and Pat Todd • as Vice Chair were approved. OATH OF OFFICE Hohenstein swore in new alternate member Rita Younger who was attending her first Airport Relations Committee meeting. MASAC ALTERNATES Mirick introduced the item and indicated that Lois Monson and Jon Hobenstein had served two one-year terms as MASAC alternates and that he was in the final year of his term as the City s MASAC representative. Mirick indicated a willingness to continue in that capacity unless the committee wished to have another member begin to serve to maintain continuity in the future. The committee asked Mirick to continue for the final year of his term as a MASAC representative. Upon motion by Monson, seconded by Cooper, all members voting in favor, it was recommended that the City Council appoint I& Monson and Jon Hohenstein to be the MASAC alternates for the City of Eagan until the appointment of replacements in 1995. Mirick encouraged all Airport Relations Committee members to attend MASAC meetings when possible. Monson invited others to join her if they are interested in attending meetings. MINUTES The minutes of the February 8, 1994 Airport Relations Committee meeting were approved by acclamation. C-3 MARCH 8, 1994 ARC MINUTES PAGE 2 APPLICATION OF PART 150 PROGRAM TO THE AREAS GUIDED FOR COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL LAND USE Hohenstein introduced the item and indicated that the FAA had recently approved a larger Part 150 contour which incorporated additional neighborhoods in the City of Eagan within the eligible area for program funding. He also indicated that the committee had hosted an open house on Monday evening, March 7, to discuss the Part 150 program options with affected properpty owners in the area It was noted that of the 130 homes which received invitations, approximately 46 homeowners appeared on the sign up sheets and it was the committee's feeling that more residents had been present than that. Hohenstein also noted that the committee had received a substantial number of questionnaire responses either at the open house or by mail and that others were expected to come in over the next several days. He indicated that a summary of the questions and comments would be prepared by staff and that answers to the questions would be included in the summary and that the summary would be forwarded to the Airport Relations Committee, Planning Commission and program eligible residents. Hohenstein reviewed the five general area that are included in the eligible contour and are guided for commercial/industrial use. He also pointed out that two areas are being added to the contour in the Country Home Heights and Highview area which are guided for residential use where it is expected the sound insulation program will be extended He also reviewed a series of policy questions to be considered when weighing the options between sound insulation and purchase. They included potential impacts on future redevelopment, the nature of the improvements in each option, long term noise exposure, social impacts, the • availability of affordable housing, private redevelopment, the market environment and the seriousness of the noise exposure impact. Schlax asked if everyone in a neighborhood would have to participate in the program selected. Hohenstein responded that if a buy-out option were selected, it would be necessary to treat all homes in an area similarly due to the impact on the remaining residents if not all were treated the same. He stated that the insulation program is purely voluntary and that residents could choose whether or not to participate in it if it were made available to them. Schlax indicated that some of the residents at the open house were concerned that the City would do something against their will. Hohenstein stated that if a decision were made to buy an area and some residents did not wish to sell that it may be necessary to condemn the property in order to treat all properties similarily. He stated, however, that the City's intent is to deal with the noise problem and that there is no separate incentive for the City to buy these properties other than to help resolve the noise problem. Schlax stated that he agreed with the statement and indicated that the City should make clear in correspondence to the open hoose recipients that noise mitigation is the key and that there is no separate effort to redevelop the areas outside of the noise mitigation issue. Soderling stated that the committee would have not other purpose for reviewing the options if noise were not a problem. Cooper asked how the committee would respond if one or more areas wished to be purchased while others wished to be insulated It was suggested that the committee may want to consider sound insulating first because of the larger number of residents who could be benefitted by the program and that any purchase options would dramatically diminish the number of homes that could be treated in a year. Todd stated that projected MAC funding levels would permit the City to insulate 30 - 40 homes.per year which would cover all eligible homes within 4 - 5 years, while purchase options would probably limit the program to only 3 - 4 purchases per year. She stated that it would be more cost effective for the City to insulate homes to benefit the maximum number of people possible before doing any purchases. Cooper stated that he was surprised and pleased that most people at the open house expressed a desire to stay in Eagan and improve their homes. He . said that the only concern they had was that they wished something could be done sooner. Younger asked what difference sound proofing provides and if people wish to sell their property can they do that. Mirick responded that architects working for the MAC will design unique improvements for each home to achieve a minimum of MARCH 8, 1994 ARC MINUTES PAGE 3 a 5 decibal noise reduction. Cooper stated that the members of the committee had a chance to go to an improved home and that it has been his experience that people like the improvements. He stated that conversations with the owner of the home were uninterrupted despite overflights and that it was immediately necessary to discontinue conversations once outside the home. Hohenstein also referenced the availability of the sound insulatirn, house for tours and that would demonstrate the benefits sound proofing would make. He indicated that in Eagan most sound proofing improvements have included the replacement of windows and doors, caulking, a check of levels of insulation in the walls and ceilings and treatment of vents.and flues to minimi>P sound transmission through necessary openings in the house walls. He further indicated that there is no restriction on homeowners having to stay in the home a certain period of time after the improvement is done. He stated that'the program relates to improving the sound quality of a home and that after the improvements some residents remain in the homes in an improved environment while others take advantage of the improvements to sell the home. Monson stated that there may be some misunderstanding of how much impact remodelling can have. She stated that residents should understand that this is a remodelling project and that there will be dust and dislocation associated with it. She further stated that many people may also misunderstand the value of their home after having asked for "generous" offers in order to sell. It wens also noted.that certain residents adjacent to commercial areas perceive their properties to have more commercial value than residential value and that should be considered in any decision about insulation and purchase. Cooper agreed that the complexity of the issue makes it difficult to communicate everything to residents but that a number of them knew people who had sound insulation improvements and were satisfied with them. Hohenstein noted that one concern expressed was • that improvements to the home may increase property taxes on it. While that is a possibility, he stated that the home is still benefitting by an investment of $15,000 - 20,1X10 in home improvements and an improved indoor environment. Staricha indicated that he is aware of a state program to defer taxes for property improvements - and that he would provide information on it to the City to dessiminate to owners of homes that are sound insulated. Soderling clarified that the City is not the owner if property is purchased but rather it is the Metropolitan Airports Commission who would own the property. Todd moved, Monson seconded, a recom- mendation that the City continue to utilize its Part 150 allocations for sound insulation. Following discussion, an amendment was added that the Country Home Heights and Highview areas be sound insulated fust, the McKee Addition second and that free standing areas be sound insulated last in the event that commercial/ industrial development results in them being converted by the private sector. Staricha stated that a buy-out of the McKee area is unrealistic because of its scale and that the City may wish to keep options open for purchase of free standing areas in the future. He further stated that while options remain in future years, it is important to give a clear indication to the public of the City's expectations for the area in the immediate future. After further discussion, the motion passed on a vote of 6 to 1. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL NOISE ZONE POLICY REVIEW Hohenstein overviewed the issue and stated that the City has informally utilized the policy contours and Met Council guidelines to manage development in the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor area in the past. As an increasing number of developments which are not consistent with policy contours are anticipated in the future, he indicated that it may be appropriate for the City to consider whether to formally adopt the policy contours and incorporate them into the development review process. Todd stated that some cities in the area have permitted residential development in the noise zones and that the homeowners have subsequently expressed noise complaints despite sound attenuation improvements. Schlax stated that he supports a standard which discourages incompatible development or requires performance standards, but will not support a ban on all residential activity in the noise contours. Younger stated that she would also not support restrictions on eitising homes and that she was reluctant to place any restrictions on the building of new homes if that would • have an effect on the existing neighborhoods in the noise zones. • MARCH 8, 1994 ARC M RYTFS PAGE 4 Monson stated that she feels that most areas are purposely zoned to preclude appropriate uses in the noise zones and it is logical to not zone an area for uses that will not fit with the environment. Todd stated that the issue for the committee is whether standards should be applied within the noise zones which will either minimize incompatible development or mitigate the affects on marginal developments. Hohenstein overviewed the Met Council document itself and indicated that one of the options for local units of government is to adopt the policy contours for their own use. He stated that if a Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment is necessary the Met Council will enforce it, but that where no such amendment is necessary, the City could use the guidelines to apply the same standards to other development. Cooper moved, Soderling seconded a recommendation that the City formally adopt the Met Council noise contours and land use compatibility guidelines as a City policy. The motion passed 5 to 1 with one member abstaining Monson stated the reason for her abstention was that she feels that facts should direct zoning and that a separate policy is not necessary. OF MEETING Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Todd, all members voting in favor, it was determined to continue the meeting past 9:00 to complete business before the committee. NEW AIRPORT SITE ALTERNATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Hohenstein introduced the item and indicated that the committee had the opportunity to make • comments concerning the AED for the new airport site in southern Dakota county. He indicated that the timing of the comments was such that the City Council was informed of this opportunity at its meeting of February 28 and that the committee was free to make comments on behalf of the City to be filed before the March 10 deadline. Schlax stated that the distance from Eagan and the runway configuration of the approved site might be more environmentally beneficial to the City of Eagan and that to be certain, it would be necessary to see how the MAC intends to use the air space around the proposed airport. He suggested that a comment in that regard be provided to the MAC. There being no further comments, the committee indicated that it was its consensus that a comment concerning air space use be forwarded to the MAC and that Schlax work with staff on specific language in this regard. MASAC COMPLAINT CATEGORIES Hohenstein introduced the item and indicated that a City resident had expressed concern that flights outside the corridor were not noted as a separate complaint category by the MAC noise complaint office. He stated that typically the complaint is registered either as excessive noise or come other type of activity on the MAC check listand that no tally is kept of complaints relative to the corridor itself. He suggested that a supplemental box could be added to the MAC form that would permit operators to note that a complaint was received in one of the 8 existing categories and that the reason stated by the caller was aircraft outside the corridor. Cooper moved, Todd seconded, a motion to recommend that the City Council ask the MAC noise office to add flights outside the corridor as complaint category supplemental to the main complaint categories. Staricha asked if the committee was asking that the category be added everywhere or just for complaints within the first three miles of the runway. Hohenstein stated that while corridor procedures are objective, people's perceptions of corridor operations would be subjective and that other residents beyond the three mile turn point would likely mention aircraft outside corridor as a reason for their complaint as well. Monson suggested that the committee ask MASAC how feasible it would be to add this category. Cooper said • that there would be a simple addition, but that the results might not be accurate due to homeowners' perceptions. MARCH 8, 1994 ARC M RITES PAGE 5 Todd stated that the MAC should be reminded that it is providing a service to a customer and that it is necessary to respond to customer concerns. She expressed frustration that a resident had been making complaints concerning flights outside the corridor for a period of years and had only been told recently that his complaints were being recorded against a different complaint category. Monson asked Mirick to talk about the MASAC process. Mirick stated that MASAC attempts to respond to both the public and the industry uniformally and as such it is very deliberate about requests for changes. He stated that he would ask MASAC about the possibility of this change. Hohenstein clarified that the recommendation of the committee should go to the City Council first, after which it could be presented to MASAC. There being no further discussion, all members Date Secretary 0 • U > xsw +z cdy of eagan MEMO TO: CHAIR MIRICK AND ALL AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEINdk DATE: MARCH 11, 1994 SUBJECT: PART 150 OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION Enclosed you will find a copy of the mailing being forwarded to the Part 150 eligible residents in commercial -industrial guided areas. In addition to the cover letter, they will receive the transcribed comments and questions with staff responses and information on the sound insulation demonstration house: • For your information, the following is a tabulation of the questionnaire responses received to date. ... Low Moderate Significant Severe No Response 1 .Never 1 1 Monthly Weekly Daily 1 3 2 2 > Daily 11 28 Insulate v. Purchase Similar Time Frame Four Years v. Twelve Years Insulate 22 27 Purchase 23 17 Either 3 4 Neither 2 2 cc. Advisory Planning Commission .• March 14, 1994 Dear Resident: This letter is a follow up to the Open House held on March 7 concerning airport noise and the airport's Part 150 Sound Abatement Program. The Airport Relations Committee would like to thank those of you who were able to attend or who mailed your questionnaires to the City. Enclosed is a list of the questions and comments which were returned. We have included answers to your questions so that everyone can have the same information. Your participation in this discussion is very important. The.City has the opportunity to use federal funds to either sound insulate or purchase noise -impacted homes. The Airport Relations Committee's purpose is to deal with the noise problem in the best, • most cost-effective way possible. This is an airport noise issue and not a redevelopment issue. The City will only ask the airport to acquire a neighborhood if no other alternative would serve the best interests of its residents. The Airport Relations Committee is reviewing the results of the survey and have begun discussions about next steps with respect to this program. The committee will meet on Tuesday, April 12, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center to accept public comment to be considered with the questionnaire responses. They are also expected to make a recommendation at that time which will go to the City Council. The meeting is open to the public and you are invited to attend. Again thank you for your attention -to and participation in this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, J6 Hohenstein Assistant to the City Administrator Enc. • PART 150 OPEN ROUSE QUESTIONS MARCH 7, 1994 • 1. Row can flight patterns be changed? The volume of traffic at the airport today is three times what it was in 1978. That being the case, flight patterns cannot be changed to completely avoid the neighborhoods close to the airport. This volume of traffic results in a fanning of traffic from southern Mendota Heights neighborhoods all the way to northern Eagan neighborhoods. Regardless of flight tracks, the areas eligible for the Part 150 program will continue to receive high levels of noise. 2. (How would the airport go about the) purchasing of homes in 4 block area? If a decision were made to purchase the four block McKee Addition, the entire area would be purchased over a period of three to four years. The airport would request federal funding to cover the costs and would enter into negotiations with individual property owners to determine a fair market value for each home. Federal law requires that if property is to be purchased for public purposes, it is at its fair market value. If negotiations did not result in a sale for a particular property, condemnation proceedings would occur and each party • would submit an appraisal to a panel which would determine the property's fair market value and award that to the homeowner. In addition, property owners would be entitled to a federally established relocation allowance of approximately $20,000. 3. If the majority of home owners want to sell, how will that impact the remaining homes? If the City decides to ask the airport to buy a neighborhood, all homes in that neighborhood would be purchased because it would be unfair to the remaining neighbors, whether they wish to sell or not, to have parts of their neighborhood purchased and vacated while they are. left behind. It would also be necessary if and when the area is to be redeveloped to have the entire area available. The City may decide to treat each neighborhood differently than the others however. 4. Now will insulating the home impact taxes? The sound insulation improvements may result in an increased valuation of the home for tax purposes. The City is exploring whether a program exists to abate the increase or limit it. . The improvements themselves, which cost the resident nothing, average $15,000 to $20,000 and substantially reduce the indoor noise impact for the resident. It also tends to reduce energy costs because it improves the energy efficiency of the home. 5. 6. 7. S. 9. Unlike the purchase option, sound insulation is a completely • voluntary program. Residents will need to determine for themselves whether the noise and energy value of the improvements is worth a potential increase in property taxes. What is the budget per house and taz impact? (Revalue of house) See answer to #4. Row are you going to insulate and when? When your home is selected for the sound insulation program, the airport will have an architect visit you at your home and prepare a design which takes into account the current condition and inside noise level of your house. Typically, the program involves many of the same things which are done for energy insulation: new windows and doors, storm windows, caulking, wall and attic insulation, modifications to vents and other openings in the house. If you do not have air conditioning, it will be provided in the program to allow you to keep your windows closed when you wish to. You will have the opportunity to review the architect's plan and you can approve it, ask for modifications or opt out of the program. Once you have approved the plan, it will be • scheduled for bid and construction will be begun within the year. Construction will take four to eight weeks depending upon the plan approved by the owner. The airport's current funding allocation for Eagan will cover the sound insulation of approximately 30-40 homes per year. If funding remains constant and the City decides to sound insulate all of the homes eligible under the program, it will take four to five years to do them. The City uses a lottery to determine which houses are done each year. Cost replacement on buyout? See answer to #2. How soon (rill a buyout occur)? If the City asks the airport to buy a neighborhood, it will take several years to get the separate grant funding necessary to do so. Once the funds are secured, the time necessary would depend on the size of the neighborhood. If the McKee Addition were to be purchased, it would likely take three to four years after the funding was received. • I would like to have explained exactly what soundproofing entails. See answer to #6. • • • 10. What does insulation require? does it take? See answer to #6. 11. any cost to us? What is the process? How long There is no cost to the homeowner for the improvements associated with the plan they, approve for this program. If the homeowner wishes to do other remodeling work or upgrade their home at the same time, that cost must be covered by the homeowner. 12. Can airport or City buy us out if we don't want to sell? See answer to 03. 13. When Would We be informed of a buyout (month, year)? The City's Airport Relations Committee hopes to make a recommendation to the City Council yet this spring on the best approach for the area. If a decision is made to pursue a buyout in any of the areas, the City would work with the airport to attempt to identify the funding source and a timeline. An actual date to begin the purchase•may not be known for several years, however. The City would maintain communication with the effected residents throughout that time to be sure that you can plan accordingly. 14. What areas would be bought out and in what order? The purpose of the open house and public discussion is to help the Airport Relations Committee develop recommendations to sound insulate or purchase. If a decision is made to purchase one or more neighborhoods, a recommendation will also be made as to the priority order for each. 15. Would it be a forced buyout or an optional sell? See answer to 0. 16. Why don1t planes follow the 55 corridor? See answer to #1. . 17. What effect would a new airport in Dakota County have on our area? If a new airport were built near Hastings, the current airport would be closed and the noise impact from the new airport would be substantially less than you experience today. The current airport is three miles from the McKee Addition. The proposed airport would be fifteen miles from the McKee Addition. Sound insulation improvements would continue to be important in the near future, because a new airport would not be operational for about fifteen to twenty years. 1s. Will the insulating process stay the same (same procedures)? The process is not expected to change. See answer to #6. 19. Is the City going to upgrade the streets and sever system? The City will continue to monitor and prioritize streets and utilities for improvements. if the City decides to ask the airport to purchase an area, normal maintenance would continue until the buyout is complete. The City would not do major reconstruction if an area is scheduled to be purchased. 20. If the houses were purchased, would they buy a block at a time or would it be a checkerboard deal? See answer to #3. 21. If they were insulated, would you have to live in it a certain length of time afterward before you could sell? No. 22. Need more information on how effective the sound insulation will be and if purchased, what the purchase price would be. Residents who have responded to the City's follow up questions about the sound insulation program have indicated a high level of satisfaction with the noise reductions. Information concerning the Sound Insulation Program Demonstration House in Richfield is included with this mailing. The Demonstration House has rooms sound insulated at three different levels for residents to view and is open weekdays for tours. For a description of the purchase process, see answer to #2. 23. Nov do you defend your stand on payment or choice of whom to pay in terms of equal compensation? I•f homes in an area are to be purchased, the law requires that a fair market value be paid as just compensation. The law prohibits equal compensation because not all properties are equally valued. The choice of whether to purchase an area or not will be based on the City's.understanding of the public good of each option. The City will consider a number of factors including the responses of the residents, the nature and extent of the noise impact, whether the area is likely to be redeveloped to a more noise compatible use by private interests and so on. 24. Why invest when or if you are going to lose .it .and never recover the losses? To minimize the time of uncertainty about this matter, the City intends to make a decision in this regard yet this spring. If sound insulation is identified for an area, it will be assumed that the properties will remain residential for the foreseeable future and residents would want to maintain and invest accordingly. If a purchase option is l�_ • • identified for an area, the airport and City will work to set • out a timeline and expectations as soon as possible to allow residents to plan accordingly. 25. If you insulate today, what guarantee is there you will not purchase tomorrow? Or won't you be throwing away your. insulation money if you have to purchase at a later time? To answer the second question first, it would be inappropriate to invest in the improvement of a property if it is likely to be purchased for redevelopment in the near future. That is why it is important to discuss whether a purchase option makes sense in the near future before moving ahead with insulation. If a private purchase is not likely within the near future, it makes sense to improve the indoor noise environment of the .homes. The City has no specific redevelopment plans for the areas eligible for the Part 150 funding. The only reason the City would consider asking the airport to purchase an area at this time would be to alleviate the noise impact on residents. 26. Actual timeframes for both plans. See answers to #6 and #8. 27. Process for insulation and any caps in spending for McKee Addition or is it set up in terms of current home • improvements? There is an annual allocation to the City of Eagan from the airport and the typical sound insulation project costs between $15,000 and $20,000. There is no cap for any of the eligible areas, but the costs of insulating each home will determine how many homes can be done in a year and how quickly the airport can insulate all eligible homes. See answer to #6. 28. Buyout issues. See answers above. 29. When decision will be finalized. See answers to #6, #8 and #13. 30. Bow soon will the MAC action happen? See answers to #6, #8 and #13. 31. Why insulate the houses as we can not enjoy our yards from 3:30 P.M. to 6:30 p.m. at all every day all summer? Sound insulation will only improve the indoor noise • environment. It will not change a person's ability to enjoy their yard. Insulation is done so that at least the part of someone's property that can be improved is improved. Metropolitan Airports Commission SOUND INSULATION PROGRAM OFFICE AND DEMONSTRATION HOUSE The Sound Insulation Program Office and Demonstration House is located at 6314 Standish Avenue South in Richfield near the end of one of the airport's busiest runways. The home is owned by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and will be used by the Center for Energy and the Urban Environment (CEUE) as the program office. Three rooms have been sound insulated, with one of these rooms designed to be a 'quiet room ". The rest of the home was left as is. People are able to walk from room to room, and compare the different sound levels. The Demonstration House office phone is 348-9337. The Demonstration House visitor hours are: Monday - Friday 9:00 - 4:30 Please call 348-9337 before stopping in, so we can have staff available for you. Location &=L, RICHFIELD Principles of sound insulation Noise enters a house in two ways: Information Program Office 348-9337 MAC 726-8100 1) Noise is airborne. Open windows are obvious examples, but noise can enter through even the smallest cracks. Acoustical caulks, sealants and special weatherstripping keep the new windows, doors walls and ceilings very tight. Air conditioning ducts have been baffled. A House Doctor crew has tested the house to make sure there is adequate ventilation. 2) Noise is structure -borne. Sound will cause a structure to vibrate. This vibration will transfer the sound directly through a wall or roof, albeit in a diminished manner. Added mass in the form of additional sheetrock and acoustical windows with thicker panes of glass have been added to the acoustically treated rooms. This extra weight makes it harder for a wall or window to vibrated and pass noise through. 3) To make the transfer of structure -borne noise even more difficult, additional space between panes of glass and discontinuous construction (where a new wall and ceiling, separated by a gap, is built adjacent to existing structure) are featured in the dining "quite" room. y 9 • SOUND INSULATION � �•�� j SbWNSTgtRS- DaOo [� QD a a �' Og aD4 0 aD a [ aD aD a Q0 airR9GK00N1 703B.HMM The fkmonsirietioYl Nouse has - +Ree room$ that N have been sound insula+ed. The rest of +he house has not had special acouStircal WORk UP :EbMY done but Stj I I pfov�deS _vtound a 29 d BA -- CA wei5tift-d decibels - closest -to hur"w,, n SATR �r hexz63) n6i5e level redact bo PRom +h2� A rne-zsuized autside. It takes a iodoA dRcp 0 +o cu+ +he PeRceived Yroise in half'. Q7WN5TAIRS DEN - New ST -c 37 WindOWS 4 S011d CDQ`' QW+Ry ciooR 0 MASTER -L%:79ADM g LIVIN(T acbM - Nevi/ sTG d•' -F Windom., second SI+41h9 glass LIooR, 2 new 5olict coRt- door,,; 9nd Z new 12yMS uralI txl. QUIET }Zoom — See details below. 5% - Sound TRansmk4toin Glass. The hionhea The Quiet Room has been de5fred tz khieve +he highest levels of noise redu tlon. I+ 4eaiukes,+he {allowing; New fReestandin9 wall and ceil(v w1h, 2 new IayM5 of WYvwll bd • 5atTied i shiel4ed AC duct in ceilu, • New STc eo window wi+4,1 5/tV 12vninsted 91255 and Y4• plafe gb&5 Se�aF-*ed by a Od aiR Sp4c • EAtRa IapP of !Ya•vvatl boa Rd an • ide walls and 02aD9e wall al•noJG G 44 Window in ftm belokr and Rig - ibeRgl. lbtts iH �WK • New *0 cone wood ehtRy dooR 11 PART 150 COMMENTS • MARCS 7s 1994 Cannot even talk on phone or outside when plane is going over - house shakes. My house at 2799 Linde Lane is a duplex. Due to severe aircraft noise, it has been almost impossible to rent. At one time, it was empty for 5 months. When tenants do move in, they only stay a very short time because of the severe noise problem. This has been very costly due to rent loss. I tried to sell, but no one was interested because of the proximity to the airport with all the noise. Keep airplanes over 494. My biggest concern is that I would be forced to sell my house. I think that with proper noise insulation and soundproofing, the majority of the problems could be solved. It's not that bad where a person would need to sell! The winter months noise is not bad at all. It would be nice -.if the "corridor" was built in stone and that EPA restrictions insofar as noise is concerned were adhered to. Cannot use phone in spring and fall. Can't air house. I have never called or written to complain about airplane noise. • I.have lived on my property since July 1960. In the 601s, it was very noisy because of propeller -type engines. At that time, airplanes did not gain altitude as fast so house and contents shook. I wish = to sound insulate, but eventually to sell my home when I can get a buyer. And really, I don't want to sell: I an 68 years old and I know I will ,definitely be out within 5-10 years. Safety -concerns. Condition of street related to buyout. I think it is urgent that something be done to the McKee Addition. I believe a buyout is the smarter choice considering the age of the neighborhood, but whichever is decided, it must be done soon. You must also consider that when the older residents in the area pass away, who is going to want to purchase the house knowing about the noise problem? I also want to say that insulating -is sort of like putting a bandaid on the problem. It's not a good long-term solution because it does not help you if you're outside in your yard during the summer playing with your children or what have you. People can't be expected to have their homes closed up all spring, summer and fall and never open the windows to let the breeze blow in, especially with the rising cost of electricity and the value of conserving our resources. How can you justify all the electricity • used to run central air units in 130 homes just in my neighborhood 150 days a year, year after year after year. • • • COMMENTS (page 2) I would like you to ask: If the buyout was implemented that if they could make it a speedy buyout because people's living is being affected by this. They want to fix their house up and keep it up, but why should they if they are waiting for a buyout? Affects television and phones. Wakes us up, etc. Windows and cupboards rattle. Items move and fall off shelves at times. We can't hear on telephone when planes fly over. There are times we cannot speak and be heard in a normal voice due to air traffic. Family members have not come to visit due to the noise. We can't sit outside in the summer when it is so hot in the house. No AC, so windows have to remain open. I see no point in insulating. The main impact of aircraft noise is that it prevents us from using our yard. This is a lovely, peaceful neighborhood except for the noise. Many of us do lots of walking and gardening (with our hands over our ears). If money is going to be spent, first priority should be buying out the elderly people who want to go, but can't afford anything comparable in a less noisy area. They bought their homes before they had any inkling that there would be a noise problem. The rest of us knew (at least partly) what we were getting into. Should have much lower assessed value on homes due to noise. My tax value is much too high. Nobody in right mind would pay assessed value with noise present. Our neighborhood is victim to excessive airport noise due to our being surrounded on all sides by commercial property. -This noise is sometimes so bad, one cannot hear one think. The planes are so close to my home, you can read the number on the plane itself. We are planning to sell our home in the future and will certainly have to overcome the noise factors to potential purchasers. Therefore, I feel we are at a loss not only on a daily basis, but also on a long-term financial basis. I would like them to purchase our home at a price we deem fair to the value. Insulating will only help the problem when you are inside. When you are outside playing with your children, the noise is so loud, you can't hear them laugh. What effect does this have on children's hearing? bet's get this resolved as soon as possible. This land is more valuable than the homes. Good location for airport parking lot. I bet it would be filled daily. Shuttle buses could go to airportand back for a small fee. This location is bad for homes. We are sitting in the middle of an industrial park and right under flight path. Couldn't get any worse. Leave the airport where it is. I have lived here for 39 years and I don't mind the planes. COMMENTS (page 3) • I get jet fuel scum on my picture windows the planes come so low over our house. Weare in line with the main runway and sometimes I vision an object falling off the plane right into the house. In summary, I would be in favor of supporting the buyout. I've owned the home since 1974 and believe it's long past due to accomplish this. We purchased this home in Sept. of 1072 and have lived with this nuisance since. We want to have our home insulated the'next year or two or ASAP. With windows closed there isn't too much problem. Then in this area if it isn't airplanes, it's trucks one after the other as you let the industry build all around us. Actually McKee area should be industry only. L • 0 CITY OF EAGAN PART 150 LAND VS73.PROGRAM RESIDENT QUES'Pi: WAIRE 1. How frequently are you bothered by aircraft noise? Never Monthly Weekly Daily r everal 'Times a Days ----------------- 2. How would you describe the aircraft noise impact at your home? Low Moderate Significant Revere 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 S. • What questions or concerns would you like to see addressed at a public meeting regarding this issue? 0 6. What is your address: 4 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 March 14, 1994 • Airport Relations Committee c/o John Hohenstein SUBJECT: Part 150 Land Use Program Thank you for allowing us to have input on the 0150 Land Use Program". To review our brief discussion on the evening of March 7, 1994,we are a very unique neighborhood involving five homes on Lawrence Avenue and Linda Lane surrounded by commercial buildings and open land. In the past 17 years that we have been residents on Lawrence Avenue, we have been approached trice with propositions to buy our home. In both cases these major corporations have backed out on their formal offers. We purchased our first home at 916 Lawrence Avenue in the spring of 1977 knowing that the property was zoned "planned development". In 1986, due to a growing need for a larger home and our love for the area, we sold our home at 916 Lawrence and bought our present home at 908 Lawrence. • Economics, closeness to employment, community service, and ail the other amenities made it very desirable to stay in the City of Eagan. Economics involved selling our home at a reduced rate because of the aircraft noise proximity. Since that time, we have not had any outside interests in purchasing our property and we have not pursued being bought out. We have settled in with a confident feeling that we can exist as a real neighborhood. I acknowledge that it is in the best interest of the City to someday turn these five pieces of residential real estate into a good commercial tax return. I believe that this will indeed happen sometime in the next 15 years. When this does happen, I believe it will happen by itself. Unlike the 'McKee Addition' this property will sell without any input by MAC. With the recent failure of the two motels and being surrounded by available open land, this section of real estate is climbing on the list of eligible commercial property. I believe that MAC should not spend 150 funds on land buyouts in.the Lawrence Avenue/Linde Lane neighborhood. I do believe, that we as homeowners, should be eligible for the sound insulation program. We have endured many years of aircraft noise and have yet grown immune. I believe the . majority of homeowners agree that noise insulation is the best form of relief that we can receive. Please discourage any type of buyout in the Lawrence Avenue/Linde Lane neighborhood a� • and please recommend that we be eligible for the Sound 150 Program. We have spent 17 years raising our family in this neighborhood and will continue to live here as long as we can. We understand your lottery system gives priority to those residents living in their homes prior to 1978. I have lived on Lawrence Avenue since 1977 except that I have lived in two different homes. Will I still be given priority, as are other pre -1978 residents? Please consider our request and contact us if you need more information. Thank you. Sincerely, _,J4hn & Mary Beth Neska 908 Lawrence Avenue Eagan, MN 55121 • • --_" j"� c�4 D Date: TO: March 21, 1994 FROM: NOTE Jon Hohenstein, Assistant to the city administrator Lanc taricha (of Airport Relations Committee) 3895 Newtown Court Eagan, Mn 55123-1552 Day: 296-1902 ext 136 mail) Night: 688-8817 (direct line with voice SUBJECT: Property Tax Treatment of Insulation "Improvements" I did locate a simple brochure prepared by the city of Mpls to explain the new (i.e. 1993 assessment) state law which defers the value added due to improvements for homestead real estate (copy enclosed). Also enclosed are the materials that the Department of Revenue sent to each county. The Department's 14 -pages of materials, plus application form, are not what I had in mind when I pictured a "brochure." Of even more importance, I think, is the fact that it's a total deferral only for houses 70 years old or older. For houses between 35 and 70 years old, the program only allows a deferral of 50% of the added -value. If the house is less than 35 years old, there is no potential for deferral. I realize that some of the houses in McKee may be $,k years old, but I still regret that my comments were misleading as to the generosity of this program. All in all, it may be best simply to encourage interested persons to have a discussion with someone from the assessor's office BEFORE they make up their mind, along the lines of what you have alreadydone, in the letter summarizing the neighborhood meeting. If you have any feedback for me on this, or further questions, please call (or look me at the next ARC meeting)! 0 • 0 aq THIS OLD HOUSE A TAX INCENTIVE FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF OLDER HOMES . �'``-• ADD DAj4 � d � EXPAND KIMHEN AN EXAMPLE Minneapolis homewAmers June and Bill Brown add an upstairs bath and expand the kitchen of their 78 -year-old bungalow. They contract the plumbing and electrical and do the rest of the work themselves. These improvements increase the market value of their home from S80,000 to $100,000. Before THIS OLD HOUSE, their an- nual property taxes would have increased from $1213 to $1765. With THIS OLD HOUSE, they are not taxed for ten years on the 520,000 increase in value. The exemption is then phased out over five years. At current tax rates, their savings over 15 years total S6,900. THIS OLD HOUSE is an incentive for homeowners to improve their older homes. Approved by the Minnesota Legislature in 1993, the lave excludes from property taxes up to 550,000 in increased estimated market value resulting from home improvements. THF OLD HOUSE guidelines: • The house must be owner occupied. Owner -occu- pied duplexes and triplexes are eligible. • Improvements must be made to the dwelling or garage. Landscaping and swimming pools are not eligible. Neither is normal upkeep including roofing and painting. • Building permits must be obtained, Improvements must have been made after Januan 1. 1993. • A home between 35 and 70 years old can obtain a property tax exclusion equal to half of the increase in value. The maximum exemption for a 35- to 70 -year- old house is $25,000. ♦ A home more than 70 1 -ears old can obtain an exclusion equal to the entire amount of the increase in value. The maximum is S50,000. • The entire exclusion is good for 101 ears, ur e home is sold, or until it is no longer ov+-ncr-oa It then phases out over the next five years. • Both sweat equity and contracted improvements are eligible. Owners can make improvements up to three different times over a 10 -bear period. • Minneapolis homeowners do not need to apply for the exemption. The owner's annual property tax statement will report the amount of the exclusion. • There are no income or propene value limits. Minneapolis homeowners can call the Ciq Assessor, 673-2387, for more information. Homeowners in other cities should call their local assessor. The Minneapolis Community Development Agency (MCDA) love -interest improvement loans. including a Middle -Income Housing Program that finances improvements equal to at least a third of a home's value and provides for a deferred loan of up to five percent of the mortgage. Call 673-MCDA. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS DR,, isc coL;7EPi Of F-1 L. • 28 Airport Noise Report Minneapolis -St Paul Int RICHFIELD CRITICIZES RDEIS ON RUNWAY EATENSION PROJECT The City of Richfield, MN, recently filed comments critical of a Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement on a project to extend a cross -wind runway at Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport to more equitably distribute aircraft noise. The purpose of the runway extension is to reduce the Iroise impact northwest of the airport, off the two main parallel runways. The Metropolitan Airports Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation contend that extending the 8,256 -foot cross -wind runway wig allow more aircraft to use it and facilitate the redistribution of noise. But, attorneys for the City of Richfield asserted that the airport has used "unrealistic and unsupported" assumptions about the extent to which the extended runway could be used in the fashion contemplated. The city claims that operational and airport design constraints would severely impair the capacity of the extended runway and that it would be used less than contemplated or its use would result in ground delays. The inflated capacity assumed in the DEIS undermined the environmental analysis and justification for the project, according to James Prosser, Richfield City Manager, and Steven Pflaum of the Chicago law firm McDermott, 8711 & Emery, which represents the city. They contend that, if the runway is used less than ex- pected, then the "true environmental consequences of the project would be vastly different from those projected" They also criticized the Revised DEIS for not directly addressing Richfield's criticisms of the original document, which were submitted in July 1992. At that point Richfield filed extensive comments asserting that the document failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, and that it violated the Airport and Airway Improvement Act, Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act The city also asserted that the RDEIS felled to include a sufficiently long-term analysis of the runway extension's noise impacts. The environmental document only looks at noise impact until the year 1996, but Prosser and Pflaum t noted that environmental impact statements for runway extensiors and new runways routinely include an analysis of noise impacts based on a 10•year or longer planning period. Even the DEIS for the project included an analysis until the year 2000. Without such a long-term noise analysis, there is no evidence to support the airport's conclusion that the project will have a long -tum benefit in terms of more equitably distributing noise impacts, they said. Looking at Doise impacts only until 1996 "obscures both the impacts and the efficacy of the project," they argued. "Perhaps this point is fest illustrated by the five-year, $22.5 million noise mitigation program described in the RDEIS. How can MAC and the FAA decide to spend that kind of money on mitigation without knowing what the noise environment will be like when the mitigation program is fully implemented? In other words, why spend millions of dollars mitigating noise impacts southwest of the airport if by the time the mitigation is completed in 1999, increased flight levels willhave sharply reduced the ability of the runway extension project to direct departures to the south- west?" They asserted the runway project "is an idea whose time has come — and goer," Doting that the price tag has tripled in the two years since the DEIS was released and is now estimated at $50 million. "If the project ever had merit, and that is doubtful, it is clearly ill-conceived now that existing and projected operational levels at MSP will preclude attainment of the projeces primary stated objective of facilitating increased departums on Runway 22." " The stubborn refusal of the RDEIS to consider in its environmental analyses the various stumbling blocks to the proposed use of Runway 22 for depamnes undermines the validity of the entire document. More fundamentally, that lack of candor obscures the folly of spending S50 million on a project that will never work as claimed. Rather than wasting public foods in that fashion, including more than $20 million on mitigation for an area that my not require .mitigation by the time the mitigation program is completed, it would be far more sensible and efficacious for MAC to use the entire $50 million to mitigate areas northwest of the airport." they said. Clear Answers Sought Prosser told ANR that Richfield wants to avoid litigation, if possible, but will move ahead if it must. He said the city has had a good working relationship with the airport, but disagrees with it on this project. "We don't know what the real impact of the project will be," he said, adding that it will vary in different parts of the city. He said the city would like clear answers on how much the cross -wind runway will be used and what the noise impact will be. Prosser also said the $22 million earmarked for noise mitigation in Richfield and neighboring Bloomingnm, which will be hit more severely by noise, is insufficient. Each city hes estimated noise mitigation coats at S50 million, be said Richfield wants noise mitigation that includes sound insulation, acquisition, and relocation of a The City of Richfield also contended that it has been denied a."meaningful opportunity" to comment on the revised DEIS because it was not given additional time to comment on the document or to interview key FAA Personnel or the consultants who helped prepare the DES. and because MAC failed to produce all the documents requested by the city. the failure of the FAA and MnDOT togrant an exten- sion reinforces the already prevalent impression that the runway extension is a 'done deal' and that the FAA and /) I Mrpon Noise Repon a y C C February 28, 1994 29 MnDOT merely view the NEPA process as a paper shuffle designed to document their prior decision to approve the protect,".Richfield said. The FAA and MAC's insistence that Richfield submit its comment on the Monday following the New Yea holiday weekend "appears arrogant at best and punitive at worst," the city said. ZhW Chicago Abport STATE TRANSIT OFFICIAL SAYS NEW AIRPORT NEEDED Rhnois Secretary of Transportation Kirk Brown told the Northeastern Illinois Planting Commission Feb. 17 that a third Chieago-am airport is needed despite the financial ups and downs of the airline industry. Brown and Ill. Gov. Jim Edgar support a new airport site in Peotoae, IL, located in the suburbs south of Chicago, however, that location is opposed by Chicago Mayor . Richard Daley. Daley pushed for a new airport at Lake Calumet on Chicago's South Side, but that plan, which would have involved a major environmental clean-up, fell through in 1992. Daley now contends that a new rtmway at O'Hare International Airport can handle the additional air traffic expected in the Chicago area No airline has yet voiced support for the proposed Sl.g billion Pamne site. Brown told the planning commissioners that he is hopeful that the airlines will eventually support the site, and said it will not be built without airline support. Brown noted that the airlines are beginning to recover from from the financial losses incurred between 1969 and 1992. 'Ihe Clinton Administration last December denied Gov. Edgar's request for $2 million grant to conduct planning studies for the Peotnne site. The administration, reneging on a Bush Administration pledge of the funding, said that greater regional consensus between the states of Illinois and Indiana and the City of Chicago was needed on the location of a new airport site before it would fund my planning studies. Local press reports note that Mayor Daley, a Democrat, may have persuaded the Clinton Administration to renege an the planning gran, and that Daley may be maneuvering to negotiate a Ileal in which he supports a new airport in exchange for state approval for floating casinos. In mid-January Gov. Edgar earmarked S2 million in state fonds to begin the planning study process for a new airport. The six-month study will examine six potential sites for the new airport and the option of building no new airport for the eco• An additional S4 million would be needed for the second phase of the planning study. Tbat funding is not expected to be a problem, ANR was toldd IN BRIEF ... EIS on EECP The FAA plans to issue its final Environmental impact Statement on revised air route changes made over New Jersey under its Expanded East Coast Plan by the third or fourth week in Mach. New Jersey communities want the FAA to revise the air routes to funnel more air traffic over the Atlantic Ocean to reduce noise over New Jersey communities. The plan would mean that aircraft departing New Jersey would pass over New York airspace, increasing congestion and limiting options for reducing existing noise problems over Queens and long island. Queens Borough President Clave Shulman led the New York congressional delegation in submitting a letter of protest to Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena over the plan. Fleet Mix Reports Feb. IS was the date by which airlines had to submit their annual reports in the FAA documenting their progress in converting their fleets to quieter Stage 3 aircraft The FAA is under no legal deadline for releasing its report on fleet compliance and as of Feb. -23 had not received all the airline data yet The agency would not speculate on when its report • would be released. Burbank Petition Denied A California appeals court Feb. 24 denied a petition filed by the Burbank -Glendale -Pasadena Airport Authority seeking an immediate stay of enforcement of a superior court judge's ruling finding the Environmental Impact Report on a new terminal project inadequate. The ruling bars the airport from taking any action to approve or implement the proposed project, including acquiring land and approving increases in airport operations that could lead to significant increases in air or water pollution. Richard Simon, of the Los Angeles law firm McDermott, Will & Emery, which represents the airport, said he was disappointed with the corm's action and felt that the lower cam ruling bad see a bad precedent in terms of process under California's Environmental Quality Act He said the airport plans to revise its Elk as requested by the court, and that should be done before its motion appealing the ruling is head. EA for Atlantic City Inn On Feb. 3, the FAA announced its intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment on various alternatives for development's the Atlantic City International Airport The South Jersey Transportation Authority will act as joint Iced • agency on the assessment Airport Noire Repon 1011-910140.50 O F-1 IOk--"-' l.) f rounds de tong s ' n• • where do following aircraft wait when taxiway Q is fun. • how do they interact with arrivals taxiing to the gate. 2.) Runway 22 & Taxiway O yro - • standard is 400 ft minimum between centerlines • project spacing is 199 R, must vacate taxiway to depart r/w 22 full length. 3.) Runway 22 nnid < a _de=Mre caaarh • project estimates up to 4S departures per hour may use mid -field r/w 22. • such estimates do not allow for departure bubbles ' project cites FAA Order authorizing 20 knot crosswind, 7 knot tailwind. • actual operations will be significantly less. S.) Runway 21 extension wilt create an additional Rpe ff&g ro n • landings on runways UL & HR, departures from mid -field runway 22.- • increased traffic, frequency of use, noise impacts, tracks, not evaluated • 6.) Mid-feW tak-egffs mustbe held for., • all 29L arrivals that decline to hold short. • all r/w 29L arrivals recrossing r/w 22 on taxiback to the gate. • all heavy jet arrivals on r/w 29L, & recrossing r/w 22 on taxiback to gate. • all r/w 29R operations if heavy jet is departing r/w 22 mid -field.. • all t/w E crossings must be held for departing jets from mid -field r/w 22. • all r/w 29R arrivals crossing r/w 22 midfield to gates on south side. 7.) HeaXj jet onera&ns encounter yrob ems dw to minium gpodag used in PzgkzL • t/w Q is restricted to 13757 & smaller, aircraft design group N.' • no room exists on t/ws for heavies to hold for mid -field r/w 22 departures. • assumption is made that only 23 heavies per day will need hill r/w 22. i -�- 1 V °}X 8.) No conmWry&n is Sjym to o=radanat com* % • project is unique in that itis predicated on restricting operations both behind and in front of the departing aircraft in a high volume environment. • "present airport capacity/acceptance rate will be Increased." • "arrival/departure delays will be reduced." • • "a reasonable savings in fuel consumption will result" Order 7110.3 3( I. TI. c•. CITY OF RICHFIELD'S ANALYSIS OF - .THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF RUNWAY 422 AT MI WMAPOLIS ST PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NATURE OF PROJECT Extend Runway 422 to the southwest by 2,750 feet. Construct queuing taxiway for departures on Runway 22. Provide sound insulation for homes. impacted by increased operations on Runway 22. • Utilize extended runway up to 8 hours per day with operational mode involving departures to the southwest on Runway 22 and arrivals to the west on Runways 29L & 29R, with arrivals on 29L holding short of (j,e„ not crossing) Runway 22- Departure.% on Runway 22 are to begin takeoff roll from release point southwest of intersection with Runway 11L -29R. Thus, departures from Runway 22 are to be independent of arrivals on Runways 29L & 29R. • Cost of project S50 million ASSERTED RATIONALE FOR PROJECT rhe: to shift noise from areas northwest of airport to areas southwweestt of airport Secondary gpMose: to provide a longer runway for long-haul intercontinental flights SUMMARY OF RICHFIELD'S FINDINGS 1. The extended runway will not operate in the fashion represented by project proponents. The following factors will combine to limit the use of the extended runway to a small fraction of the 8 hours per day claimed by proponents: Weather conditions alone will reduce use of the proposed mode of operations by approximately two-thirds. Winds permit departures . on Runway 22 when there are arrivals on Runways 29L & 29R only 27 to 35 percent of the time. Pilots will frequently not accept hold short restrictions for arrivals on Runway 29L The FAA estimates that, even without a tail wind and with dry and clear conditions,'fully 20 percent of all arrivals on Runway 29L will not accept the hold short restriction. Moreover, Northwest Airlines has advised MAC that they will not CJ accept hold short restrictions at night Arrivals that do not accept the hold short restriction will slow the rate of departures on • Runway 22, thereby reducing the capacity of the proposed mode of operations. The lower the capacity of that operational mode, the less frequently it can be utilized. • Departures by jumbo jets like the DC-10 and B-747 will totally disrupt the proposed mode of operations. Jumbo jets will begin their takeoff roll from the north end of Runway 22, rather than the mid -runway release point. Due to the proximity of the queuing taxiway to Runway 22, that taxiway will have to be vacated before the jumbo jets can depart This, in turn, will exacerbate the already severe congestion near the west end of the passenger terminal and delay the departures of other aircraft waiting to depart These consequences will further reduce the amount of time that the proposed operational mode can be utilized. • 2. The runway extension is intended to shift, not reduce, noise in areas near MSP. In truth, if the project works as represented it will increase the noise impacts near the airport The following information from the Revised Draft EIS reveals that the proposed extension would increase the total number of people exposed to noise levels in excess of 65 DNL (the level above which noise levels are considered incompatible with residential rue): tmber of = 7996 with Rory 3996 is fc :i:�:. Rw,F ::Residedts E:pgsed:'.::-:::.::...... ....... - - `3o Noise in Exces9 ;Ext., _....... Ettt. of 6S DNL-....,.. ............:... ........... ... ............ 113-70 Above 1.:70. Total 's Ab9V# 65 70 , Y �►bove 1;al :._::... .. DNL ... :`. '•:=c 1`.365 1D1VL"- DA1L i Dl\l, D1\Z Minneapolis 12,3901 4,300 16.690 14,3601 5,8901 20,250 Northern portion of 1,5601 760 i 2,320 1,6801 1,0501 2,730 Richfield 1 I I Southern Portion of 2,1301 7301 2,860 0: 01 0 Richfield Bloomington 491401 401 4,180 .01 01 0 Eagan 5301 301 560 5501 301 580 Mendota Heights 6601 1401 8001 7501 1401 890 TOTAL 21,4101 6,OOV27.4101 17,3401 7,1101 24,450 • Scientists have discovered a correlation between airport noise and the percentage of people who are highly annoyed .by the noise environment. The following table reveals that, if the proposed project works in the manner represented by project proponents, it will increase the number of highly annoyed people. 3. There is no reason to believe that the project will increase the level of long -ban) intercontinental operations from MSP. The noise analysis 40 contained in the Revised Draft MS assumes that there will be no more such flights with the extended runway than there would be without the extended runway. 4. Proponents of extending Runway 4-22 have acknowledged that the project is merely a short-term measure. The anticipated future increase in operations at MSP will reduce the amount of time that the proposed mode of operations can be utilized. The Original Draft EIS for the project stated: "The proposed extension of Runway 4.22 it conddered a short-term noire abatement improvement, which is needed immediately to provide some reduction of the aircraft noise In the most heavily impacted areas to the northwest of the airport, and to better distribute that noise.... As hourly operations increase at MSP, the number of hours Aunway 4-22 can be used per day decreases. Draft EIS at 20-21 (emphasis added). 3viJ1►�ER'OF -HIGIMYAN OYED -PEOPLE . ::. 1992 Ezishng vey ;., ..- 996 wJttr2 - :• 1996-VItbdut:R .. wy �XWSDIGT101`' �_.............. _ .._.._ Extea'sion ' ::Ezlerision Minneapolis 4990 3300 4091 N. Richfield 801 484 601 S. Richfield 146 558 0 Ft. Snelling 5 0 0 Bloomington 43 692 0 Mendota Heights 224 149 163 Eagan 111 96 99 TOTAL 63201 5279 1 4954 3. There is no reason to believe that the project will increase the level of long -ban) intercontinental operations from MSP. The noise analysis 40 contained in the Revised Draft MS assumes that there will be no more such flights with the extended runway than there would be without the extended runway. 4. Proponents of extending Runway 4-22 have acknowledged that the project is merely a short-term measure. The anticipated future increase in operations at MSP will reduce the amount of time that the proposed mode of operations can be utilized. The Original Draft EIS for the project stated: "The proposed extension of Runway 4.22 it conddered a short-term noire abatement improvement, which is needed immediately to provide some reduction of the aircraft noise In the most heavily impacted areas to the northwest of the airport, and to better distribute that noise.... As hourly operations increase at MSP, the number of hours Aunway 4-22 can be used per day decreases. Draft EIS at 20-21 (emphasis added). • IV, CONCLUSION The proposed extension of Runway 4.22 is a $50 million boondoggle that will not work in the manner claimed by its proponents. If it did work, it would simply increase the noise impacts associated with operations with MSP. Moreover, most of the purported benefits from this S50 million project would disappear as flight levels at MSP increased. Under these circumstances, the proposed runway extension should be abandoned now, before tens of millions of dollars in public funds are wasted on this ill-conceived project. %31806\010%P 11hl 8FV.003 • • -4- TAS USDOPOMToif Federal AvkWon Adn*ddruflon April 13, 1993 Mr. Bill Willkie BNTH 99 Canal Center Plaza Alexandria, VA 22314-1536 Dear Mr. Millkies a'L Airport Traffic Control Tower • 4311 34th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 The enclosed responses have been prepared to questions raised in the FAX received dated March 31, 1993. If you have any questions regarding these responses please contact Tom Petersen at (612) 725-4230. Sincere l .. dc. Air Traf: 8nclosures 3� 0 The following responses have been prepared to questions raised in the PAX of !larch 31, 1993, from BNTB regarding the Runway 22 EIS. • 1. The number of Runway 29LiR arrivals that would preclude use of the 165 degree heading is difficult to estimate. The use of the 165 degree heading off of Runway 22 and the interaction of arrivals on Runway 29LiR is not clear cut. The factors that Influence the use of the heading are not only the number of arrival aircraft but the direction from which the aircraft arrive. Aircraft from the NEINZ(south) and the SUNKR(west) arrival gates would have a such greater influence on use of the 165 degree heading than aircraft from the NICKL(east) or the DAYLE(northwest) arrival gates. If the majority of the arrivals were from the west or south, the number of inbounds that would stop the use of the 165 degree heading would be less than if the malority of inbounds were from the east or northwest. Since the 165 degree heading is not used today and has never been simulated by computer model it becomes extremely subiective to furnish hard and fast numbers of arrival aircraft that would stop the use of the heading. The best estimate that can be furnished due to the difficulty of the situation, since you require a specific number of arrivals for modeling purposes, is that up to 20 arrivals per hour could be accepted before stopping the use of the 165 degree heading. More than 20 arrivals per hour would require the use of 180 or 200 degree headings for aircraft that might have previously been assigned the 165 degree heading. 2. Land Runways llLiR depart Runway 22 Configuration. • Although this operating configuration may not be consistent with the goals of the RUS, there may be times when this scenario is used due to inclement weather conditions or unforeseen circumstances. The fact that the potential does exist to use this configuration, even though it may be a small percentage of the time, necessitates its evaluation in the BIS. 3. Runway 22 SID Issues, Departure Intervals. The Runway 22 SID has been tested but only by widely spaced aircraft that were used to obtain noise data. The SID has never been operated under actual working conditions to determine the exact amount of space needed between successive IRR departures to preclude the loss of IFR separation. Factors that would determine the interval between 2 successive departures would be differences in speed and climb characteristics as well as well as the final destination of the aircraft involved. Due to the single departure track dictated by the use of the Runway 22 SID, and the fact that the SID has never been operational make any accurate estimate difficult at best. The best estimate that can be furnished at this time would be at least a 6 mile interval would be required between successive departures using the SID. Page 2 4. RUS Mode Assumptions, Departure Levels for Land Rwy 22 Depart• 11's Configuration. The land Rwy 04 depart 21's configuration allows for the uniform dispersal of departure traffic due the location of the departure ,gates in relation to the position of the approach area for the Runway 04 final. The land Rwy 22 depart 11's configuration does not allow for the uniform dispersal of departures due to the Position of the Runway 22 final in relation to the departure gates. In the 22/11 configuration all traffic with the exception of the J106 GRB, DLL and ODI departures must make a right turn Off the airport to leave MSP airspace in the appropriate departure gates. The lower departure rate 10 a direct result of the complexity of the configuration for the departure controller. 5. RUS Mode Assumptions, Capacity of 04/11 Configuration for Alternative 1 ve Alternative 2. Alternative 1 which displaces the Runway 04 threshold 1550 feet from the proposed runway extension does yield a slight operational advantage over Alternative 2. Alternative l would 'add approximately 1200.feet to -Runway 04 southwest of Runway 11R. The additional length would make 3800 feet of runway available from the Runway 04 threshold to the hold short point of Runway 11R. This runway length would allow SOIR Groups 1 and 2 to land Runway 04 and hold short of Runway 11R. SOIR Group 1 includes • Short Takeoff and Landing Aircraft(STOL) and Group 2 Includes light twin engine and single engine aircraft. It was felt that these aircraft comprise such a small percentage of traffic at MSP that any increase of departure capacity as a result of the displaced threshold would be negligible. • ■ • at9untportolbn A*nk*ffpNm March 23, 1993 Mr. sill Willkie ANTS Alexandria, Virginia 22314-1538 Dear Nr. Willkie, Airport Traffic Control 6711 34th Avenue Bouth Ninneapolis, Minnesota Tower $5450 The following responses have been prepared as a result of the discussion and meeting of January 28, 1993, with NAC, ANTB, Minneapolis Airports District Office, and Minneapolis Air Traffic Control Tower. We have been advised by NWA that their pilots will not use SOI8 at night. This may change some of the Information provided. If you have any questions regarding these responses please contact Tom Petersen at 612-725-4230. Sincerely, ruee I. Wagoner Air Traffic Nana 2r Enclosures 31 Y / Threshold Alternatives Description ALTSRNATIVS 2 Issues 4. Air traffic controllers are currently required by FAA Order 7110.650, Air Traffic Control, paragraph 3-45 b, dated Oune 25, a 1992, to operate the Baquenced Flashing Lights of an Approach Lighting System at the Pilots request. eFlight Track Alternatives Description ALTSRNATIVS A Issues# n2. Minneapolis ATCT has, on numerous oeeaeione Commented on the use Of four departure headings for the dispersal o! aircraft of! Of Runway 22:(Bee enclosed Memorandum to the Minneapolis Airports District Office, dated May S, 1992.) The only a acceptable procedures for the dispersal of aircraft is a full fan, either from 165' degrees to 360' degrees (Alt ernative A) or from 200' Q he headingsgrees tfrom 0165Q0 dgdogreestthrough* h oughreen(Alernativego, dagrees will be of tlimited to Periods of light arrival traffic due the enclosed Memo. to the reasons stated in a If use of the 165' degree heading Is mandated, utilisation of the 29/22 arrival traic. Configuration workable scenauld be. rio doestexistiunnderf light ® Alternative A to remain on 29/22 for longer �• day(more hours) by replacing the 165' degree Periods of of e Runway 22 during Peak arrival periods with 100' or 200' degree headings. Use of this technique would lessen the impact on arrival traffic but would still allow the use of Runway 22 for departures. After the arrival volume diminished, departures ® would resume using the 165' degree heading. When a full fan is available under ALTBRNATIVS A and arrival onathec18 firatot a lix outside the MSF Airspace followinwouldhoodigeneraily bentubased a ds Departure Airspace Fix Existing Primary Proposed Primary Departure Beading Departure Beading Rochester( Mason city O'Neil(On Fargo(FAR) Grand Fork Brainerd(B Green Bay( palls(m) 3. The crosswind and tailwind Components for any runway are currently dictated by FAA Order 8400.90 National Safety and E 0 0 • Operational Criteria For Runway Use programs, .1knts�tw0dreeedt&nthan20oa9degrees and tlwid greater than 7 knots. • • V 2 dated November 9, cannot be greater Component Cannot be 4. s and R U89 7210.65 -and 7210.2 require that Simultaneouns are as s Operatollows,ions ns Orders Intersecting Runways (80IR) are conducted on Oryrrunwaysand there are no reports that braking action is less that good, conducted in VPR conditions and that there is no tailwind Component for aircraft instructed to hold short of an Intersecting runway, Pilot concurrence with the ATC clearance to hold short of a departurvarrival runway is needed in order to conduct any SpIR operation. A pilot's refusal to hold short of Runway 22 for departure traffic impacts the efficient use of the runway for departures, thus lowering the number of departure sloto available and Could result in a parallel operatio-I sooner than warranted by traffic volume. As an ex mple, it the pilot of an aircraft landing Runway 29L does not accept the clearance to hold short of Rwiway 22 for departing traffic, the controller Can of release the Runway 22. departure until the landing aircraft �1ther rolls through the Runway 22 intersection or turns off Runway 29L short Of Runway 22. Northwest Airlines has often refused to accept an SOiR operation at night. A$ a consequence, the loss of departure slots often resulte in a parallel operation sooner than the traffic demand dictates. Additionally, when utilising any cross runway operation not requiring an aircraft to land and hold short of a runway the visibility must be greater than one mile. ALTERNATIVE 8 Issues. 2. The primary departure heading issued to aircraft are listed In the table under ALTERNATIVE A Issues. OTImsR nzaHT TRACK ALTERNATIVE8 Issues. 1. A Copy of the Memorandum sent to the Minneapolis Airports District office is enclosed with this latter. 2. If Runway 22 is extended as proposed an additional operating configuration will become available at MSp. The extended runway would allow for landings on Runway i1LiR and departures oft of Runway 22 from the' proposed. Queuing Taxiway. In the land 11's depart 22 configuration there is an interdependency only between the Runway 22 and Runway 11R intersection. Departures from Hiway 22 would be required to roll through the Runway 11R Intersection between arrivals. A similar situation exists today when landing Runway 04 and departing Runway 11LiR. The land il's depart 22 scenario could be best utilised during peak arrival ® periods to maximise the use Of the parallels for landing aircraft. As the departure demand increases, a switch to a straight parallel operation or a combination of departures off Runway 22 and Runways llL/R would be used to accommodate departures off MBp. Departure headings o!! Of Runway 22 could Potentially extend from 220' degrees counterclockwise to 09e, adegrees. i. The operating scenario for landing Runways 29L/R and departing Runway 22 during periods Of high departure and low a . inbound demand for either ALTUNATIYH A or B would be a Combination of departing Runway 22 and departing Runway 29R and/or 29L simulteneously. This combination of runway use would not only expedite departures off MBP but 4190 has the potential benefit of lowering the number Of departures over Minneapolis. Once the departure demand has diminished, the use of Runway 29R and/or 29L for additional departure Capacity would not be needed and a true 29/22 configuration would be reinstituted. RUNWAY 22 BID Issues. I. A Departure BID off Runway 22 using a single departure track could bs used in either the Build or No -Build scenarios. 2, However, due to the capacity limiting nature of the single track, the BID would not be used if more than one aircraft was ready to depart. RUB Mode Assumptions No Build Runway Runway' "";j`"eh`yre Factor Driving to Parallel Ops. 22 29L/F— Arr-60 or Less Arr-7e or Less More than 80 Dep Dep -15 or Less Dep -30 or Less per Hour 11L/R 04 Ars-20 or Less Arr-le or Less Arr s20 or Dep -20 or Less Dep -40 or Lose Dep s40 1L/R 22 Ari -20 or Lose Dep -20 or Less Arr s2e er Dep ►20 3. • 40 EO 0 0 4 Alternatives 1A, 18 Takeoff Landing Arrival Departure Factor Driving to Runway Runway Push Push Parallel ops.• 22 BLUR Arr-60 or Less Arr-60 or Less More than 44 Dep . Dep -40 or Less Dep -40 or Less per Hour •• Arr-20 or Less Arc -10 or Less Arr s20 or Dep -20 or Lose Dep -40 or Less Dep 3-40 31 or --- - -- -- - Dep >20 or • NOTel Loss of em wind or runway contaminants would also require a parallel operation. •• NOM A combination of departing 29LiR and 22 would be used accommodate departure demand. Alternatives 2A, 28. Same as Alternatives 1A, 18 Above. Additionally 2 weeks of hourly traffic at MOP ie included with this response. MINNEAPOU8-SAINT PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT s L� ® v� NDW Rutmw Aftma*m LTCP CONFIGURATION O 7 STRUCTURES TO BE REMOVED/RELOCATED ON AIRPORT O 8 STRUCTURES TO BE REMOVED/RELOCATED SOUTH OF 1-4940 INCLUDING 4 HOTELS (SHERATONo E%B, REGISTRY & THUNDERBIRD) o MALL OF AMERICA PARKING GARAGE WITHIN STATE SAFETY ZONE A O CONSTRAINED ACCESS VIA 24TH AVENUE v EAST SHIFT CONFIGURATION • 8 STRICTURES TO BE REMOVED/RELOCATED ON AIRPORT • 10 STRUCI)RES TO BE REMOVED/RELOCATED SOUTH OF 1-494, INCLUDING 3 HOTELS (SHEIRATON. ExEL. & REGISTRY), AND I OFFICE BUILDING • IMPROVED APPROACH CLEARANCE OF 24TH AVENUE INTERCHANGE • ADDITIONAL ROOM FOR AIR FREIGHT REDEVELOPMENT • POTENTIAL FOR SLIGHT INCREASE IN RUNWAY LENGTH 0 ■• 19 w tar A Room" A - Ij ;•� �.. _ _ 88nn .88 8� 88 8� 881 , J I I I I I I I I I I I I r- ------------ --- --- — —..-/� Mwr� ri •r ! I M WV1 p - i 1 rr— -'---' -- -Lj.-MSP rnn m 2M Master Plan Update ® nom': Alternative E10 T.IMAm r 0 -0 oo oo on, I 0. -.6-0 IIMML-r�9 Master Plan Update Afternative Ell =4i r 7-7 J 0 0 L 17y- IIMML-r�9 Master Plan Update Afternative Ell IIW You 2M Ton" AM ownrom 0 0 0 MOLE Of CONTENTS AND Dakota Search Area and Conceptual Design layout................................................................Page 2 Schedulefor 1989 —1996.............................................................................................................Page 3 Agency and Public Involvement.................................................................................................Page 4 SiteIdentification.........................................................................................................................Page 5 Site Identification Criteria:.........................................:................................................................Page 6 ` Three Eastern Sites in Search Area.............................................................................................Page 7 V`\ Four Western Sites in Search Area.............................................................................................Page 8 SiteScreening................................................................................................................................Page 9 Site Selection and Criteria..........................................................................................................Page 10 SiteDescriptions.........................................................................................................................Page 11 Site2.............................................................................................................................................Page 12 Site3.............................................................................................................................................Page 13 Site6.............................................................................................................................................Page 14 Site3 Selected.............................................................................................................................Page 15 Appendix.....................................................................................................................................Page 16 A Dual Track. Airport Planning Process— designed to study the region's long-term aviation needs — was established by the Minnesota Legislature's "1989 Metropolitan Airport Planning Act." The process is being conducted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the Metropolitan Council. 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 is also being examined, along with other feasible alternatives as they are developed. MAC is responsible for site selection in the Search Area, preparing a comprehensive plan for an airport on the selected site, developing the MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan, and prepar- ing the federal and state environmental documen- tation. The Airport Planning Act also requires the MAC and Metropolitan Council to make a recommendation to the Legislature in 1996 on which approach should be taken for future airport development. DMOR SEARCH AREA AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN LAYOUT DAKOTA SEARCH AREA COPIDEPTUAL AIRPORTLAYOUT -_' + i OR E j I 1 I CfiGROVE �• Wr OROVE ., -•- onmu e. "Z YRN I � . �• I I: ORENOYNT ' ••� r'en m+• 8.0 e 1 1 Twd� E V T I fr`;17CI Nlnln ynr .i y^9'. r. WTEB I � � I' MTINOO - �•`� . -;F'- - ------ - 1------ ----i r--i--� •r I `\ Vu In I I I1 eni w•m i Ri vonna .I M. r.N n I t EmPlre 1 �LN(E LLE i FMMIN S� r @) I I 1 1 A A mm A}/ arw^ .. �! I NMIPTON � I �• 1 v' i I NEW IE9V0.1.� j W .Ian I p, ISI Cnv Ile Root I TRIE r er Isk L E - I U V I L__i I 1 i (1 In December 1991, the Metropolitan Council designated the Dakota Search Area in Dakota County for the planning and development of a new major airport. The Dakota Search Area measures 17 miles east to west and eight miles north to south and encompasses about 115 square miles or 74,600 acres. The new airport conceptual design layout, developed by MAC, was used in the site selection process in the Dakota Search Area. Y 0 9 40 0 splMuf Poi 1889 -1816 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Search Area Study Site Selection New Airport Comprehensive Plan Federal/State Environmental Documents Community/Economic Studies MSP LTCP MSP LTCP Update Decision Document Public/Agency Coordination Dual Track Planning Process MAC has developed this schedule, consisting of eight major elements, in order to meet the requirements set forth by the "1989 Metropolitan Airport Planning Act." The Act requires the MAC and Metropolitan Council to make a recommendation to the Minnesota Legislature in 1996 on which approach should be taken for future airport development. AGENCY ANI PUBLIC 1NI NEMENT Throughout the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, there has been a major emphasis on public and agency involvement before, during, and after the completion of key study components. Affected local, state and federal agencies have been contacted to determine the type and location of resources within their jurisdiction and in the new airport search area, and to identify potential issues and concerns. In addition to these agencies, the following groupslcommittees were involved in the site selec- tion process: • State Advisory Council. The Minnesota legislature established the Council to provide a forum for education and discussion on metropolitan airport planning. The Council reviews and advises the legislature on the Dual Track planning activities of the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Metropolitan Council. Council members include House and Senate legislators, federal, state and metropolitan agencies, representatives of the aviation industry and members of the public residing within and outside the metropolitan area. • Contingency Planning Committee. This group monitors trends in technology, travel habits and the economy and makes an annual assessment of any changes or modifications that may be necessary for the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. The group is 0 comprised of Metropolitan Council and MAC members, local officials and business representa- tives. • Site Selection Technical Advisory Committee. This committee reviewed technical studies and documents, and provided input into the studies. Membership included representatives of affected state/federal transportation, planning and environmental agencies, local government staff and aviation industry representatives. • Site Selection Task Force. The Task Force provided policy guidance and advised the MAC on policy issues during the new airport stud- ies. The broad-based group included community officials from the Dakota Search Area vicinity, along with representatives from the metropolitan area, the business community, current airport users, MAC, Metropolitan Council and Minnesota Department of Transportation. A public involvement program provided early and continuing opportunities for the public to be informed and to review and comment on the technical and environmental studies prior to deci- sions and selection of preferred alternatives. This program included public information meetings, public hearings, news conferences and news releas- es, informational brochures and newsletters. The public had opportunities throughout the process to comment both informally and for - 4 0 mally. In addition, meetings of the Technical Advisory Committee and Tack Force, as well as Commission meetings, were open to the public. Formal input was solicited at public hearings. Interested persons received copies of published reports and documents upon request. ,71-1 r: 117111-1 i As part of the Dual Track environmental review process, which was approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, environ- mental documents were prepared for the site selec- tion work. This work complemented the technical analysis, and is being co-sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration and MAC. The environmental documentation associat- ed with the Site Selection Study provided a record of community and agency participation in the process. While the environmental documentation was separate from technical reports on the Site Selection study, the work and timing of tasks on the two processes were necessarily intertwined. A document, entitled "Environmental Review Procedures" for the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, was published by MAC in March 1993. This booklet details the environ- mental procedures and is available to the public by calling the MAC. 40 Inx • .• SITE STUDY APPROACH The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) began the new airport site selection study in January 1992. This work was initiated after the Metropolitan Council designated the Dakota Search Area as the general area within which a potential new airport would he located. The Dakota Search'Area is 115 square miles in size. It includes the cities of Coates and Vermillion, and Empire and Vermillion Town- ships, as well as Parts of the city of Rosemount, Nininger and Marshan Townships. SITE IDENTIFICATION The first phase of the process included iden- tification of all possible locations for the new air- port within the Dakota Search Area. This phase began in January 1992. The MAC, working with its Site Selection Technical Advisory Committee and Site Selection Task Force, developed six site identification criteria to identify potential sites, as follows: • Airport runways, taxiways and other facili- ties must he contained within the Search Area. It was also assumed that Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Runway Protection Zones and land within the FAA Building Restriction Lines should also be contained within the Search Area, because the FAA requires these areas to be airport property. State Safety Zones may extend To select a site in the Search Area, a three—step approach was developed by the MAC, as follows: 1) Site Identification — to identify all possi- ble locations for a new airport based on a limited number of general criteria. 2). Site Screening — to reduce the number of potential sites to the three or four best sites using a set of detailed criteria to assess physical character- istics, operational efficiency, community/social beyond the Search Area boundary. • Stare Safety Zones A and B and the LDN 65 noise contour may not impact urbanized areas or population centers outside the Search Area. • The runway layout must maintain the full operational capability of the Conceptual Layout design. • No site would be considered which places airport facilities in areas of extensive wetlands. • No site may be considered which would result in major ground facilities located in flood - ways. • Physical features not compatible with low altitude aircraft overflight must be avoided (specif- ically avoiding overflights of the Pine Bend Refinery). impacts, environmental impacts, and development costs. 3) Site Selection — to analyze the final candi- date sites and recommend a "preferred" site. Analysis during this final phase included the fac- tors addressed during site screening at a more comprehensive level, and additional factors that were required to distinguish among the sites and to meet Alternative Environmental Document (AED) requirements. During the site identification phase, a potential site included a specific land area within a site boundary and a specific runway configuration. A conceptual airport layout, which was developed and adopted by the MAC in the New Airport Conceptual Design Study in 1990, was used in the identification process. In June 1992, a number of potential sites were identified by the Site Selection Technical Advisory Committee. After eliminating duplicate and/or overlapping sites, seven potential sites.were identified. Three sites were east of the Vermillion River, southwest of Hastings. Four sites were west of the Vermillion River, near the center of the Search Area. SM CRITERIA F z-A JKKI 'j t i I . AMPTON r ho a -Ir a h a- -n— WETLANDS PINE BEND ARC FLOODWAY (Runway within this arc may not point directly to the Koch Refinery.) $EM�UNT Ippi jt�o� P ON ..... U.S.P. . VE C 55 N I n I IPOATES Yr TA till"'V e r rn l l I o.n C7 E n p I F z-A JKKI 'j t i I . AMPTON r ho a -Ir a h a- -n— CA SM 39E t s AND DESCRIPTIONS - • East of the Vermillion River, south of Hastings. • East -west primary runway orientation. SM 3 SITE t SITES • East of the Vermillion River, south of Hastings. • Northwest -southeast primary runway orientation. I �:� _... - • East of the Vermillion River, south of Hastings. • Northwest -southeast primary runway orientation. • East of the Vermillion River, along Search Area southern edge. • Northwest—southeast primary runway orientation. • �:� _... - • East of the Vermillion River, along Search Area southern edge. • Northwest—southeast primary runway orientation. • �%1 SITE SIZE 4 AND • West of the Vermillion River, near center of Search Area. 00 • Northwest—southeast primary runway orientation SITE 6 • West of the Vermillion River, south of Pine Bend. • North—south primary runway orientation. 10 - M=NsnFs SITE 5 71 • 4. I.f . _ q . I. I • West of the Vermillion River, near center of Search Area. 00 • Northwest—southeast primary runway orientation SITE 6 • West of the Vermillion River, south of Pine Bend. • North—south primary runway orientation. 10 - M=NsnFs SITE 5 • West of the Vermillion River, south of Pine Bend. • Northwest—southeast primary runway orientation. SRE 7 • West of the Vermillion River, south of Pine Bend. • Northwest—southeast primary runway orientation. 8 s 0 • 4. I.f . _ � II—_ Iii_ , .l M,�ni T• - � �. II_ • West of the Vermillion River, south of Pine Bend. • Northwest—southeast primary runway orientation. SRE 7 • West of the Vermillion River, south of Pine Bend. • Northwest—southeast primary runway orientation. 8 s 0 0 SITE SCREENING The site screening process began in the fall of 1992 and included extensive input from the Site Selection Technical Advisory Committee and the Site Selection Task Force. Each of the seven poten- tial sites for a new airport was examined using 56 criteria within.the following broad categories: SFE 1 • Good site expandability • Virtually no wetland impacts • Relatively low site preparation costs • Greatest potential impact on Hastings • Likely displacement of Vermillion • Less than optimal runway orientation u • Good operational characteristics • Does not displace Vermillion or Coates • Minimal natural environmental impacts • Few siting constraints • Longer access time than for western sites • Potential impacts on Hastings SFE 3 • Good operational characteristics • Does not displace Vermillion or Coates • Minimal natural environmental impacts • Airport characteristics • Community/social impacts • Other environmental impacts • Differential site preparation costs As a result of the screening process, two eastern sites (Sites 2 and 3) and one western site • Longer access time than for western sites • Least impacts on Hastings of eastern sites SITE 4 • Displaces Vermillion and Coates • Highest site preparation costs • Proximity to encroaching urban development • Only fair runway expandability • Highest potential bird strike hazard SFE 5 • Shorter access time than for eastern sites • No impact on "very highly sensitive" aquifer areas • Displaces Coates and likely Vermillion • Significant potential off-site noise impact • Constrained by Pine Bend Refinery and Vermillion River • Highest population in State Sifety Zones 0 (Site 6) were recommended to the MAC by the Technical Advisory Committee and the Task Force. The MAC adopted Sites 2, 3 and 6 in February 1993 for the final step of the site selection process. SFE 6 • Lowest travel time from metro area • Fewest off-site noise impacts • Lowest population in State Safety Zones • Displaces Coates • Higher wetland impacts than eastern sites • Two landfills and three contaminated waste sites within site boundary • Site constrained by Pine Bend Refinery SFE 1 • Shorter access time than for eastern sites • No impact on "very highly sensitive" aquifer areas • Displaces Coates and likely Vermillion • Greatest potential off-site noise impacts • Most significant noise impacts on public parks • Highest wetland impacts • Site expandability complicated; by Vermillion River floodway 6- G) SM SELECTION The final phase of the site selection process ria in the overall site selection process, including involved a detailed evaluation of Site 2, Site 3 and specific factors to measure the operational, Site 6. environmental, geographic, economic and cost This evaluation had the most extensive crite- aspects of the alternatives. SM SELECTION CRITERIA The purpose of the site selection criteria was to help choose the "best" site and to meet environ- mental analysis requirements. These criteria were developed during the site screening process, and were supplemented by additional criteria and detail to meet the documentation requirements of the site selection phase. Y5Ii y 7.IV; ,r 11th • Operational Efficiency • Airspace Interaction • Site Expandability • Site Accessibility ,'7 lllllllll <'a:r; l IIIii IMf' • Displaced Communities/People • land Use Plans • Community Services/Infrastructure • Noise Impacts • State Safety Zones A and B • Total Population Impacts Summary • Historic/Archaeological Resources • Farm and Non—Farre Businesses • Farmland • Public Parks/Recreation land �0 • Some refinements were made to each site at the beginning of the site selection phase to mini- mize impacts. Other minor adjustments were made during the site selection analysis. NWBMMMMNMU • Wild and Scenic Rivers • Wetlands • Waste Disposal Sites • Water Quality • Air Quality • Bird Strike Issues • Endangered/Threatened and Special Concern Species • Energy Supply and Natural Resources • Floodplain Illllhi% llr;l I II;{I,IUiilll 11 hi::J f. 0 SITE Two eastern sites (Sites 2 and 3) and one western site (Site 6) were selected for detailed analysis in order to identify a preferred site for a potential new air- port. Descriptions of the three sites appear on this page, followed by illustrations of each site on the next three pages. Site 2 is located east of the Vermillion River in the eastern third of the Search Area. The termi- nal area is centered about 4 miles southwest of Hastings and 3 miles east of the City of Vermillion. Site 2 is generally bordered by the Vermillion River to the northwest, Route 316 to the northeast, U.S. 61 to the southeast, 220th St. to the south, and Goodwin Ave. to the west. The four main parallel runways are oriented in a northwest -southeast direction. The crosswind runways are perpendicular to the main runways, with one runway on the east and one on the west side of the main runways. Two refinements to the site were made dur- ing the early phase of the site selection process. First, the site was rotated approximately 10 degrees clockwise from its initial site screening alignment to reduce noise impacts in Hastings and Prescott, Wisconsin. Also, the eastern parallel runway nearest the teminal area was shifted to the southeast.to move it off the Vermillion River flo odway. Site 3 is also located east of Vermillion River within the eastern third of the Search Area. The terminal area is centered about 5 miles southwest of Hastings and 3 miles east of the City of Vermillion. Site 3 is generally bounded by the Vermillion River to the northwest, U.S. 61 to the east, 220th St. to the south, and Goodwin Ave. to the west. The four main parallel runways are oriented in a north.northwesterly-south southeasterly direction. The two crosswind runways are in the northeast and southwest quadrants of the site, opposite to the crosswind runways in Site 2. Three refinements were made to Site 3 at the outset of the site selection process. First, the entire site was shifted approximately 1,000 feet southeast relative to its initial site screening position to reduce impacts on the Vermillion River and Hastings. Next, the crosswind runways were rotated 10 degrees toward the main parallel run- ways. This enables aircraft using the northeast crosswind runway to stay farther south of Hastings and Prescott, Wisconsin. Third, the longest run- way was moved to the farther west position to eliminate its crossing the Vermillion River. 11 Site 6 Site 6 is located northwest of the Vermillion River in the central third of the Search Area, about 6 miles west of Sites 2 and 3. The teminal area is centered about 9 miles west of Hastings and 3 miles northwest of the City of Vermillion. Site 6 is bordered by Rt. 42 to the north, Goodwin Ave. to the east, the Vermillioti River to the south and University of Minnesota property to the west. The four main parallel runways are oriented in a north -south direction. The western crosswind runway is perpendicular to the main runways and centered on the University of Minnesota property. The eastern crosswind is also perpendicular to the main runways and located in the southeast quad- rant of the site, approximately l mile north of the City of Vermillion. Three refinements were made to Site 6 as the final phase of site selection began. The first two changes included a shift in the entire site approxi- mately 1,500 feet south, and a slight rotation of the site from its initial site screening position. These refinements moved the runways farther away from the Koch Refinery at Pine Bend. The last refinement moved the longest runway to the Far west parallel runway position. This resulted in better clearance of the refinery's tall stacks and also eliminated any runway crossings of the Vermillion River. /C T SITE 2 - Stale Safety Zones and Terminal Building and Runways Runway Protection Zones Airport Boundary s PPi Ri"I � I SEM UNT._-l rst z °•... nlrr�lu f� UN/V 4,4f I` _J EI r e 0 �Q z NM 56 COATES 4ini_hg_ 12 10 0 0 316 P �, Vermil ion % a '•8ha Ma •� n,' -- — - — Jill 47 '1♦' � 2 0Th S�E P% i AMPTON 12 10 0 0 SM 3 State Safety Zones and Terminal Building and Runways Runway Protection Zones Airport Boundary 13 1— SEM UNT �• ippi MIAT �C_- 1 r•',NfSr a REfIM w U.S.PA \ � �NOPi TE C. NJi ❑ °. 21 sc Nini ger 52 COATES Q A TIN ' UN/VCRS/ of / NC50TA n e7 _ 316 O "'� d�yW V e r m l l i o n-- o E p I r e J 7 as P N' - - EFt AMP TON - —� 13 SITE 6 State Safety Zones and Terminal Building and Runways Runway Protection Zones Airport Boundary 14 �. EMUN �JI yS�T .!_ I s= "o. A C'I---=--tN--- !PINI B D I I •'�O- ,,! z 56 ---N ''`i0A ES I n I_{e_r �-9- TIN A Ira ei_ 'm I 1 , 10 n - - ._ M a r s h it n a ,n u 074 6 -. -('–�-- --- s21 I — a oP 2 iTn St _E `ion•�� I];AMP'TON: I - --1- - — ------I---.. 14 CA, 9 SITE 3 SELECTED The analysis of Sites 2, 3; and 6 indicated that the two eastern sites (Sites 2 and 3) offered the best opportunities for airport development while producing the fewest impacts on surrounding communities. Since Sites 2 and 3 occupy approximately the same piece of land, they have similar impacts. In 27 of the 67 site selection criteria, both sites have identical impacts, and for most of the remain- ing criteria, the differences were considered to be negligible. One principal difference is that Site 3 offered greater expansion flexibility for the City of Hastings to the west and south, as well as more airport development flexibility to the north and east. The second principal difference is that with Site 3, Hastings would be located north of the major flight corridors to and from the new airport With Site 2, however, Hastings would he situated between two heavily used aircraft flight corridors to the south and north. The western site (Site 6) had some draw- backscomparedto the two eastern sites. First, the proximity of Site 6 to the Koch Refinery would 9 result in potential adverse visibility impacts for aircraft. Second, future airport expansion would be constrained by the refinery to the north, wet- lands to the west, and the Vermillion River to the east. Expansion of the refinery would also be restricted by the airport if it were in this location. Third, Site 6 would displace the City of Coates, and would he the closest site to the encroaching suburban development to the west. Finally, South St. Paul Airport would have to close and operations at the Downtown St. Paul Airport and the new airport would be dependent on each other during bad weather, which would limit capacity at both airports. The primary asset of Site 6 is that it had the shortest ground access time from the centers of the metropolitan area. The Site Selection Task Force recommended Site 3 at a meeting on July 28, 1993. Following public review and comment, Site 3 was selected as the preferred site.by the Metropolitan Airports Commission on Jan. 27, 1994. 15 0 Nest Steps With the selection of a preferred new airport site, work will begin on developing a New Airport Comprehensive Plan. The plan will determine the size, location, phasing, and initial design of run- ways and taxiways, passenger terminals, ground access and parking, air. cargo, general aviation, support facilities and utilities. A series of alternative airport development concepts will be evaluated. The final plan will be similar in scope and detail to the Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Long Term Comprehensive Plan in order to compare the two. The New Airport Comprehensive Plan will be completed in early 1995, In addition, a New Airport Alternative Environmental Document will be prepared, which will detail environmental impacts. Scoping for the environmental process begins in February 1994. APPENDIX CMMIS Lon Richard Braun, Chair Mark Brataas, Vice Chair Steve Cramer Laurel Erickson Edward Fiore Alton Gasper John Himle Darcy Hiresman Daniel Johnson Nick Mancini Thomas Merickel Louis Miller, Jr. Patrick O'Neill Paul Rehkamp Georgiann Stenerson For further information on the Metropolitan Airport Commitrion or to re?zwt copier of bnxhurv, room or rnrutlaten, place call Jenn Unruh at 7264189. 40 Commissioner Tommy Merickel, Chair Commissioner Alton J. Gasper, Vice -Chair Richard Beens John F. Bergford, Jr. Scott Bunin Colonel Larry Burda Joseph M. Finley Kathleen Gaylord Edward G. Gutzmann Joe Harris Lawrence McCabe E. Craig Morris Thomas Novak Gloria Pinke Tom Rhei neck Ray Rought Stephen P. Tatum, Sr./Kevin Molloy Richard Theisen Ray Waldron John D. Williams Wendy Wiberg Wattenberg P'Ill:!'dl_hiliil !H Illllrl ; itlr.iiu =7111lll Metropolitan Airports Commission Metropolitan Council FAA Air Traffic Control Tower — MSP FAA En -Route Control Center — Farmington FAA Airports District Office Minnesota Dept. of Transportation — Ofice of Aeronautics Minnesota Dept. of Agriculture University of Minnesota Dakota County City of Eagan City of Burnsville City of Apple Valley City of Rosemount City of Farmington City of Hastings City of Inver Grove Heights City of Lakeville City of Vermillion City of Cottage Grove City of Coates Washington County Goodhue County Empire Township Vermillion Township Marshan Township Ravenna Township Hampton Township Eureka Township Douglas Township Cattle Rock Township Northwest Airlines Air Transport Association Mesaba Airlines UPS Minnesota Air National Guard US Air Force Reserve Minnesota Business Aircraft Association Airline Pilots Association Aircraft Owners Pilots Association Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources Minnesota State Historical Preservation Office Minnesota Environmental Quality Board US Fish & Wildlife Service US Environmental Protection Agency US Army Corfu of Engineers Minnesota -Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission 40 • E FEBRUARY 1994 OPERATIONS AND COMPLAINT SUMMARY Table 1: OPERATIONS SUMMARY - ALL AIRCRAFT Runway Arrival . % Uae Departure %' Um 04 230 15% 82 0.6% 22 •59 0.4% 561 3.8% 11 6080 405% 6670 45.9% 29 8654 57.6% 7242 49.7% Table 2: MSP FEBRUARY FLEET MIX PERCENTAGE Stage - Table 3: AIRPORT FEBRUARY COMPLAINT SUMMARY Airport Scheduled UW ANOMS MSP `1993 1994 Cann L"4 Surge 2 615% 615% 61.1% Stege 3 385% 385% 38.9% Table 3: AIRPORT FEBRUARY COMPLAINT SUMMARY Airport 1993 1994 MSP 734 498 Airlake 4 0 Ark*n 0 0 Crystal 0 1 Flying Cloud 4 5 Lake Elmo 0 0 St. Paul 8 3 h isc. 6 1 •... TOTAL 736 .. Si0 Table 4: FEBRUARY OPERATIONS SUMMARY - AIRPORT DIRECTOR'S OFFICE t 1993 1994 . AIR CARPM 687 703 MbSO R 214 306 GA 141 129 MUZARY 9 7 AIR FRIEG917 47 42 CHARTER 23 31 TOTAL 1121 1218 t MSP FEBRUARY 1994 COMPLAINT SUMMARY MSP COMPLAINTS BY CITY CITY ARMAL DEPARTURE TOTAL PERCENT Arden Hills 3 8 11 22% Blooctington 0 5 5 1.0% Burnsville 0 7 7 IA% Carver 0 1 1 02% Eagan 26 75 101 20.3% Edina 0 6 6 12% Inver Grove Heights 4 68 72 145% Mendota 2 1 1 02% Mendota Heights 5 IS 20 4.0% Minneapolis 102 100 202 40.6% Minnetonka 1 0 1 02% Oakdale 0 1 1 02% Plymouth 1 0 1 02% Richfield 9 18 27 5.4% Shoreview 0 2 2 0.4% St. Anthony Village 0 2 2 0.4% St. Paul 9 26 35 1 7.0% West St. Paul 0 3 3 0.6% TWAL `168 338 :.: 498 300.0% TIME OF DAY NATURE OF COMPLAINT TJME TOTALNATURE OH► TOTAL - COMPLANT . 00:00 - 05:59 40 Excessive Noise 397 06:00.06:59 26 Euiy&m 50 07:00- 11:59 134 Low Flying 9 12.00- 15:59 46 Structural Diswrbaoce 1 16.00-19.59 84 Helicopter 1 20:00.21:59 99 Ground Noise 15 22-00- 22:59 49 Engine Rum -up 0 23:0}0y--23:59 Fmqueo*cy �20y �25 y • • 0 s• February Runway se Report - All Operations -.o 0! 7-� \nl AN I-494 ' 29L Runway Use T FAM I-494 - All 3 Ea Percent of =`Operations 29L 0 0 Metropolitan Airports Commission Friday, March 18, 1994 Jet Carrier Operations By Type Febmary,19% Ai craft Type cmw Percentage 8747 153 0.8 B74F 49 03 DC10 879 4.7 MD11 8 0.0 L1011 108 0.6 DC87 31 02 B727H 152 0.8 B757 1477 7.9 EA32 2117 11.3 B733 614 33 FK10 592 3.1 MD80 961 5.1 MD88 3 0.0 MD88 150 0.8 DC8 94 OS DC86 2 0.0 DC8S 101 OS B707 2 0.0 B727 3423 18.3 DC9 7287 38.9 8737 314 1.7 B73S 175 0.9 FK28 47 03 Total 18,734 19D% >: 38.9 % Stage 3 61.1 % Stage 2 � Mro 91 St. Pant 1 ►` �J 2 • O • 11 9 4 • 3. 0 10 O S 6 • .12 7• khReld 23 20 . 18 /y'f "4 D 17 19 16 •14 _--1IJ B C7 Ilie pple dW rnBusviller0000 rrey Mendota 1 ' 13 d ' 21 Rasenonl 40 9 0 Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport 2 Airport Noise Monitoring System Locations Site City Approximate Street Location 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 42nd Street 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 3 Minneapolis W. Elmwood Street & Wentworth Avenue 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave & 641h Street 8 Minneapolis • Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 9 St. Paul Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street U St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 12 SL Paul Alton Avenue & Rockwood Avenue 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 14 Eagan Vwst Street & McKee Sheet IS Mendota Heights William Court & Thresm Street 16 Eagan Avalon Avenue & Vitas Lane 17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 83rd Street 20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 21 Inver Grove Heights Bar bare Avenue & 67th Sheet 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 23 Mendota Heights End or Kenodon Avenue 24 Eagan Chapel lane & Random Road Metropolitan Airports Commission Jet Departure Related Noise Events For February, 1994 • Count Of Events For Each RMT RM77D City ... Approximate Street Location Eveats AM Events AM Events >900 Events X1000 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 42nd St. 448 34 0 0 2 M innewlis Fremont Ave. & 43rd Sc 411 45 0 0 3 Minneapolis W. Elmwood St. & Wentworth Ave. 1090 87 4 1 4 Minneapolis Oakland Ave. & 49th St. 1297 206 21 4 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 2967 %9 285 23 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 3010 1156 597 114 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave & 64th St. 2055 319 45 2 8 Minneapolis Lmgfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 1008 134 8 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hanford Ave. 49 3 0 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 1131 18 7 1 11 St. Pend Finn St & Schaffer Ave. 233 5 0 0 12 St. Paul Alton Ave. & Rockwood Ave. 610 9 2 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Cart 1475 174 2 0 14 Eagan First St. & McKee St. 1438 185 12 0 15 Mendota Heights William Cant & Thresee St 1770 271 13 0 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Ytlas Lme 2308 642 142 5 17 Bloomington 84th Sc & 4th Ave. 334 23 3 0 18 Richfield 75th St & 17th Ave. 1153 159 59 3 19 Bloomingmn 16th Ave. & 83rd St. 340 85 24 1 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 427 15 1 0 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 697 60 2 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 965 65 0 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kemdm Ave. 2389 765 300 19 24 Fagan Chapel Lane & Rand® Road 1824 1 171 2 0 • Friday, March 18, 1994 �) Metropolitan Airports Commission 0 Jet Arrival Related Noise Events For February, 1994 • Count Of Events For Each RMT RMTID Ctey Appamdmme Street Lonttoo Events a65dH :- ; Events ::;a80dB ..Events >90tUi Events >1050 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 42nd St. 2190 22 0 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 1623 82 1 0 3 Minneapolis W. Elmwood St. & Wentworth Ave. 2043 719 25 0 4 Minneapolis Oakland Ave. & 4% St_ 1886 409 3 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 2754 1494 161 0 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 2722 1560 236 3 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave & 64th St. 460 1 0 0 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 713 17 0 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 39 15 1 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin SL 535 25 4 -0 11 St. Paul Finn SL & Schaffer Ave. 193 0 0 0 12 St. Paul Alton Ave. & Rockwood Ave. 422 0 0 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 292 3 0 0 14 Eagan First St. & McKee SL 1912 24 0 0 15 Mendota Heights William Court & TLresee SL 716 12 0 0 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & V lass Lane 3389 1168 3 0 17 Bloomington 84th SL & 4th Ave. 190 50 0 0 18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 577 51 0 0 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & g3rd SL 48 1 0 0 20 Richfield 75th SL & 3rd Ave. 188 0 0 0 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St 64 0 0 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 1141 2 0 0 23 Mendota Blights Fed of Keandon Ave. 1687 48 0 0 24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Random Road 2720 26 1 0 0 Friday, March 18, 1994 J Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events 0 RMT #13: Southwest End Of Mohican Court (Mendota Heights) DATEMS AMCRAFr TYPE MA?QEVEL ARR/DEP 02/16)94 8:11:27 B727 92.8 D 02/1619418:17:55 8727 91A D 02/19/94 6:43:36 B727 88.9 D MON 12:18:28 B727 88.7 D 02/119419:32:22 DC9 88.4 D 02/18/94 16:08:01 B737 88.0 D 0282194 6:13:16 B727 87.3 D 02/17/94 9:55:28 B727 87.3 D 02(27)9415:09:59 DC9 87.2 D 02(27/9412:13:57 B727 86.7 D RMT #14: 1st St. & McKee St. (Eagan) DATEr014E AIRCRAFT TYPE MAXLFVFZ ARR/DEP 02/19)94 7:24:39 B727 98.3 D 02/19/94 7:04:35 B727 94.8 D 02/11)9414:09:30 B727 94.6 D 02/18)94 6:08:25 B727 94.6 D 02)079419:28:18 B727 91.5 D 02/169418:57:36 B727 912 D 02/1894 732:04 8727 91.2 D 02/1994 7:44:28 8727 91.2 D 02/1994 6:42:00 B727 91.0 D 0212394 6:56:43 8727 90.7 D Friday, March 18, 1994 7 0 9 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events RMT #15: William Court & Thresea St. (Mendota Heights) DATETIME A riP Fi MAXLEVEL ARR/DEP 02/1119419:31:27 DC9 914.5 D 02/104 8:35:46 B727 93.5 D 020/9415:04:12 B727 92.8 D 0227,9412:13:40 B727 92.0 D 02/18,94 7:44:12 B727 91.1 D 02/17194 20:20:01 B727 90.9 D 0227194 7:45:33 B727 90.9 D 02/1719420:10:30 B727 90.9 D 02/14,94 9:08:54 B727 90.7 D 02/104 20:25:24 B727 90.7 D RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & Villas Lane (Eagan) DATErVa A.n�T MA}Q.EM ARR/DEP 0223/9413:10:49 B727 101.6 D 02/104 8:20:23 B727 101.3 D 07/18/9410:06:45 8727 100.7 D 02110,9417:10:43 B727 100.1 D 02/19194 735:25 B727 100.1 D 07/24/9418:30:16 DC9 99.3 D 02/16/94 9:40:38 B727 99.1 D 07/1819413:42:47 B727 98.9 D 02/18,94 751:48 B727 98.8 D 02/14,94 7:45:14 B727 98.7 D Friday, March 18, 1994 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events 0 RMT #23: Kenndon Ave. (Mendota Heights) DATETIME A GRAFI MAXIEVEL ARR/DEP 02(27)9417:20 20 8727 103.7 D 02(23/9410:17:31 B727 103.0 D 0211819420-.25:33 8727 102.0 D 02/19,94 7.43:50 B727 101.9 D 02/10194 10:02:47 B727 101.8 D 0211694 20:17:02 B727 101.7 D 02117/9416:17:37 B727 101.6 D 02/16/94 9:56:43 B727 1015 D 02UM 17:16:50 B727 101A D 0212319412:17:55 B727 101.0 D RMT #24: Chapel Lane & Random Road (Eagan) • DATETIME A TYPE MAXLEVFL ARR/DEP 02/19194 7.44:28 B727 92.7 D 02/1819410:10:25 B727 90.4 D 02/18/94 8:43:34 B727 89.8 D 02123/9411:40:21 B727 895 D 02/2294 8:16:16 B727 89.2 D 0]112)94 851:26 B727 88.9 D 02!12)9418:50:16 DC9 88.9 D 02/18194 8:10:41 DC9 88.7 D 0223)94 656:39 B727 88.4 D 02/1219414:58:52 B727 87.2 D 11 Friday, March 18, 1994 9 Minneapolis -St. Paul Analysis of Noise Events with Time/Date Between February 01 and February 28. 1994 Aircraft Ldn dB(A) Noise Monitor Locations DATE 91 12 I3 N 1 i5 06 . I! 0 19 010 1 011 1 112 113 114 IIS 116 1 117 118 119 IM 021 422 123 124 1 513 323 583 61.8 71.8 74.6 64.6 57.6 37A 5.1.4 50.8 34.153.6 36.0 59.3 65.7 55.9 61.7 56.0 51.7 42.9 54.2 63.1 51.9 2 33.1 $1.2 37.4 39,0 666 71.8 62.0 56.0 36A 50.4 42A 53.6 5.1.0 36.6 560 66.9 52.5 37.7 59A 46.1 47.3 53.7 59.8 SR,2 3 49.8 503 54A 36.6 67.2 71.9 60.7 55.6 46.6 47.0 36.2 47.9 49.8 383 54.2 68.1 32.7 56.9 60.9 32.8 46.6 34A 60.1 59.R 32.2 52.4 l6.0 58.1 68.7 70.9 62:1 SSA 0.0 56.7 51.2 $4.0 31.7 603 563 68.2 56.0 583 64.9 57.7 38.0 57.2 62.0 604 5 48.2 49.1 53.7 38.2 69,0 70.8 653 33.9 47.1 51.7 36.6 45.0 51.2 53.0 53.9 640 56.S 65.6 64A 50.8 493 31.1 61.6 SS.3 6 48.9 49.5 53.2 53.7 65.6 70.9 l9.S 33.0 36.2 39.5 32.4 31.0 44.0 39.2 41.7 66.9 34.6 69.0 63.4 52.2 46.2 54.3 52.5 59.9 7 54.4 36.2 610 60.9 68.9 72.8 64.0 35.8 42.6 46.7 44.5 47A 57.0 63.2 55.3 673 61.9 69.6 69.8 51.2 31.9 56.5 62.3 61.7 8 58.2 393 623 633 68.7 713 WA 57.0 31.6 • 473 44.4 35.1 33.0 54.6 61.1 433 54.0 47.8 49.7 51.0 50.4 67.8 37.5 9 35.2 57.0 613 61.8 70.2 74.7 629 54.7 33.8 49.9 43A 473 47.8 60.0 513 64.2 573 68.9 67.6 34.0 44.3 52.1 59.1 36.7 10 57.2 59.4 61.6 63.1 68.1 70.9 47.4 34.1 36A 52.9 43.1 47.3 39.4 61.9 613 69.2 48.6 52.4 51.8 44.2 35.1 S83 70.2 61.1 11 38.6 60.1 64.2 63A 69.2 70.7 60.9 61.3 48.8 573 50.8 32.2 59.7 60.9 65.1 69.0 56A 64.6 68.5 53.8 53.7 58.1 69.0 61.R 12 38.1 !641 60.2 59.7 69.6 72.6 633 35.2 41.8 533 46.2 47.4 33.9 39.4 39.8 69.6 57.8 653 61.8 51.2 54.8 56.6 61.1 61.7 13 55.0 30.9 38.7 563 683 71.7 37.4 56.9 40.1 57.1 49A 56.4 563 59.2 60.2 65.7 38.8 69.7 65.1 39.1 47.1 53.1 64.7 37.9 14 34.6 56A 59.1 623 673 73.9 59.9 58.9 40.2 60.2 45.7 38.1 55.6 60.0 62.6 69.4 57.2 63.1 62.5 54.0 31.0 54.0 72.0 60.2 I! 33.7 333 60.2 62.0 703 75A 63.2 57.9 47.0 55.8 46.0 32.0 59.0 60.0 60.3 67A 53.1 61.8 61.8 533 SS.9 56.1 63.4 59.9 16 35.8 57.8 63.9 65.7 71.0 753 59.7 60.4 42A 630 53.9 SSA 60.3 62.3 623 70.2 59.3 64A 36.6 51.4 54.2 38.8 73.1 61.9 17 563 383 642 62.6 68.9 71.9 53.4 38.7 62.3 63.9 50.1 51.7 60.7 64.8 610 713 61.9 69.2 59.5 56.2 57.8 59.5 72.2 67.2 IB 6.3 JI) 63.2 70.2 66A 73.1 73.9 50.9 62.7 SIR 65.9 58.6 60.6 63.4 66A 65.6 72.1 U.0 58.0 49.7 49.3 39.1 6.7.6 72.5 65.5 19 (AI.O 59.166.2 66.5 75.1 17.3 65.4 60.6 • 61.4 51.4 54.3 60..1 66.1 60.7 71.2 46.1 611.R 52.0 47..1 54.5 59.1 66.7 64.1 Nisch 22, 1994 Minneapolis -St. Paul Analysis or Noise Events with Time/Date Between February 01 and February 28, 1994 Aircrarl Ldn dB(A) Noise Monitor Locations UATE 01 82 83 N 0S 86 97 NM 09 NIO I 911 912 013 N14 NIS 016 817 1 818 019 N20 1 $21 1122 023 N24 20 36.3 32.8 S7.8 61.3 73.1 773 65.7 39.7 44.4 45.0 47.7 40.1 44.5 S7.4 44.1 66.2 47.7 39.9 35.4 52.1 60.5 56.9 54.9 6116 21 54.4 54.7 59.3 38.4 7410 73.7 65.2 S6.8 • 48.9 412 463 54.1 57.4 37.5 67.8 61.6 59.9 46.1 49.0 53.1 58.5 66.1 61.7 22 56.9 6010 64.1 61.7 69.7 68.9 33.3 57.6 50.6 62.7 52.4 59.5 633 59.0 63.1 66.6 64.1 63.6 44.3 48.0 59.2 39.4 72.3 61.7 23 59.4 61.9 64.6 62.9 73.1 73.6 633 57.7 59.1 75.8 64.1 66.4 61.4 63.3 64.1 71.6 65.9 65.7 52.7 S7.0 55.3 62A 70.7 65,9 24 S7.0 58.6 6S.1 62.6 74.7 7210 65.2 55.4 41.0 5S.7 52.7 53.5 60.7 61.6 61.2 70.2 32.9 37.1 39.8 47.0 58.1 62.0 71.8 64.3 2S SI.7 48.7 61.8 59.1 68.4 57.3 61.1 46.3 44.6 50.1 42.8 49.2 54.7 50.5 33.1 S&I 423 45.9 49.2 42.1 52.4 45.5 43.5 %6 26 42.4 48.0 5210 $4.6 663 72.7 34.4 323 M.4 53.9 43.8 16.1 11.8 50A 50.8 633 33.6 71.7 39.2 38.7 54.6 50.9 W.7 57,0 27 55.8 57.8 65.6 61.9 6&9 68.8 473 3J.1 18.7 59.2 47.4 42.4 61.8 58.9 63.0 68.3 49.8 50.2 726 51.9 59.6 61.2 72.7 67.5 28 57.1 59.5 62A 61.5 67.2 69.8 46.8 51.8 44.7 57.8 49.0 SI.S 62.9 65.8 64.3 71.8 1 S6.2 57.8 41.1 1 39.4 60.8 63.7 77.7 67.2 •lels Than hreaty-roar hours of data available �me 22.1664 • � i 4, 14 'MAI I lip i rf �� ,, a r, r n ..-• • s 11. 1 m y I r. � ..cam � S it �I'` M, A!: 4-0 -kk q 0, �qyj FIV dot -It-Z WN Wall, it . . . . . . Y. FO 4,0*44 8 6y-_✓ Airport Noise Report _ P sem.._ A blweekly update on Udgadon, tegaladons, and technological developments Volume 6, Number 3 February 14,1994 Land Use PROJECTS SUPPORTED BY AIP GRANTS MUST BE JOINT EFFORTS, AIRPORTS SAY Airports will support the Clinton Administration's proposal to provide federal grants to local governments for compatible land use projects "if, and this is key," the projects are joint efforts between airports and local governments and the grants are meant to foster that, Robert Wigington, senior vice president for government and legal affairs for the Airports Council International - North America, told ANR. ACI has made its concerns clear to the Senate, which is considering the proposal, he said. On Ian. 26, the administration proposed legislation to reauthorize the federal Airport Improvement Program that would amend the Airport and Airway Improve- ment Act of 1982 to add a new Section on Compatible Land Use (6, ANR, 9). It contains several provisions designed to make sure that local governments do not attempt to carry out projects opposed by airports. 9 Local governments would be required to consult with airport operators regard- ing any land use compatibility measures they sought to impose and any aviation data on which lead use compatibility recommendations were based; Grant approval would be contingent upon verification that land use plans, (Continued on p. 18) Raleigh-Durham Intl MODEL ORDINANCE WOULD REQUIRE SOUNDPROOFING IN 55-60 DNL CONTOUR The Raleigb-Durham Airport Authority is in the process of developing a model noise ordinance that would mquire a full disclosure statement, avigation caw ments, and sound insulation of homes as far out as the 55.60 dB DNL noise contour around Raleigh-Durham International Airport. The airport decided to begin developing the model ordinance after it entered into a settlement agreement last lune under which it agreed to pay S 1.3 million to about 100 property owners near the airport who had filed suit over noise damages. The settlement was reached after a panel of arbitrators awarded over 5100,000 in damages to seven homeowners living between the 55-65 dB DNL noise contours around the airport in a rest suit (4, ANR, 107). Armando Tovar, RDU's noise officer, stressed that the model noise ordinance would have to be adopted by each of the surrounding local jurisdictions and they would be free to revise it. At a Feb. 8 meeting of the airport's noise advisory commince, planning directors of the surrounding jurisdictions expressed concern coover the use of a noise overlay zoning district to achieve the objectives of the ordinance and recommended alternative strategies. Strong criticism of the requirement to soundproof in the 55-60 dB DNL contour (Continued on p. 18) Copyright 0 1996 by Airyvn Noire Repan, Ashburn, Va 22011 In This Issue... land Use ... ACI says projects funded by AT grants must be joint efforts between communities, airports - p. 17 Raleigh-Durham ... Soundproofing in 55-60 DNL contour recommended in draft model ordinance - p. 17 Washington National ... MWAA review board ruled unconstitutional again; action could affect expansion - p. 19 Burbank ... Airport asks appeals court to stay ban on terminal project, increased operations = p. 20 FICAN ... NOISE wants more public input before federal noise research proj- ects approved - p. 21 DFW ... Constitutionality of law barring cities near airport from imposing zoning requirements debated - p. 22 Conferences ... ACI to host conference in Los Angeles on challenges of new large aircraft - p. 21 Aviation Policy ... NAWG finds parts of Clinton initia- tive 'hard to swallow' - p. 22 San Francisco ... NOAA delays decision on whether bay agency can review airport layout plan - p. 23 News Briefs ... - p. 23 18 Airport Noise Report Land Use, from p. 17 including noise contours, have been "coordinated" with the airport and are consistent with its operations and planning; and • The secretary of transportation could require written assurances from local governments regarding land use Projects - The administration's four-year AT reauthorization proposal currently is being considered by the Senate Commerce Committee. The committee is expected to incorporate some of the administration's proposal into its bill (S 1491), including the land use section, however it may be revised The Senate also is expected to revise its bill from a one-year reauthorization to multi-year. Last fall, the House passed a three-year ALP reauthorization bill. ACI is seeking a five-year reauthorization bill starting at a $2.1 billion funding level, far higher than the $1.69 billion funding level set in the administration proposal for fiscal 1994. Land Use Working Group The Clinton Administration's proposal to funnel AIP grants to local governments will be considered by the 15 - member Study Group on Compatible Land Use at its upcoming meeting in San Diego March 2-3. At its third meeting, the study group also will hear presentations from local elected officials of cities with airport noise problems. That session was suggested by study group member Sharron Spencer, a city councilwoman from Grapevine, TX, who feels the land use issue has not yet been discussed from the perspective of local officials. The study group is comprised of mptesentatives of airports, the air transport industry, the federal government, and local governments. It was formed by the FAA to help the agency develop recommendations on how to encourage compatible land use around airports in fight of the shrinking noise contours and increased aircraft operations expected in the future. The study group has only one year to develop recommen- dations and is already half way through that period. Some group members have expressed concern that there seems to be little focus to their efforts at this point. Study group member Dom McGrath, professor of urban planning at George Washington University, sent a memo to some study group members Jan. 28 outlining area he feels the group should focus on at the San Diego meeting. These areas are: • The validity of using the controversial federal noise metric DNL as the basis for developing local public policy on long-term controls to achieve land use compatibility around airports; • Restoration of the credibility of "the long -sought, but barely -delivered, planning process that would link the nation's airports with their neighbor municipalities"; • lrtclusion, in the AIP reauthorization, of some level of Passenger Facility Charge allocation to jurisdictions with zoning authority "to create a serious incentive" for compat- ible land use planning; • Examination of a policy of holding harmless local governments that incur expenses when airport plans are suddenly changed to benefit the airport, "especially when this abrogates prior agreements with neighboring cities and towns' • Determination of whether the Part 150 planning program should continue in fight of information provided at the last meeting that the program has not been effective in the land use area "What, in addition to the data collection and problem description functions performed are the actual long-term benefits of the program?' McGrath asked. He also suggested that an agenda for the fourth meeting be discussed in San Diego. "We are half way through the loosely defined term of our assignment, and our course ahead is not clear," he said. Steve Alterman, counsel for the Ar Freight Association, will not be able to attend the San Diego meeting because it conflicts with his association's annual meeting, but he said he "hopes in the next four to six weeks the study group can take what it has done and focus it on positive recommenda- tions." Alterman feels the group's recommendations should focus on "providing a carrot and stick" to local governments. Local governments can do what they want to with land use, he said, but the federal government should only reward them with money when they do things that will foster compatibilty. Regarding the Clinton Administration's proposal to give AIP grants to local governments, Alterman said it's a good use of federal funds and he supports it "in theory." But, the AFA official said he "wants to see more spelled out because there is the potential for abuse" A RD U, from p.17 was expressed by one builder, Krosland Land Co. of Charlotte, NC, Tovar said. The builder argued that the sound insulation requirement would add too much to the cost of housing and would be discriminatory because existing housing in the contour is not requited to have it, Tovar told ANR. RDU's model noise ordinance was based somewhat on ! requirements adopted by Loudoun County, VA, which borders Dulles International Airport, although the RDU ordinance would require more in the 55-60 dB DNL contour. - In the 55.60 dB DNL contour, RDU's model noise ordinance would require a full disclosure statement for all residential and non-residential construction, avigation easements, and acoustical treatment to ensure that the interior noise levels in heated living spaces are at least 30 dB lower than exterior noise levels resulting from over - Aur;"Report 0 • • l i 6 l• (• 1994 flights. Loudoun County recently expanded sound insulation requirements to cover homes in the 60-65 dB DNL contour and adopted a requirement that disclosure information, showing the proximity of property to the airport, be given to all prospective buyers of homes located within one mile of the 60 dB DNL noise contour line, which would cover some buyers in the 55-60 dB DNL contour. Loudoun does not require sound insulation of homes in that contour, however. For homes in the 6065 dB DNL contour, RDU's model noise ordinance would require full disclosure, avigation easements, and sound insulation to reduce exterior over- flight noise levels by 35 dB. The model ordinance would bar the construction of new homes in the 65+ dB DNL contour unless they were approved prior to the date of adoption of the ordinance. Also barred in that contour would be other noise -sensitive uses, such as schools, churches, hospitals, and day care centers, as well as new amusement establishments, jails, radio and television broadcasting facilities, landfills, and storage tanks and facilities. New non-residential construction would be allowed in the 65+ dB DNL contour if disclosure and easement require- ments were met. Alternatives Suggested In a Feb. 3 letter to Tovar, planning directors from the cities of Cary, Morrisville, Raleigh, and Wake County said their "basic concern" is with the use of an overlay zoning district to achieve the objectives of disclosure of noise exposure, retention of avigation easements, and the institu- tion of acoustical treatments on residential structures. 'None of these are typical of the kinds of regulation currently found in overlay zoning district ordinances in Wake County and each appears to require methods of implementation which are separate from the current methods of zoning enforcement now used by us as local governments in Wake County," they said. They also noted that the process of adopting new overlay zoning districts and applying them to "literally hundreds of separate properties" is time-consuming and cumbersome administratively. There is also little guarantee that such an effort would be applied uniformly throughout the noise impact area, they told Tovar. The Wake County planners said the airport should consider the following alternatives to the noise overlay zone: • Consider placing disclosure requirements in a model subdivision regulation which could be incorporated in each local subdivision code. This would be fairly simple to administer at the time of recordation of lots or approval of site plans, they said; • Work with the area's legal and real estate community to include disclosure statements in other documents associated with the transfer of land ownership; • Ask the affected city and county attorneys to assess the feasibility of requiring the proposed avigation easement as a 19 condition of the transfer of affected properties in the county; • Ask the state building code council to consider the possibility of amendments that would require properties affected by airport noise to be sound insulated. "This would have the advantage of placing the enforcement in the hands of persons trained and capable of the enforcement," they told the airport; • Have the Airport Noise Advisory Committee identify any deficiencies in the land use restrictions in the local airport overlay districts already in place. The planners said they are aware that a "boundary adjustment" may be needed when the RDU Master Plan is completed. The airport noise advisory committee is expected to finalize the model noise ordinance at its next meeting in March.A Litigation MWAA REVIEW BOARD RULED ILLEGAL AGAIN For the second time in three years, the review board set up by Congress to oversee actions of the Metropolitan Wash- ington Airports Authority's board of directors has been declared unconstitutional. The Jan. 31 ruling by U.S. District Judge Joyce H. Green could delay or increase the cost of the $2 billion renovation of Washington National and Dulles International airports. MWAA and its Board of Review immediately asked Judge Green to modify her ruling to clarify that projects previously approved by the review board or pending before it are still "lawful, valid, and effective." They also asked her to stay enforcement of her ruling until the legal appeals process is completed, which could take several years and would allow the airport renovation projects to move forward. The ruling is the second victory for the anti -noise group Citizens for Abatement of Aircraft Noise (CAAN), which represents residents in the flight path of National Airport opposed to its expansion, and Ralph Nadar's Public Citizen group. In 1991, in response to their first challenge, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the congressional review board illegal on the grounds that it violated the doctrine of separation of powers (3, ANR, 103). Congress revised the review board following that ruling, but CAAN, Public Citizen, and several businessmen impacted by aircraft noise, challenged that revision in the suit ruled on by Judge Green, John W. Hechinger el al v. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority ei al (No. 92-556). Transfer Legislation In the mid- 1980's. the secretary of transportation decided to transfer control of Dulles and National from the federal government to a regional airport authority to ease the burden of financing capital improvements. The transferring Airport Noiw Report 97 Patch T/ Transfer Patch AGENDA REGULAR MEETING EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE EAGAN, MINNESOTA EAGAN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY APRIL 12,, 1994 7:00 P.K. I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES III. OLD BUSINESS A. Public Comment - Part 150 Program for Homes in Commercial -Industrial Guided Areas IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Runway 4/22 Extension Revised Draft EIS - Additional Operating Configuration B. MSP Long.Term Comprehensive Plan - Scoping Decision Document V. STAFF REPORT A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor B. Dual Track Airport Planning Process C. MASAC Meeting of March 22, 1994 D. ENAC Update VI. VISITORS TO BE HEARD VII. INFORMATIVE VIII. NEXT MEETING - Tuesday, May 10, 1994 IX. ADJOURNMENT Auxiliary -aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City of Eagan will make every attempt to provide the aids, however this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 681-4600 with requests. • MEMO —city of eagan MEMO TO: CHAIR MIRICK AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN DATE: APRIL 7, 1994 SUBJECT. EAGAN AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING OF APRIL 12, 1994 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee will be held on Tuesday, April 12, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. 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 adoption by the committee. If. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the March 8, 1994 meeting are enclosed on pages (v through 10 for your review. These minutes, as presented or modified, are in order for approval by the committee. 111. OLD BUSINESS A. Public Comment - Part 150 Program for Homes and Commercial - Industrial Guided Areas—This item was discussed at the open house meeting for residents on March 7 and at the regular committee meeting on March 8. Residents have been notified by correspondence that public comment will be taken at Tuesday's meeting from affected residents relative to the Part 150 aRematives for areas guided for commercial/ industrial use in the long run. Attached by way of reminder is a memorandum tabulating questionnaire results. A copy of the.correspondence to affected residents in mid-March, the questions and answers from the questionnaires, sound insulation flyer and the questionnaire comments are enclosed on pages _L�_ through gj As noted in the tabulation, there's a fairly even split between those who want ins l tion and purchase if both were to occur in a similar time frame. If insulation were to occur in the short term and purchase were to occur in the long term, a substantial majority would prefer insulation. Also enclosed on page is copy of a questionnaire received this week which reinforces that pattern but is not included in the tabulation. Also enclosed on pagesr2 ` ` through' ) s a copy of correspondence received from John and Mary • Beth Neska discussing their home at 908 Lawrence Avenue. You will also recall that at the March meeting, Lance Staricha referenced a property tax abatement program for physical im rovements to older homes. A memorandum from Mr. Staricha is enclosed n page ( covering a copy of a Minneapolis brochure on pages through summarizing the criteria for the program. As noted in Mr. Stancha's memo, the program is limited to houses over 35 years in age. He also notes that it may be best to encourage interested persons in the McKee area with homes over 35 years of age to discuss the potential ramifications with the assessor's office before making up their minds on the nature and scope of improvements. For those homes which do qualify, the typical improvement is less than the $25,000 maximum for homes 35 - 70 years In age. If the commission wishes, future correspondence to Part 150 neighborhoods could incorporate this discussion. Please refer to your March packet for additional background information with respect to this item. In particular, pages 21 and 22 of the packet outline policy issues and criteria to be considered. One criterion not mentioned there is the phasing and timing of any improvements. In the past, there has been discussion to give first priority to areas guided to remain residential, second priority to areas expected to stay residential for the foreseeable future and third priority, two areas which have a chance of being converted to commercial -industrial use in the near future. • Staff has also received information from the Metropolitan Airports Commission indicating that the FAA will not permit cities to continue to use lotteries to select eligible participants for these programs. As a consequence, it will be necessary to work with MAC staff to develop a phasing plan which would allow the City to go on more of a block by block basis. The committee may still wish to recommend that the pre -1978 priority be given and that those homes be done before homes occupied by people since that time, but the phasing would have to be based on criteria other than a lottery. It would still be necessary on an annual basis to ask residents to submit applications for the program. As in the past, it someone has submitted an application but has not been selected in a given year, they would be permitted to simply continue their application until their home is selected. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive public comment and recommend a Part 150 strategy involving sound insulation and/or purchase of noise affected homes eligible for the Part 150 Land Use Program for consideration by the City Council. IV. NEW'BUSINESS A. Runway 4/22 Extension Revised Draft EIS - Additional Operating Configuration— The committee has previously provided comment relative to the Runway 4/22 extension environmental review documents. In general terms, the City's position has been to oppose any expansion of the current facility at MSP. until a final decision is made on the • dual track airport planning process and, within the 4/22 assumptions the City opposes the introduction of any new flight tracks east of Cedar Avenue. At a meeting held on March 10, 1994, the city of Richfield reviewed detailed concerns it has regarding the revised draft EIS relative to the runway extension project. Those concerns are summarized in the Airport Noise Report which is enclosed on pageo—a— through :;�b. Essentially, Richfield's concern is that ground side operational congestion will dramatically limit the to i benefit of the runway extension. Also enclosed on pages 31 through �e the distribution items from the meeting of March 10. Richfield's essential argument is that only 2.3 heavy aircraft per day will need the full length of the runway and that substantial complexities exist which will essentially prevent the preferred configuration of landing on the parallels and department on the cross wind runway to the same time periods as are available today. As a consequence, they have asked whether $50 million is justified for 2- 3 aircraft per day. In addition to this general information, a specific item with respect to the City of Eagan was pointed out at the meeting which deserves consideration by, the committee. This situation has been noted in responses to the revised draft EIS but..has not been -_ evaluated. Essentially, the FAA has identified an operating configuration_which does not currently exist at the airport which would permit landings on the parallel runways from the northwest and departures on Runway 22. Because no aircraft would be operating southeast of the airport in this configuration, the FAA has raised the potential for departures on Runway 22 to fan from the northwest across Richfield, Bloomington and Burnsville all the way to the east across Eagan, Inver Grove Heights and potentially Mendota Heights. While the City has opposed the addition of flight tracks which have been identified in the EIS to date, this new configuration would substantially exceed what the Cady has been opposed to in the past. A copy of the rrespondence from the FAA relative to this item is enclosed on pages n throug for your review. The portions re ' e to this configuration are racketed on a right margin. Also enclosed on page is a copy of an airport area map in which the area described in the FAA letter is s a ed. The dashed line to the southwest is the current operational boundary from Runway 22. The dotted line to the south is the proposed boundary for Runway 22 operations if landings are occurring from the southeast on parallel runways. The shaded area represents the new area the FAA indicates would be occupied by aircraft if there were departures on Runway 22 and landings from the northwest on the parallel runways. Eagan is in the lower right hand comer of the map and can be identified by the locations of 1-494, 1-35E and Trunk Highways 13 and 55. The question before the committee is whether or not to reconsider or amend the City's position with respect to the runway extension given the additional information provided. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To recommend to the City Council that • the City either retain_ or modify its policy position with respect to the Runway 4/22 extension project. B. MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan - Scoping Decision Document—The • committee has previously reviewed the long term comprehensive plan for the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport and provided comments concerning its elements. The MAC is in the process of preparing a draft aftemative environmental document for the long term comprehensive plan and additional information has become available for committee review. The first item is reflected on page Z.In an effort to shift the state safety zone to the east side of 24th Avenue South, the MAC is proposing a slight shift of the north/south runway to the east. While it does require the removal of additional facilities both on the airport property and in Bloomington, it does diminish the air space conflicts with 24th Avenue and removes the Mall of America parking ramp from the state safety zone. The total shift will be less than two degrees. Despite that, staff has requested that the MAC prepare revised noise contours which reflect this relocation. Essentially, the extended runway center line will still enter Eagan at approximately the intersection of Cedar Avenue and Trunk Highway 13. The second item relates to the location of the terminal in throposed long term comprehensive plan scenarios. On pages . through are depictions of alternatives 5 and 6 which incorporate the north south runway. Aft rnative 5 shows an expansion of the Undberg terminal at the current location while alternative 6, the MAC preferred alternative, shows the relocation of the terminal to the west side of the airport near the intersection of Cedar Avenue and the Cross Town Highway. This would maintain concourses in roughly their current locations and a remote parking lot near the current rental locations. The other aspect of this design would be that it would permit a crossing between parallel runways near their southeast end. The. MAC has contracted with a consultant to provide additional confi ration altayives. Those are enclosed as alternatives E-10 and E-11 on pages through '( "i . Alternative E-10 would replace the existing northwest maintenance base with a remote ncourse and would require that the access road be tunnelled under expanded tarmac between the southeast ends of the parallel runways. The Undberg terminal would be expanded and reconfigured in roughly its current location. Aftemative E-11 puts the new terminal on the southeast side of the airport between the runways with the current concourse locations and roughly the same configuration as alternative 6. In the past, the City has opposed the relocation of the terminal in any expansion scheme due to the reduced accessibility from the Eagan portion of 494. The committee may wish to recommend revised comments to the City Council given these additional alternatives. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To recommend to the City Council that it retain or modify its position with, respect to the MAC long term comprehensive plan for the airport expansion track of the dual track airport planning process. V. STAFF REPORT A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor—Apart from the tracking information which you will find in the MASAC report, there is nothing to report at the present time on the corridor issue. B. Dual Track Airport Planning Process—Enclosed on pages S7through _ is a copy of the most recent summary brochure distributed by the MAC relative to the planning process. In addition, staff has a copy of the .MAC's annual report to the legislature on the dual track process. Because of its length, it is not reproduced here but is available for review by any member of the committee who wishes to see it. C. MASAC Meeting of March 22, 1994—Enclosed on pages through are excerpts from the February, 1994 operations and complaint summary distributed at the March 22 MASAC meeting. You will note that the flight track maps have City boundaries superimposed to help in your analysis. Dustin Mirick or Lois Monson may wish to comment on the activities at the last MASAC meeting. D. ENAC Update—Any member of the Eagan Noise Abatement Council who is present and wishes to be heard at Tuesday's meeting may do so at this time. VI. VISITORS TO BE HEARD Any visitors wishing to address the committee on items not on the agenda may do so at this time. VII. INFORMATIVE • / Enclosed on pagesthrough is an article from the Airport Noise Report concerning efforts at�fhe Raleigh-Durha Intemational Airport to require performance standards to be met between the 55 and 65 DNL contour for new development near that airport. This is similar to the recommendation the committee made with respect to residential development within the Met Council noise zones. At its meeting of March 22, the Advisory Planning Commission recommended denial of the Lone Oak Forest subdivision noting aircraft noise as one of the factors in the denial. This item will be going to the City Council at its meeting of April 19. A memorandum reflecting the committee's recommendation has been shared with the Advisory Planning Commission and will be shared with the City Council when the item comes to them. VIII. NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee will be on Tuesday, May 10, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. W. 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 noted on the agenda. Asfitlpttant to the City Administrator Subtect to Approval MINUTES OF THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE Eagan, Mlmesota March 8, 1994 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Relations Committee was held on Tuesday, March 8, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. Present were Steve Soderling, Pat Todd, Dustin Mirick, Lois Monson, Bob Cooper, Mike Schlax and alternates Rita Younger and Lance Staricha. Absent was Jane VanderPoehl who had called to indicate that a legislative hearing would prevent her attendance at the meeting. Also present was Assistant to the City Administrator Hohenstein. AGENDA The agenda was approved by acclamation. RATIFICATION OF OFFICER ELECTIONS Prior to the public open house meeting concerning the Part 150 program on Monday, March 7, 1994, the committee met briefly to elect officers so that the leadership would be in place for the open house. It was indicated that it would be appropriate to ratify those elections at this regular meeting. Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Todd, all members voting in favor, the elections of Dustin Mirick as Chair and Pat Todd • as Vice Chair were approved. OATH OF OFFICE Hohenstein swore in new alternate member Rita Younger who was attending her first Airport Relations Committee meeting. MASAC ALTERNATES Mirick introduced the item and indicated that Lois Monson and Jon Hobenstein had served two one-year terms as MASAC alternates and that he was in the final year of his term as the City s MASAC representative. Mirick indicated a willingness to continue in that capacity unless the committee wished to have another member begin to serve to maintain continuity in the future. The committee asked Mirick to continue for the final year of his term as a MASAC representative. Upon motion by Monson, seconded by Cooper, all members voting in favor, it was recommended that the City Council appoint I& Monson and Jon Hohenstein to be the MASAC alternates for the City of Eagan until the appointment of replacements in 1995. Mirick encouraged all Airport Relations Committee members to attend MASAC meetings when possible. Monson invited others to join her if they are interested in attending meetings. MINUTES The minutes of the February 8, 1994 Airport Relations Committee meeting were approved by acclamation. C-3 MARCH 8, 1994 ARC MINUTES PAGE 2 APPLICATION OF PART 150 PROGRAM TO THE AREAS GUIDED FOR COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL LAND USE Hohenstein introduced the item and indicated that the FAA had recently approved a larger Part 150 contour which incorporated additional neighborhoods in the City of Eagan within the eligible area for program funding. He also indicated that the committee had hosted an open house on Monday evening, March 7, to discuss the Part 150 program options with affected properpty owners in the area It was noted that of the 130 homes which received invitations, approximately 46 homeowners appeared on the sign up sheets and it was the committee's feeling that more residents had been present than that. Hohenstein also noted that the committee had received a substantial number of questionnaire responses either at the open house or by mail and that others were expected to come in over the next several days. He indicated that a summary of the questions and comments would be prepared by staff and that answers to the questions would be included in the summary and that the summary would be forwarded to the Airport Relations Committee, Planning Commission and program eligible residents. Hohenstein reviewed the five general area that are included in the eligible contour and are guided for commercial/industrial use. He also pointed out that two areas are being added to the contour in the Country Home Heights and Highview area which are guided for residential use where it is expected the sound insulation program will be extended He also reviewed a series of policy questions to be considered when weighing the options between sound insulation and purchase. They included potential impacts on future redevelopment, the nature of the improvements in each option, long term noise exposure, social impacts, the • availability of affordable housing, private redevelopment, the market environment and the seriousness of the noise exposure impact. Schlax asked if everyone in a neighborhood would have to participate in the program selected. Hohenstein responded that if a buy-out option were selected, it would be necessary to treat all homes in an area similarly due to the impact on the remaining residents if not all were treated the same. He stated that the insulation program is purely voluntary and that residents could choose whether or not to participate in it if it were made available to them. Schlax indicated that some of the residents at the open house were concerned that the City would do something against their will. Hohenstein stated that if a decision were made to buy an area and some residents did not wish to sell that it may be necessary to condemn the property in order to treat all properties similarily. He stated, however, that the City's intent is to deal with the noise problem and that there is no separate incentive for the City to buy these properties other than to help resolve the noise problem. Schlax stated that he agreed with the statement and indicated that the City should make clear in correspondence to the open hoose recipients that noise mitigation is the key and that there is no separate effort to redevelop the areas outside of the noise mitigation issue. Soderling stated that the committee would have not other purpose for reviewing the options if noise were not a problem. Cooper asked how the committee would respond if one or more areas wished to be purchased while others wished to be insulated It was suggested that the committee may want to consider sound insulating first because of the larger number of residents who could be benefitted by the program and that any purchase options would dramatically diminish the number of homes that could be treated in a year. Todd stated that projected MAC funding levels would permit the City to insulate 30 - 40 homes.per year which would cover all eligible homes within 4 - 5 years, while purchase options would probably limit the program to only 3 - 4 purchases per year. She stated that it would be more cost effective for the City to insulate homes to benefit the maximum number of people possible before doing any purchases. Cooper stated that he was surprised and pleased that most people at the open house expressed a desire to stay in Eagan and improve their homes. He . said that the only concern they had was that they wished something could be done sooner. Younger asked what difference sound proofing provides and if people wish to sell their property can they do that. Mirick responded that architects working for the MAC will design unique improvements for each home to achieve a minimum of MARCH 8, 1994 ARC MINUTES PAGE 3 a 5 decibal noise reduction. Cooper stated that the members of the committee had a chance to go to an improved home and that it has been his experience that people like the improvements. He stated that conversations with the owner of the home were uninterrupted despite overflights and that it was immediately necessary to discontinue conversations once outside the home. Hohenstein also referenced the availability of the sound insulatirn, house for tours and that would demonstrate the benefits sound proofing would make. He indicated that in Eagan most sound proofing improvements have included the replacement of windows and doors, caulking, a check of levels of insulation in the walls and ceilings and treatment of vents.and flues to minimi>P sound transmission through necessary openings in the house walls. He further indicated that there is no restriction on homeowners having to stay in the home a certain period of time after the improvement is done. He stated that'the program relates to improving the sound quality of a home and that after the improvements some residents remain in the homes in an improved environment while others take advantage of the improvements to sell the home. Monson stated that there may be some misunderstanding of how much impact remodelling can have. She stated that residents should understand that this is a remodelling project and that there will be dust and dislocation associated with it. She further stated that many people may also misunderstand the value of their home after having asked for "generous" offers in order to sell. It wens also noted.that certain residents adjacent to commercial areas perceive their properties to have more commercial value than residential value and that should be considered in any decision about insulation and purchase. Cooper agreed that the complexity of the issue makes it difficult to communicate everything to residents but that a number of them knew people who had sound insulation improvements and were satisfied with them. Hohenstein noted that one concern expressed was • that improvements to the home may increase property taxes on it. While that is a possibility, he stated that the home is still benefitting by an investment of $15,000 - 20,1X10 in home improvements and an improved indoor environment. Staricha indicated that he is aware of a state program to defer taxes for property improvements - and that he would provide information on it to the City to dessiminate to owners of homes that are sound insulated. Soderling clarified that the City is not the owner if property is purchased but rather it is the Metropolitan Airports Commission who would own the property. Todd moved, Monson seconded, a recom- mendation that the City continue to utilize its Part 150 allocations for sound insulation. Following discussion, an amendment was added that the Country Home Heights and Highview areas be sound insulated fust, the McKee Addition second and that free standing areas be sound insulated last in the event that commercial/ industrial development results in them being converted by the private sector. Staricha stated that a buy-out of the McKee area is unrealistic because of its scale and that the City may wish to keep options open for purchase of free standing areas in the future. He further stated that while options remain in future years, it is important to give a clear indication to the public of the City's expectations for the area in the immediate future. After further discussion, the motion passed on a vote of 6 to 1. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL NOISE ZONE POLICY REVIEW Hohenstein overviewed the issue and stated that the City has informally utilized the policy contours and Met Council guidelines to manage development in the Eagan/Mendota Heights Corridor area in the past. As an increasing number of developments which are not consistent with policy contours are anticipated in the future, he indicated that it may be appropriate for the City to consider whether to formally adopt the policy contours and incorporate them into the development review process. Todd stated that some cities in the area have permitted residential development in the noise zones and that the homeowners have subsequently expressed noise complaints despite sound attenuation improvements. Schlax stated that he supports a standard which discourages incompatible development or requires performance standards, but will not support a ban on all residential activity in the noise contours. Younger stated that she would also not support restrictions on eitising homes and that she was reluctant to place any restrictions on the building of new homes if that would • have an effect on the existing neighborhoods in the noise zones. • MARCH 8, 1994 ARC M RYTFS PAGE 4 Monson stated that she feels that most areas are purposely zoned to preclude appropriate uses in the noise zones and it is logical to not zone an area for uses that will not fit with the environment. Todd stated that the issue for the committee is whether standards should be applied within the noise zones which will either minimize incompatible development or mitigate the affects on marginal developments. Hohenstein overviewed the Met Council document itself and indicated that one of the options for local units of government is to adopt the policy contours for their own use. He stated that if a Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment is necessary the Met Council will enforce it, but that where no such amendment is necessary, the City could use the guidelines to apply the same standards to other development. Cooper moved, Soderling seconded a recommendation that the City formally adopt the Met Council noise contours and land use compatibility guidelines as a City policy. The motion passed 5 to 1 with one member abstaining Monson stated the reason for her abstention was that she feels that facts should direct zoning and that a separate policy is not necessary. OF MEETING Upon motion by Cooper, seconded by Todd, all members voting in favor, it was determined to continue the meeting past 9:00 to complete business before the committee. NEW AIRPORT SITE ALTERNATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Hohenstein introduced the item and indicated that the committee had the opportunity to make • comments concerning the AED for the new airport site in southern Dakota county. He indicated that the timing of the comments was such that the City Council was informed of this opportunity at its meeting of February 28 and that the committee was free to make comments on behalf of the City to be filed before the March 10 deadline. Schlax stated that the distance from Eagan and the runway configuration of the approved site might be more environmentally beneficial to the City of Eagan and that to be certain, it would be necessary to see how the MAC intends to use the air space around the proposed airport. He suggested that a comment in that regard be provided to the MAC. There being no further comments, the committee indicated that it was its consensus that a comment concerning air space use be forwarded to the MAC and that Schlax work with staff on specific language in this regard. MASAC COMPLAINT CATEGORIES Hohenstein introduced the item and indicated that a City resident had expressed concern that flights outside the corridor were not noted as a separate complaint category by the MAC noise complaint office. He stated that typically the complaint is registered either as excessive noise or come other type of activity on the MAC check listand that no tally is kept of complaints relative to the corridor itself. He suggested that a supplemental box could be added to the MAC form that would permit operators to note that a complaint was received in one of the 8 existing categories and that the reason stated by the caller was aircraft outside the corridor. Cooper moved, Todd seconded, a motion to recommend that the City Council ask the MAC noise office to add flights outside the corridor as complaint category supplemental to the main complaint categories. Staricha asked if the committee was asking that the category be added everywhere or just for complaints within the first three miles of the runway. Hohenstein stated that while corridor procedures are objective, people's perceptions of corridor operations would be subjective and that other residents beyond the three mile turn point would likely mention aircraft outside corridor as a reason for their complaint as well. Monson suggested that the committee ask MASAC how feasible it would be to add this category. Cooper said • that there would be a simple addition, but that the results might not be accurate due to homeowners' perceptions. MARCH 8, 1994 ARC M RITES PAGE 5 Todd stated that the MAC should be reminded that it is providing a service to a customer and that it is necessary to respond to customer concerns. She expressed frustration that a resident had been making complaints concerning flights outside the corridor for a period of years and had only been told recently that his complaints were being recorded against a different complaint category. Monson asked Mirick to talk about the MASAC process. Mirick stated that MASAC attempts to respond to both the public and the industry uniformally and as such it is very deliberate about requests for changes. He stated that he would ask MASAC about the possibility of this change. Hohenstein clarified that the recommendation of the committee should go to the City Council first, after which it could be presented to MASAC. There being no further discussion, all members Date Secretary 0 • U > xsw +z cdy of eagan MEMO TO: CHAIR MIRICK AND ALL AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMITTEE FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEINdk DATE: MARCH 11, 1994 SUBJECT: PART 150 OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION Enclosed you will find a copy of the mailing being forwarded to the Part 150 eligible residents in commercial -industrial guided areas. In addition to the cover letter, they will receive the transcribed comments and questions with staff responses and information on the sound insulation demonstration house: • For your information, the following is a tabulation of the questionnaire responses received to date. ... Low Moderate Significant Severe No Response 1 .Never 1 1 Monthly Weekly Daily 1 3 2 2 > Daily 11 28 Insulate v. Purchase Similar Time Frame Four Years v. Twelve Years Insulate 22 27 Purchase 23 17 Either 3 4 Neither 2 2 cc. Advisory Planning Commission .• March 14, 1994 Dear Resident: This letter is a follow up to the Open House held on March 7 concerning airport noise and the airport's Part 150 Sound Abatement Program. The Airport Relations Committee would like to thank those of you who were able to attend or who mailed your questionnaires to the City. Enclosed is a list of the questions and comments which were returned. We have included answers to your questions so that everyone can have the same information. Your participation in this discussion is very important. The.City has the opportunity to use federal funds to either sound insulate or purchase noise -impacted homes. The Airport Relations Committee's purpose is to deal with the noise problem in the best, • most cost-effective way possible. This is an airport noise issue and not a redevelopment issue. The City will only ask the airport to acquire a neighborhood if no other alternative would serve the best interests of its residents. The Airport Relations Committee is reviewing the results of the survey and have begun discussions about next steps with respect to this program. The committee will meet on Tuesday, April 12, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center to accept public comment to be considered with the questionnaire responses. They are also expected to make a recommendation at that time which will go to the City Council. The meeting is open to the public and you are invited to attend. Again thank you for your attention -to and participation in this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, J6 Hohenstein Assistant to the City Administrator Enc. • PART 150 OPEN ROUSE QUESTIONS MARCH 7, 1994 • 1. Row can flight patterns be changed? The volume of traffic at the airport today is three times what it was in 1978. That being the case, flight patterns cannot be changed to completely avoid the neighborhoods close to the airport. This volume of traffic results in a fanning of traffic from southern Mendota Heights neighborhoods all the way to northern Eagan neighborhoods. Regardless of flight tracks, the areas eligible for the Part 150 program will continue to receive high levels of noise. 2. (How would the airport go about the) purchasing of homes in 4 block area? If a decision were made to purchase the four block McKee Addition, the entire area would be purchased over a period of three to four years. The airport would request federal funding to cover the costs and would enter into negotiations with individual property owners to determine a fair market value for each home. Federal law requires that if property is to be purchased for public purposes, it is at its fair market value. If negotiations did not result in a sale for a particular property, condemnation proceedings would occur and each party • would submit an appraisal to a panel which would determine the property's fair market value and award that to the homeowner. In addition, property owners would be entitled to a federally established relocation allowance of approximately $20,000. 3. If the majority of home owners want to sell, how will that impact the remaining homes? If the City decides to ask the airport to buy a neighborhood, all homes in that neighborhood would be purchased because it would be unfair to the remaining neighbors, whether they wish to sell or not, to have parts of their neighborhood purchased and vacated while they are. left behind. It would also be necessary if and when the area is to be redeveloped to have the entire area available. The City may decide to treat each neighborhood differently than the others however. 4. Now will insulating the home impact taxes? The sound insulation improvements may result in an increased valuation of the home for tax purposes. The City is exploring whether a program exists to abate the increase or limit it. . The improvements themselves, which cost the resident nothing, average $15,000 to $20,000 and substantially reduce the indoor noise impact for the resident. It also tends to reduce energy costs because it improves the energy efficiency of the home. 5. 6. 7. S. 9. Unlike the purchase option, sound insulation is a completely • voluntary program. Residents will need to determine for themselves whether the noise and energy value of the improvements is worth a potential increase in property taxes. What is the budget per house and taz impact? (Revalue of house) See answer to #4. Row are you going to insulate and when? When your home is selected for the sound insulation program, the airport will have an architect visit you at your home and prepare a design which takes into account the current condition and inside noise level of your house. Typically, the program involves many of the same things which are done for energy insulation: new windows and doors, storm windows, caulking, wall and attic insulation, modifications to vents and other openings in the house. If you do not have air conditioning, it will be provided in the program to allow you to keep your windows closed when you wish to. You will have the opportunity to review the architect's plan and you can approve it, ask for modifications or opt out of the program. Once you have approved the plan, it will be • scheduled for bid and construction will be begun within the year. Construction will take four to eight weeks depending upon the plan approved by the owner. The airport's current funding allocation for Eagan will cover the sound insulation of approximately 30-40 homes per year. If funding remains constant and the City decides to sound insulate all of the homes eligible under the program, it will take four to five years to do them. The City uses a lottery to determine which houses are done each year. Cost replacement on buyout? See answer to #2. How soon (rill a buyout occur)? If the City asks the airport to buy a neighborhood, it will take several years to get the separate grant funding necessary to do so. Once the funds are secured, the time necessary would depend on the size of the neighborhood. If the McKee Addition were to be purchased, it would likely take three to four years after the funding was received. • I would like to have explained exactly what soundproofing entails. See answer to #6. • • • 10. What does insulation require? does it take? See answer to #6. 11. any cost to us? What is the process? How long There is no cost to the homeowner for the improvements associated with the plan they, approve for this program. If the homeowner wishes to do other remodeling work or upgrade their home at the same time, that cost must be covered by the homeowner. 12. Can airport or City buy us out if we don't want to sell? See answer to 03. 13. When Would We be informed of a buyout (month, year)? The City's Airport Relations Committee hopes to make a recommendation to the City Council yet this spring on the best approach for the area. If a decision is made to pursue a buyout in any of the areas, the City would work with the airport to attempt to identify the funding source and a timeline. An actual date to begin the purchase•may not be known for several years, however. The City would maintain communication with the effected residents throughout that time to be sure that you can plan accordingly. 14. What areas would be bought out and in what order? The purpose of the open house and public discussion is to help the Airport Relations Committee develop recommendations to sound insulate or purchase. If a decision is made to purchase one or more neighborhoods, a recommendation will also be made as to the priority order for each. 15. Would it be a forced buyout or an optional sell? See answer to 0. 16. Why don1t planes follow the 55 corridor? See answer to #1. . 17. What effect would a new airport in Dakota County have on our area? If a new airport were built near Hastings, the current airport would be closed and the noise impact from the new airport would be substantially less than you experience today. The current airport is three miles from the McKee Addition. The proposed airport would be fifteen miles from the McKee Addition. Sound insulation improvements would continue to be important in the near future, because a new airport would not be operational for about fifteen to twenty years. 1s. Will the insulating process stay the same (same procedures)? The process is not expected to change. See answer to #6. 19. Is the City going to upgrade the streets and sever system? The City will continue to monitor and prioritize streets and utilities for improvements. if the City decides to ask the airport to purchase an area, normal maintenance would continue until the buyout is complete. The City would not do major reconstruction if an area is scheduled to be purchased. 20. If the houses were purchased, would they buy a block at a time or would it be a checkerboard deal? See answer to #3. 21. If they were insulated, would you have to live in it a certain length of time afterward before you could sell? No. 22. Need more information on how effective the sound insulation will be and if purchased, what the purchase price would be. Residents who have responded to the City's follow up questions about the sound insulation program have indicated a high level of satisfaction with the noise reductions. Information concerning the Sound Insulation Program Demonstration House in Richfield is included with this mailing. The Demonstration House has rooms sound insulated at three different levels for residents to view and is open weekdays for tours. For a description of the purchase process, see answer to #2. 23. Nov do you defend your stand on payment or choice of whom to pay in terms of equal compensation? I•f homes in an area are to be purchased, the law requires that a fair market value be paid as just compensation. The law prohibits equal compensation because not all properties are equally valued. The choice of whether to purchase an area or not will be based on the City's.understanding of the public good of each option. The City will consider a number of factors including the responses of the residents, the nature and extent of the noise impact, whether the area is likely to be redeveloped to a more noise compatible use by private interests and so on. 24. Why invest when or if you are going to lose .it .and never recover the losses? To minimize the time of uncertainty about this matter, the City intends to make a decision in this regard yet this spring. If sound insulation is identified for an area, it will be assumed that the properties will remain residential for the foreseeable future and residents would want to maintain and invest accordingly. If a purchase option is l�_ • • identified for an area, the airport and City will work to set • out a timeline and expectations as soon as possible to allow residents to plan accordingly. 25. If you insulate today, what guarantee is there you will not purchase tomorrow? Or won't you be throwing away your. insulation money if you have to purchase at a later time? To answer the second question first, it would be inappropriate to invest in the improvement of a property if it is likely to be purchased for redevelopment in the near future. That is why it is important to discuss whether a purchase option makes sense in the near future before moving ahead with insulation. If a private purchase is not likely within the near future, it makes sense to improve the indoor noise environment of the .homes. The City has no specific redevelopment plans for the areas eligible for the Part 150 funding. The only reason the City would consider asking the airport to purchase an area at this time would be to alleviate the noise impact on residents. 26. Actual timeframes for both plans. See answers to #6 and #8. 27. Process for insulation and any caps in spending for McKee Addition or is it set up in terms of current home • improvements? There is an annual allocation to the City of Eagan from the airport and the typical sound insulation project costs between $15,000 and $20,000. There is no cap for any of the eligible areas, but the costs of insulating each home will determine how many homes can be done in a year and how quickly the airport can insulate all eligible homes. See answer to #6. 28. Buyout issues. See answers above. 29. When decision will be finalized. See answers to #6, #8 and #13. 30. Bow soon will the MAC action happen? See answers to #6, #8 and #13. 31. Why insulate the houses as we can not enjoy our yards from 3:30 P.M. to 6:30 p.m. at all every day all summer? Sound insulation will only improve the indoor noise • environment. It will not change a person's ability to enjoy their yard. Insulation is done so that at least the part of someone's property that can be improved is improved. Metropolitan Airports Commission SOUND INSULATION PROGRAM OFFICE AND DEMONSTRATION HOUSE The Sound Insulation Program Office and Demonstration House is located at 6314 Standish Avenue South in Richfield near the end of one of the airport's busiest runways. The home is owned by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and will be used by the Center for Energy and the Urban Environment (CEUE) as the program office. Three rooms have been sound insulated, with one of these rooms designed to be a 'quiet room ". The rest of the home was left as is. People are able to walk from room to room, and compare the different sound levels. The Demonstration House office phone is 348-9337. The Demonstration House visitor hours are: Monday - Friday 9:00 - 4:30 Please call 348-9337 before stopping in, so we can have staff available for you. Location &=L, RICHFIELD Principles of sound insulation Noise enters a house in two ways: Information Program Office 348-9337 MAC 726-8100 1) Noise is airborne. Open windows are obvious examples, but noise can enter through even the smallest cracks. Acoustical caulks, sealants and special weatherstripping keep the new windows, doors walls and ceilings very tight. Air conditioning ducts have been baffled. A House Doctor crew has tested the house to make sure there is adequate ventilation. 2) Noise is structure -borne. Sound will cause a structure to vibrate. This vibration will transfer the sound directly through a wall or roof, albeit in a diminished manner. Added mass in the form of additional sheetrock and acoustical windows with thicker panes of glass have been added to the acoustically treated rooms. This extra weight makes it harder for a wall or window to vibrated and pass noise through. 3) To make the transfer of structure -borne noise even more difficult, additional space between panes of glass and discontinuous construction (where a new wall and ceiling, separated by a gap, is built adjacent to existing structure) are featured in the dining "quite" room. y 9 • SOUND INSULATION � �•�� j SbWNSTgtRS- DaOo [� QD a a �' Og aD4 0 aD a [ aD aD a Q0 airR9GK00N1 703B.HMM The fkmonsirietioYl Nouse has - +Ree room$ that N have been sound insula+ed. The rest of +he house has not had special acouStircal WORk UP :EbMY done but Stj I I pfov�deS _vtound a 29 d BA -- CA wei5tift-d decibels - closest -to hur"w,, n SATR �r hexz63) n6i5e level redact bo PRom +h2� A rne-zsuized autside. It takes a iodoA dRcp 0 +o cu+ +he PeRceived Yroise in half'. Q7WN5TAIRS DEN - New ST -c 37 WindOWS 4 S011d CDQ`' QW+Ry ciooR 0 MASTER -L%:79ADM g LIVIN(T acbM - Nevi/ sTG d•' -F Windom., second SI+41h9 glass LIooR, 2 new 5olict coRt- door,,; 9nd Z new 12yMS uralI txl. QUIET }Zoom — See details below. 5% - Sound TRansmk4toin Glass. The hionhea The Quiet Room has been de5fred tz khieve +he highest levels of noise redu tlon. I+ 4eaiukes,+he {allowing; New fReestandin9 wall and ceil(v w1h, 2 new IayM5 of WYvwll bd • 5atTied i shiel4ed AC duct in ceilu, • New STc eo window wi+4,1 5/tV 12vninsted 91255 and Y4• plafe gb&5 Se�aF-*ed by a Od aiR Sp4c • EAtRa IapP of !Ya•vvatl boa Rd an • ide walls and 02aD9e wall al•noJG G 44 Window in ftm belokr and Rig - ibeRgl. lbtts iH �WK • New *0 cone wood ehtRy dooR 11 PART 150 COMMENTS • MARCS 7s 1994 Cannot even talk on phone or outside when plane is going over - house shakes. My house at 2799 Linde Lane is a duplex. Due to severe aircraft noise, it has been almost impossible to rent. At one time, it was empty for 5 months. When tenants do move in, they only stay a very short time because of the severe noise problem. This has been very costly due to rent loss. I tried to sell, but no one was interested because of the proximity to the airport with all the noise. Keep airplanes over 494. My biggest concern is that I would be forced to sell my house. I think that with proper noise insulation and soundproofing, the majority of the problems could be solved. It's not that bad where a person would need to sell! The winter months noise is not bad at all. It would be nice -.if the "corridor" was built in stone and that EPA restrictions insofar as noise is concerned were adhered to. Cannot use phone in spring and fall. Can't air house. I have never called or written to complain about airplane noise. • I.have lived on my property since July 1960. In the 601s, it was very noisy because of propeller -type engines. At that time, airplanes did not gain altitude as fast so house and contents shook. I wish = to sound insulate, but eventually to sell my home when I can get a buyer. And really, I don't want to sell: I an 68 years old and I know I will ,definitely be out within 5-10 years. Safety -concerns. Condition of street related to buyout. I think it is urgent that something be done to the McKee Addition. I believe a buyout is the smarter choice considering the age of the neighborhood, but whichever is decided, it must be done soon. You must also consider that when the older residents in the area pass away, who is going to want to purchase the house knowing about the noise problem? I also want to say that insulating -is sort of like putting a bandaid on the problem. It's not a good long-term solution because it does not help you if you're outside in your yard during the summer playing with your children or what have you. People can't be expected to have their homes closed up all spring, summer and fall and never open the windows to let the breeze blow in, especially with the rising cost of electricity and the value of conserving our resources. How can you justify all the electricity • used to run central air units in 130 homes just in my neighborhood 150 days a year, year after year after year. • • • COMMENTS (page 2) I would like you to ask: If the buyout was implemented that if they could make it a speedy buyout because people's living is being affected by this. They want to fix their house up and keep it up, but why should they if they are waiting for a buyout? Affects television and phones. Wakes us up, etc. Windows and cupboards rattle. Items move and fall off shelves at times. We can't hear on telephone when planes fly over. There are times we cannot speak and be heard in a normal voice due to air traffic. Family members have not come to visit due to the noise. We can't sit outside in the summer when it is so hot in the house. No AC, so windows have to remain open. I see no point in insulating. The main impact of aircraft noise is that it prevents us from using our yard. This is a lovely, peaceful neighborhood except for the noise. Many of us do lots of walking and gardening (with our hands over our ears). If money is going to be spent, first priority should be buying out the elderly people who want to go, but can't afford anything comparable in a less noisy area. They bought their homes before they had any inkling that there would be a noise problem. The rest of us knew (at least partly) what we were getting into. Should have much lower assessed value on homes due to noise. My tax value is much too high. Nobody in right mind would pay assessed value with noise present. Our neighborhood is victim to excessive airport noise due to our being surrounded on all sides by commercial property. -This noise is sometimes so bad, one cannot hear one think. The planes are so close to my home, you can read the number on the plane itself. We are planning to sell our home in the future and will certainly have to overcome the noise factors to potential purchasers. Therefore, I feel we are at a loss not only on a daily basis, but also on a long-term financial basis. I would like them to purchase our home at a price we deem fair to the value. Insulating will only help the problem when you are inside. When you are outside playing with your children, the noise is so loud, you can't hear them laugh. What effect does this have on children's hearing? bet's get this resolved as soon as possible. This land is more valuable than the homes. Good location for airport parking lot. I bet it would be filled daily. Shuttle buses could go to airportand back for a small fee. This location is bad for homes. We are sitting in the middle of an industrial park and right under flight path. Couldn't get any worse. Leave the airport where it is. I have lived here for 39 years and I don't mind the planes. COMMENTS (page 3) • I get jet fuel scum on my picture windows the planes come so low over our house. Weare in line with the main runway and sometimes I vision an object falling off the plane right into the house. In summary, I would be in favor of supporting the buyout. I've owned the home since 1974 and believe it's long past due to accomplish this. We purchased this home in Sept. of 1072 and have lived with this nuisance since. We want to have our home insulated the'next year or two or ASAP. With windows closed there isn't too much problem. Then in this area if it isn't airplanes, it's trucks one after the other as you let the industry build all around us. Actually McKee area should be industry only. L • 0 CITY OF EAGAN PART 150 LAND VS73.PROGRAM RESIDENT QUES'Pi: WAIRE 1. How frequently are you bothered by aircraft noise? Never Monthly Weekly Daily r everal 'Times a Days ----------------- 2. How would you describe the aircraft noise impact at your home? Low Moderate Significant Revere 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 S. • What questions or concerns would you like to see addressed at a public meeting regarding this issue? 0 6. What is your address: 4 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 March 14, 1994 • Airport Relations Committee c/o John Hohenstein SUBJECT: Part 150 Land Use Program Thank you for allowing us to have input on the 0150 Land Use Program". To review our brief discussion on the evening of March 7, 1994,we are a very unique neighborhood involving five homes on Lawrence Avenue and Linda Lane surrounded by commercial buildings and open land. In the past 17 years that we have been residents on Lawrence Avenue, we have been approached trice with propositions to buy our home. In both cases these major corporations have backed out on their formal offers. We purchased our first home at 916 Lawrence Avenue in the spring of 1977 knowing that the property was zoned "planned development". In 1986, due to a growing need for a larger home and our love for the area, we sold our home at 916 Lawrence and bought our present home at 908 Lawrence. • Economics, closeness to employment, community service, and ail the other amenities made it very desirable to stay in the City of Eagan. Economics involved selling our home at a reduced rate because of the aircraft noise proximity. Since that time, we have not had any outside interests in purchasing our property and we have not pursued being bought out. We have settled in with a confident feeling that we can exist as a real neighborhood. I acknowledge that it is in the best interest of the City to someday turn these five pieces of residential real estate into a good commercial tax return. I believe that this will indeed happen sometime in the next 15 years. When this does happen, I believe it will happen by itself. Unlike the 'McKee Addition' this property will sell without any input by MAC. With the recent failure of the two motels and being surrounded by available open land, this section of real estate is climbing on the list of eligible commercial property. I believe that MAC should not spend 150 funds on land buyouts in.the Lawrence Avenue/Linde Lane neighborhood. I do believe, that we as homeowners, should be eligible for the sound insulation program. We have endured many years of aircraft noise and have yet grown immune. I believe the . majority of homeowners agree that noise insulation is the best form of relief that we can receive. Please discourage any type of buyout in the Lawrence Avenue/Linde Lane neighborhood a� • and please recommend that we be eligible for the Sound 150 Program. We have spent 17 years raising our family in this neighborhood and will continue to live here as long as we can. We understand your lottery system gives priority to those residents living in their homes prior to 1978. I have lived on Lawrence Avenue since 1977 except that I have lived in two different homes. Will I still be given priority, as are other pre -1978 residents? Please consider our request and contact us if you need more information. Thank you. Sincerely, _,J4hn & Mary Beth Neska 908 Lawrence Avenue Eagan, MN 55121 • • --_" j"� c�4 D Date: TO: March 21, 1994 FROM: NOTE Jon Hohenstein, Assistant to the city administrator Lanc taricha (of Airport Relations Committee) 3895 Newtown Court Eagan, Mn 55123-1552 Day: 296-1902 ext 136 mail) Night: 688-8817 (direct line with voice SUBJECT: Property Tax Treatment of Insulation "Improvements" I did locate a simple brochure prepared by the city of Mpls to explain the new (i.e. 1993 assessment) state law which defers the value added due to improvements for homestead real estate (copy enclosed). Also enclosed are the materials that the Department of Revenue sent to each county. The Department's 14 -pages of materials, plus application form, are not what I had in mind when I pictured a "brochure." Of even more importance, I think, is the fact that it's a total deferral only for houses 70 years old or older. For houses between 35 and 70 years old, the program only allows a deferral of 50% of the added -value. If the house is less than 35 years old, there is no potential for deferral. I realize that some of the houses in McKee may be $,k years old, but I still regret that my comments were misleading as to the generosity of this program. All in all, it may be best simply to encourage interested persons to have a discussion with someone from the assessor's office BEFORE they make up their mind, along the lines of what you have alreadydone, in the letter summarizing the neighborhood meeting. If you have any feedback for me on this, or further questions, please call (or look me at the next ARC meeting)! 0 • 0 aq THIS OLD HOUSE A TAX INCENTIVE FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF OLDER HOMES . �'``-• ADD DAj4 � d � EXPAND KIMHEN AN EXAMPLE Minneapolis homewAmers June and Bill Brown add an upstairs bath and expand the kitchen of their 78 -year-old bungalow. They contract the plumbing and electrical and do the rest of the work themselves. These improvements increase the market value of their home from S80,000 to $100,000. Before THIS OLD HOUSE, their an- nual property taxes would have increased from $1213 to $1765. With THIS OLD HOUSE, they are not taxed for ten years on the 520,000 increase in value. The exemption is then phased out over five years. At current tax rates, their savings over 15 years total S6,900. THIS OLD HOUSE is an incentive for homeowners to improve their older homes. Approved by the Minnesota Legislature in 1993, the lave excludes from property taxes up to 550,000 in increased estimated market value resulting from home improvements. THF OLD HOUSE guidelines: • The house must be owner occupied. Owner -occu- pied duplexes and triplexes are eligible. • Improvements must be made to the dwelling or garage. Landscaping and swimming pools are not eligible. Neither is normal upkeep including roofing and painting. • Building permits must be obtained, Improvements must have been made after Januan 1. 1993. • A home between 35 and 70 years old can obtain a property tax exclusion equal to half of the increase in value. The maximum exemption for a 35- to 70 -year- old house is $25,000. ♦ A home more than 70 1 -ears old can obtain an exclusion equal to the entire amount of the increase in value. The maximum is S50,000. • The entire exclusion is good for 101 ears, ur e home is sold, or until it is no longer ov+-ncr-oa It then phases out over the next five years. • Both sweat equity and contracted improvements are eligible. Owners can make improvements up to three different times over a 10 -bear period. • Minneapolis homeowners do not need to apply for the exemption. The owner's annual property tax statement will report the amount of the exclusion. • There are no income or propene value limits. Minneapolis homeowners can call the Ciq Assessor, 673-2387, for more information. Homeowners in other cities should call their local assessor. The Minneapolis Community Development Agency (MCDA) love -interest improvement loans. including a Middle -Income Housing Program that finances improvements equal to at least a third of a home's value and provides for a deferred loan of up to five percent of the mortgage. Call 673-MCDA. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS DR,, isc coL;7EPi Of F-1 L. • 28 Airport Noise Report Minneapolis -St Paul Int RICHFIELD CRITICIZES RDEIS ON RUNWAY EATENSION PROJECT The City of Richfield, MN, recently filed comments critical of a Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement on a project to extend a cross -wind runway at Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport to more equitably distribute aircraft noise. The purpose of the runway extension is to reduce the Iroise impact northwest of the airport, off the two main parallel runways. The Metropolitan Airports Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation contend that extending the 8,256 -foot cross -wind runway wig allow more aircraft to use it and facilitate the redistribution of noise. But, attorneys for the City of Richfield asserted that the airport has used "unrealistic and unsupported" assumptions about the extent to which the extended runway could be used in the fashion contemplated. The city claims that operational and airport design constraints would severely impair the capacity of the extended runway and that it would be used less than contemplated or its use would result in ground delays. The inflated capacity assumed in the DEIS undermined the environmental analysis and justification for the project, according to James Prosser, Richfield City Manager, and Steven Pflaum of the Chicago law firm McDermott, 8711 & Emery, which represents the city. They contend that, if the runway is used less than ex- pected, then the "true environmental consequences of the project would be vastly different from those projected" They also criticized the Revised DEIS for not directly addressing Richfield's criticisms of the original document, which were submitted in July 1992. At that point Richfield filed extensive comments asserting that the document failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, and that it violated the Airport and Airway Improvement Act, Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act The city also asserted that the RDEIS felled to include a sufficiently long-term analysis of the runway extension's noise impacts. The environmental document only looks at noise impact until the year 1996, but Prosser and Pflaum t noted that environmental impact statements for runway extensiors and new runways routinely include an analysis of noise impacts based on a 10•year or longer planning period. Even the DEIS for the project included an analysis until the year 2000. Without such a long-term noise analysis, there is no evidence to support the airport's conclusion that the project will have a long -tum benefit in terms of more equitably distributing noise impacts, they said. Looking at Doise impacts only until 1996 "obscures both the impacts and the efficacy of the project," they argued. "Perhaps this point is fest illustrated by the five-year, $22.5 million noise mitigation program described in the RDEIS. How can MAC and the FAA decide to spend that kind of money on mitigation without knowing what the noise environment will be like when the mitigation program is fully implemented? In other words, why spend millions of dollars mitigating noise impacts southwest of the airport if by the time the mitigation is completed in 1999, increased flight levels willhave sharply reduced the ability of the runway extension project to direct departures to the south- west?" They asserted the runway project "is an idea whose time has come — and goer," Doting that the price tag has tripled in the two years since the DEIS was released and is now estimated at $50 million. "If the project ever had merit, and that is doubtful, it is clearly ill-conceived now that existing and projected operational levels at MSP will preclude attainment of the projeces primary stated objective of facilitating increased departums on Runway 22." " The stubborn refusal of the RDEIS to consider in its environmental analyses the various stumbling blocks to the proposed use of Runway 22 for depamnes undermines the validity of the entire document. More fundamentally, that lack of candor obscures the folly of spending S50 million on a project that will never work as claimed. Rather than wasting public foods in that fashion, including more than $20 million on mitigation for an area that my not require .mitigation by the time the mitigation program is completed, it would be far more sensible and efficacious for MAC to use the entire $50 million to mitigate areas northwest of the airport." they said. Clear Answers Sought Prosser told ANR that Richfield wants to avoid litigation, if possible, but will move ahead if it must. He said the city has had a good working relationship with the airport, but disagrees with it on this project. "We don't know what the real impact of the project will be," he said, adding that it will vary in different parts of the city. He said the city would like clear answers on how much the cross -wind runway will be used and what the noise impact will be. Prosser also said the $22 million earmarked for noise mitigation in Richfield and neighboring Bloomingnm, which will be hit more severely by noise, is insufficient. Each city hes estimated noise mitigation coats at S50 million, be said Richfield wants noise mitigation that includes sound insulation, acquisition, and relocation of a The City of Richfield also contended that it has been denied a."meaningful opportunity" to comment on the revised DEIS because it was not given additional time to comment on the document or to interview key FAA Personnel or the consultants who helped prepare the DES. and because MAC failed to produce all the documents requested by the city. the failure of the FAA and MnDOT togrant an exten- sion reinforces the already prevalent impression that the runway extension is a 'done deal' and that the FAA and /) I Mrpon Noise Repon a y C C February 28, 1994 29 MnDOT merely view the NEPA process as a paper shuffle designed to document their prior decision to approve the protect,".Richfield said. The FAA and MAC's insistence that Richfield submit its comment on the Monday following the New Yea holiday weekend "appears arrogant at best and punitive at worst," the city said. ZhW Chicago Abport STATE TRANSIT OFFICIAL SAYS NEW AIRPORT NEEDED Rhnois Secretary of Transportation Kirk Brown told the Northeastern Illinois Planting Commission Feb. 17 that a third Chieago-am airport is needed despite the financial ups and downs of the airline industry. Brown and Ill. Gov. Jim Edgar support a new airport site in Peotoae, IL, located in the suburbs south of Chicago, however, that location is opposed by Chicago Mayor . Richard Daley. Daley pushed for a new airport at Lake Calumet on Chicago's South Side, but that plan, which would have involved a major environmental clean-up, fell through in 1992. Daley now contends that a new rtmway at O'Hare International Airport can handle the additional air traffic expected in the Chicago area No airline has yet voiced support for the proposed Sl.g billion Pamne site. Brown told the planning commissioners that he is hopeful that the airlines will eventually support the site, and said it will not be built without airline support. Brown noted that the airlines are beginning to recover from from the financial losses incurred between 1969 and 1992. 'Ihe Clinton Administration last December denied Gov. Edgar's request for $2 million grant to conduct planning studies for the Peotnne site. The administration, reneging on a Bush Administration pledge of the funding, said that greater regional consensus between the states of Illinois and Indiana and the City of Chicago was needed on the location of a new airport site before it would fund my planning studies. Local press reports note that Mayor Daley, a Democrat, may have persuaded the Clinton Administration to renege an the planning gran, and that Daley may be maneuvering to negotiate a Ileal in which he supports a new airport in exchange for state approval for floating casinos. In mid-January Gov. Edgar earmarked S2 million in state fonds to begin the planning study process for a new airport. The six-month study will examine six potential sites for the new airport and the option of building no new airport for the eco• An additional S4 million would be needed for the second phase of the planning study. Tbat funding is not expected to be a problem, ANR was toldd IN BRIEF ... EIS on EECP The FAA plans to issue its final Environmental impact Statement on revised air route changes made over New Jersey under its Expanded East Coast Plan by the third or fourth week in Mach. New Jersey communities want the FAA to revise the air routes to funnel more air traffic over the Atlantic Ocean to reduce noise over New Jersey communities. The plan would mean that aircraft departing New Jersey would pass over New York airspace, increasing congestion and limiting options for reducing existing noise problems over Queens and long island. Queens Borough President Clave Shulman led the New York congressional delegation in submitting a letter of protest to Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena over the plan. Fleet Mix Reports Feb. IS was the date by which airlines had to submit their annual reports in the FAA documenting their progress in converting their fleets to quieter Stage 3 aircraft The FAA is under no legal deadline for releasing its report on fleet compliance and as of Feb. -23 had not received all the airline data yet The agency would not speculate on when its report • would be released. Burbank Petition Denied A California appeals court Feb. 24 denied a petition filed by the Burbank -Glendale -Pasadena Airport Authority seeking an immediate stay of enforcement of a superior court judge's ruling finding the Environmental Impact Report on a new terminal project inadequate. The ruling bars the airport from taking any action to approve or implement the proposed project, including acquiring land and approving increases in airport operations that could lead to significant increases in air or water pollution. Richard Simon, of the Los Angeles law firm McDermott, Will & Emery, which represents the airport, said he was disappointed with the corm's action and felt that the lower cam ruling bad see a bad precedent in terms of process under California's Environmental Quality Act He said the airport plans to revise its Elk as requested by the court, and that should be done before its motion appealing the ruling is head. EA for Atlantic City Inn On Feb. 3, the FAA announced its intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment on various alternatives for development's the Atlantic City International Airport The South Jersey Transportation Authority will act as joint Iced • agency on the assessment Airport Noire Repon 1011-910140.50 O F-1 IOk--"-' l.) f rounds de tong s ' n• • where do following aircraft wait when taxiway Q is fun. • how do they interact with arrivals taxiing to the gate. 2.) Runway 22 & Taxiway O yro - • standard is 400 ft minimum between centerlines • project spacing is 199 R, must vacate taxiway to depart r/w 22 full length. 3.) Runway 22 nnid < a _de=Mre caaarh • project estimates up to 4S departures per hour may use mid -field r/w 22. • such estimates do not allow for departure bubbles ' project cites FAA Order authorizing 20 knot crosswind, 7 knot tailwind. • actual operations will be significantly less. S.) Runway 21 extension wilt create an additional Rpe ff&g ro n • landings on runways UL & HR, departures from mid -field runway 22.- • increased traffic, frequency of use, noise impacts, tracks, not evaluated • 6.) Mid-feW tak-egffs mustbe held for., • all 29L arrivals that decline to hold short. • all r/w 29L arrivals recrossing r/w 22 on taxiback to the gate. • all heavy jet arrivals on r/w 29L, & recrossing r/w 22 on taxiback to gate. • all r/w 29R operations if heavy jet is departing r/w 22 mid -field.. • all t/w E crossings must be held for departing jets from mid -field r/w 22. • all r/w 29R arrivals crossing r/w 22 midfield to gates on south side. 7.) HeaXj jet onera&ns encounter yrob ems dw to minium gpodag used in PzgkzL • t/w Q is restricted to 13757 & smaller, aircraft design group N.' • no room exists on t/ws for heavies to hold for mid -field r/w 22 departures. • assumption is made that only 23 heavies per day will need hill r/w 22. i -�- 1 V °}X 8.) No conmWry&n is Sjym to o=radanat com* % • project is unique in that itis predicated on restricting operations both behind and in front of the departing aircraft in a high volume environment. • "present airport capacity/acceptance rate will be Increased." • "arrival/departure delays will be reduced." • • "a reasonable savings in fuel consumption will result" Order 7110.3 3( I. TI. c•. CITY OF RICHFIELD'S ANALYSIS OF - .THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF RUNWAY 422 AT MI WMAPOLIS ST PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT NATURE OF PROJECT Extend Runway 422 to the southwest by 2,750 feet. Construct queuing taxiway for departures on Runway 22. Provide sound insulation for homes. impacted by increased operations on Runway 22. • Utilize extended runway up to 8 hours per day with operational mode involving departures to the southwest on Runway 22 and arrivals to the west on Runways 29L & 29R, with arrivals on 29L holding short of (j,e„ not crossing) Runway 22- Departure.% on Runway 22 are to begin takeoff roll from release point southwest of intersection with Runway 11L -29R. Thus, departures from Runway 22 are to be independent of arrivals on Runways 29L & 29R. • Cost of project S50 million ASSERTED RATIONALE FOR PROJECT rhe: to shift noise from areas northwest of airport to areas southwweestt of airport Secondary gpMose: to provide a longer runway for long-haul intercontinental flights SUMMARY OF RICHFIELD'S FINDINGS 1. The extended runway will not operate in the fashion represented by project proponents. The following factors will combine to limit the use of the extended runway to a small fraction of the 8 hours per day claimed by proponents: Weather conditions alone will reduce use of the proposed mode of operations by approximately two-thirds. Winds permit departures . on Runway 22 when there are arrivals on Runways 29L & 29R only 27 to 35 percent of the time. Pilots will frequently not accept hold short restrictions for arrivals on Runway 29L The FAA estimates that, even without a tail wind and with dry and clear conditions,'fully 20 percent of all arrivals on Runway 29L will not accept the hold short restriction. Moreover, Northwest Airlines has advised MAC that they will not CJ accept hold short restrictions at night Arrivals that do not accept the hold short restriction will slow the rate of departures on • Runway 22, thereby reducing the capacity of the proposed mode of operations. The lower the capacity of that operational mode, the less frequently it can be utilized. • Departures by jumbo jets like the DC-10 and B-747 will totally disrupt the proposed mode of operations. Jumbo jets will begin their takeoff roll from the north end of Runway 22, rather than the mid -runway release point. Due to the proximity of the queuing taxiway to Runway 22, that taxiway will have to be vacated before the jumbo jets can depart This, in turn, will exacerbate the already severe congestion near the west end of the passenger terminal and delay the departures of other aircraft waiting to depart These consequences will further reduce the amount of time that the proposed operational mode can be utilized. • 2. The runway extension is intended to shift, not reduce, noise in areas near MSP. In truth, if the project works as represented it will increase the noise impacts near the airport The following information from the Revised Draft EIS reveals that the proposed extension would increase the total number of people exposed to noise levels in excess of 65 DNL (the level above which noise levels are considered incompatible with residential rue): tmber of = 7996 with Rory 3996 is fc :i:�:. Rw,F ::Residedts E:pgsed:'.::-:::.::...... ....... - - `3o Noise in Exces9 ;Ext., _....... Ettt. of 6S DNL-....,.. ............:... ........... ... ............ 113-70 Above 1.:70. Total 's Ab9V# 65 70 , Y �►bove 1;al :._::... .. DNL ... :`. '•:=c 1`.365 1D1VL"- DA1L i Dl\l, D1\Z Minneapolis 12,3901 4,300 16.690 14,3601 5,8901 20,250 Northern portion of 1,5601 760 i 2,320 1,6801 1,0501 2,730 Richfield 1 I I Southern Portion of 2,1301 7301 2,860 0: 01 0 Richfield Bloomington 491401 401 4,180 .01 01 0 Eagan 5301 301 560 5501 301 580 Mendota Heights 6601 1401 8001 7501 1401 890 TOTAL 21,4101 6,OOV27.4101 17,3401 7,1101 24,450 • Scientists have discovered a correlation between airport noise and the percentage of people who are highly annoyed .by the noise environment. The following table reveals that, if the proposed project works in the manner represented by project proponents, it will increase the number of highly annoyed people. 3. There is no reason to believe that the project will increase the level of long -ban) intercontinental operations from MSP. The noise analysis 40 contained in the Revised Draft MS assumes that there will be no more such flights with the extended runway than there would be without the extended runway. 4. Proponents of extending Runway 4-22 have acknowledged that the project is merely a short-term measure. The anticipated future increase in operations at MSP will reduce the amount of time that the proposed mode of operations can be utilized. The Original Draft EIS for the project stated: "The proposed extension of Runway 4.22 it conddered a short-term noire abatement improvement, which is needed immediately to provide some reduction of the aircraft noise In the most heavily impacted areas to the northwest of the airport, and to better distribute that noise.... As hourly operations increase at MSP, the number of hours Aunway 4-22 can be used per day decreases. Draft EIS at 20-21 (emphasis added). 3viJ1►�ER'OF -HIGIMYAN OYED -PEOPLE . ::. 1992 Ezishng vey ;., ..- 996 wJttr2 - :• 1996-VItbdut:R .. wy �XWSDIGT101`' �_.............. _ .._.._ Extea'sion ' ::Ezlerision Minneapolis 4990 3300 4091 N. Richfield 801 484 601 S. Richfield 146 558 0 Ft. Snelling 5 0 0 Bloomington 43 692 0 Mendota Heights 224 149 163 Eagan 111 96 99 TOTAL 63201 5279 1 4954 3. There is no reason to believe that the project will increase the level of long -ban) intercontinental operations from MSP. The noise analysis 40 contained in the Revised Draft MS assumes that there will be no more such flights with the extended runway than there would be without the extended runway. 4. Proponents of extending Runway 4-22 have acknowledged that the project is merely a short-term measure. The anticipated future increase in operations at MSP will reduce the amount of time that the proposed mode of operations can be utilized. The Original Draft EIS for the project stated: "The proposed extension of Runway 4.22 it conddered a short-term noire abatement improvement, which is needed immediately to provide some reduction of the aircraft noise In the most heavily impacted areas to the northwest of the airport, and to better distribute that noise.... As hourly operations increase at MSP, the number of hours Aunway 4-22 can be used per day decreases. Draft EIS at 20-21 (emphasis added). • IV, CONCLUSION The proposed extension of Runway 4.22 is a $50 million boondoggle that will not work in the manner claimed by its proponents. If it did work, it would simply increase the noise impacts associated with operations with MSP. Moreover, most of the purported benefits from this S50 million project would disappear as flight levels at MSP increased. Under these circumstances, the proposed runway extension should be abandoned now, before tens of millions of dollars in public funds are wasted on this ill-conceived project. %31806\010%P 11hl 8FV.003 • • -4- TAS USDOPOMToif Federal AvkWon Adn*ddruflon April 13, 1993 Mr. Bill Willkie BNTH 99 Canal Center Plaza Alexandria, VA 22314-1536 Dear Mr. Millkies a'L Airport Traffic Control Tower • 4311 34th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 The enclosed responses have been prepared to questions raised in the FAX received dated March 31, 1993. If you have any questions regarding these responses please contact Tom Petersen at (612) 725-4230. Sincere l .. dc. Air Traf: 8nclosures 3� 0 The following responses have been prepared to questions raised in the PAX of !larch 31, 1993, from BNTB regarding the Runway 22 EIS. • 1. The number of Runway 29LiR arrivals that would preclude use of the 165 degree heading is difficult to estimate. The use of the 165 degree heading off of Runway 22 and the interaction of arrivals on Runway 29LiR is not clear cut. The factors that Influence the use of the heading are not only the number of arrival aircraft but the direction from which the aircraft arrive. Aircraft from the NEINZ(south) and the SUNKR(west) arrival gates would have a such greater influence on use of the 165 degree heading than aircraft from the NICKL(east) or the DAYLE(northwest) arrival gates. If the majority of the arrivals were from the west or south, the number of inbounds that would stop the use of the 165 degree heading would be less than if the malority of inbounds were from the east or northwest. Since the 165 degree heading is not used today and has never been simulated by computer model it becomes extremely subiective to furnish hard and fast numbers of arrival aircraft that would stop the use of the heading. The best estimate that can be furnished due to the difficulty of the situation, since you require a specific number of arrivals for modeling purposes, is that up to 20 arrivals per hour could be accepted before stopping the use of the 165 degree heading. More than 20 arrivals per hour would require the use of 180 or 200 degree headings for aircraft that might have previously been assigned the 165 degree heading. 2. Land Runways llLiR depart Runway 22 Configuration. • Although this operating configuration may not be consistent with the goals of the RUS, there may be times when this scenario is used due to inclement weather conditions or unforeseen circumstances. The fact that the potential does exist to use this configuration, even though it may be a small percentage of the time, necessitates its evaluation in the BIS. 3. Runway 22 SID Issues, Departure Intervals. The Runway 22 SID has been tested but only by widely spaced aircraft that were used to obtain noise data. The SID has never been operated under actual working conditions to determine the exact amount of space needed between successive IRR departures to preclude the loss of IFR separation. Factors that would determine the interval between 2 successive departures would be differences in speed and climb characteristics as well as well as the final destination of the aircraft involved. Due to the single departure track dictated by the use of the Runway 22 SID, and the fact that the SID has never been operational make any accurate estimate difficult at best. The best estimate that can be furnished at this time would be at least a 6 mile interval would be required between successive departures using the SID. Page 2 4. RUS Mode Assumptions, Departure Levels for Land Rwy 22 Depart• 11's Configuration. The land Rwy 04 depart 21's configuration allows for the uniform dispersal of departure traffic due the location of the departure ,gates in relation to the position of the approach area for the Runway 04 final. The land Rwy 22 depart 11's configuration does not allow for the uniform dispersal of departures due to the Position of the Runway 22 final in relation to the departure gates. In the 22/11 configuration all traffic with the exception of the J106 GRB, DLL and ODI departures must make a right turn Off the airport to leave MSP airspace in the appropriate departure gates. The lower departure rate 10 a direct result of the complexity of the configuration for the departure controller. 5. RUS Mode Assumptions, Capacity of 04/11 Configuration for Alternative 1 ve Alternative 2. Alternative 1 which displaces the Runway 04 threshold 1550 feet from the proposed runway extension does yield a slight operational advantage over Alternative 2. Alternative l would 'add approximately 1200.feet to -Runway 04 southwest of Runway 11R. The additional length would make 3800 feet of runway available from the Runway 04 threshold to the hold short point of Runway 11R. This runway length would allow SOIR Groups 1 and 2 to land Runway 04 and hold short of Runway 11R. SOIR Group 1 includes • Short Takeoff and Landing Aircraft(STOL) and Group 2 Includes light twin engine and single engine aircraft. It was felt that these aircraft comprise such a small percentage of traffic at MSP that any increase of departure capacity as a result of the displaced threshold would be negligible. • ■ • at9untportolbn A*nk*ffpNm March 23, 1993 Mr. sill Willkie ANTS Alexandria, Virginia 22314-1538 Dear Nr. Willkie, Airport Traffic Control 6711 34th Avenue Bouth Ninneapolis, Minnesota Tower $5450 The following responses have been prepared as a result of the discussion and meeting of January 28, 1993, with NAC, ANTB, Minneapolis Airports District Office, and Minneapolis Air Traffic Control Tower. We have been advised by NWA that their pilots will not use SOI8 at night. This may change some of the Information provided. If you have any questions regarding these responses please contact Tom Petersen at 612-725-4230. Sincerely, ruee I. Wagoner Air Traffic Nana 2r Enclosures 31 Y / Threshold Alternatives Description ALTSRNATIVS 2 Issues 4. Air traffic controllers are currently required by FAA Order 7110.650, Air Traffic Control, paragraph 3-45 b, dated Oune 25, a 1992, to operate the Baquenced Flashing Lights of an Approach Lighting System at the Pilots request. eFlight Track Alternatives Description ALTSRNATIVS A Issues# n2. Minneapolis ATCT has, on numerous oeeaeione Commented on the use Of four departure headings for the dispersal o! aircraft of! Of Runway 22:(Bee enclosed Memorandum to the Minneapolis Airports District Office, dated May S, 1992.) The only a acceptable procedures for the dispersal of aircraft is a full fan, either from 165' degrees to 360' degrees (Alt ernative A) or from 200' Q he headingsgrees tfrom 0165Q0 dgdogreestthrough* h oughreen(Alernativego, dagrees will be of tlimited to Periods of light arrival traffic due the enclosed Memo. to the reasons stated in a If use of the 165' degree heading Is mandated, utilisation of the 29/22 arrival traic. Configuration workable scenauld be. rio doestexistiunnderf light ® Alternative A to remain on 29/22 for longer �• day(more hours) by replacing the 165' degree Periods of of e Runway 22 during Peak arrival periods with 100' or 200' degree headings. Use of this technique would lessen the impact on arrival traffic but would still allow the use of Runway 22 for departures. After the arrival volume diminished, departures ® would resume using the 165' degree heading. When a full fan is available under ALTBRNATIVS A and arrival onathec18 firatot a lix outside the MSF Airspace followinwouldhoodigeneraily bentubased a ds Departure Airspace Fix Existing Primary Proposed Primary Departure Beading Departure Beading Rochester( Mason city O'Neil(On Fargo(FAR) Grand Fork Brainerd(B Green Bay( palls(m) 3. The crosswind and tailwind Components for any runway are currently dictated by FAA Order 8400.90 National Safety and E 0 0 • Operational Criteria For Runway Use programs, .1knts�tw0dreeedt&nthan20oa9degrees and tlwid greater than 7 knots. • • V 2 dated November 9, cannot be greater Component Cannot be 4. s and R U89 7210.65 -and 7210.2 require that Simultaneouns are as s Operatollows,ions ns Orders Intersecting Runways (80IR) are conducted on Oryrrunwaysand there are no reports that braking action is less that good, conducted in VPR conditions and that there is no tailwind Component for aircraft instructed to hold short of an Intersecting runway, Pilot concurrence with the ATC clearance to hold short of a departurvarrival runway is needed in order to conduct any SpIR operation. A pilot's refusal to hold short of Runway 22 for departure traffic impacts the efficient use of the runway for departures, thus lowering the number of departure sloto available and Could result in a parallel operatio-I sooner than warranted by traffic volume. As an ex mple, it the pilot of an aircraft landing Runway 29L does not accept the clearance to hold short of Rwiway 22 for departing traffic, the controller Can of release the Runway 22. departure until the landing aircraft �1ther rolls through the Runway 22 intersection or turns off Runway 29L short Of Runway 22. Northwest Airlines has often refused to accept an SOiR operation at night. A$ a consequence, the loss of departure slots often resulte in a parallel operation sooner than the traffic demand dictates. Additionally, when utilising any cross runway operation not requiring an aircraft to land and hold short of a runway the visibility must be greater than one mile. ALTERNATIVE 8 Issues. 2. The primary departure heading issued to aircraft are listed In the table under ALTERNATIVE A Issues. OTImsR nzaHT TRACK ALTERNATIVE8 Issues. 1. A Copy of the Memorandum sent to the Minneapolis Airports District office is enclosed with this latter. 2. If Runway 22 is extended as proposed an additional operating configuration will become available at MSp. The extended runway would allow for landings on Runway i1LiR and departures oft of Runway 22 from the' proposed. Queuing Taxiway. In the land 11's depart 22 configuration there is an interdependency only between the Runway 22 and Runway 11R intersection. Departures from Hiway 22 would be required to roll through the Runway 11R Intersection between arrivals. A similar situation exists today when landing Runway 04 and departing Runway 11LiR. The land il's depart 22 scenario could be best utilised during peak arrival ® periods to maximise the use Of the parallels for landing aircraft. As the departure demand increases, a switch to a straight parallel operation or a combination of departures off Runway 22 and Runways llL/R would be used to accommodate departures off MBp. Departure headings o!! Of Runway 22 could Potentially extend from 220' degrees counterclockwise to 09e, adegrees. i. The operating scenario for landing Runways 29L/R and departing Runway 22 during periods Of high departure and low a . inbound demand for either ALTUNATIYH A or B would be a Combination of departing Runway 22 and departing Runway 29R and/or 29L simulteneously. This combination of runway use would not only expedite departures off MBP but 4190 has the potential benefit of lowering the number Of departures over Minneapolis. Once the departure demand has diminished, the use of Runway 29R and/or 29L for additional departure Capacity would not be needed and a true 29/22 configuration would be reinstituted. RUNWAY 22 BID Issues. I. A Departure BID off Runway 22 using a single departure track could bs used in either the Build or No -Build scenarios. 2, However, due to the capacity limiting nature of the single track, the BID would not be used if more than one aircraft was ready to depart. RUB Mode Assumptions No Build Runway Runway' "";j`"eh`yre Factor Driving to Parallel Ops. 22 29L/F— Arr-60 or Less Arr-7e or Less More than 80 Dep Dep -15 or Less Dep -30 or Less per Hour 11L/R 04 Ars-20 or Less Arr-le or Less Arr s20 or Dep -20 or Less Dep -40 or Lose Dep s40 1L/R 22 Ari -20 or Lose Dep -20 or Less Arr s2e er Dep ►20 3. • 40 EO 0 0 4 Alternatives 1A, 18 Takeoff Landing Arrival Departure Factor Driving to Runway Runway Push Push Parallel ops.• 22 BLUR Arr-60 or Less Arr-60 or Less More than 44 Dep . Dep -40 or Less Dep -40 or Less per Hour •• Arr-20 or Less Arc -10 or Less Arr s20 or Dep -20 or Lose Dep -40 or Less Dep 3-40 31 or --- - -- -- - Dep >20 or • NOTel Loss of em wind or runway contaminants would also require a parallel operation. •• NOM A combination of departing 29LiR and 22 would be used accommodate departure demand. Alternatives 2A, 28. Same as Alternatives 1A, 18 Above. Additionally 2 weeks of hourly traffic at MOP ie included with this response. MINNEAPOU8-SAINT PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT s L� ® v� NDW Rutmw Aftma*m LTCP CONFIGURATION O 7 STRUCTURES TO BE REMOVED/RELOCATED ON AIRPORT O 8 STRUCTURES TO BE REMOVED/RELOCATED SOUTH OF 1-4940 INCLUDING 4 HOTELS (SHERATONo E%B, REGISTRY & THUNDERBIRD) o MALL OF AMERICA PARKING GARAGE WITHIN STATE SAFETY ZONE A O CONSTRAINED ACCESS VIA 24TH AVENUE v EAST SHIFT CONFIGURATION • 8 STRICTURES TO BE REMOVED/RELOCATED ON AIRPORT • 10 STRUCI)RES TO BE REMOVED/RELOCATED SOUTH OF 1-494, INCLUDING 3 HOTELS (SHEIRATON. ExEL. & REGISTRY), AND I OFFICE BUILDING • IMPROVED APPROACH CLEARANCE OF 24TH AVENUE INTERCHANGE • ADDITIONAL ROOM FOR AIR FREIGHT REDEVELOPMENT • POTENTIAL FOR SLIGHT INCREASE IN RUNWAY LENGTH 0 ■• 19 w tar A Room" A - Ij ;•� �.. _ _ 88nn .88 8� 88 8� 881 , J I I I I I I I I I I I I r- ------------ --- --- — —..-/� Mwr� ri •r ! I M WV1 p - i 1 rr— -'---' -- -Lj.-MSP rnn m 2M Master Plan Update ® nom': Alternative E10 T.IMAm r 0 -0 oo oo on, I 0. -.6-0 IIMML-r�9 Master Plan Update Afternative Ell =4i r 7-7 J 0 0 L 17y- IIMML-r�9 Master Plan Update Afternative Ell IIW You 2M Ton" AM ownrom 0 0 0 MOLE Of CONTENTS AND Dakota Search Area and Conceptual Design layout................................................................Page 2 Schedulefor 1989 —1996.............................................................................................................Page 3 Agency and Public Involvement.................................................................................................Page 4 SiteIdentification.........................................................................................................................Page 5 Site Identification Criteria:.........................................:................................................................Page 6 ` Three Eastern Sites in Search Area.............................................................................................Page 7 V`\ Four Western Sites in Search Area.............................................................................................Page 8 SiteScreening................................................................................................................................Page 9 Site Selection and Criteria..........................................................................................................Page 10 SiteDescriptions.........................................................................................................................Page 11 Site2.............................................................................................................................................Page 12 Site3.............................................................................................................................................Page 13 Site6.............................................................................................................................................Page 14 Site3 Selected.............................................................................................................................Page 15 Appendix.....................................................................................................................................Page 16 A Dual Track. Airport Planning Process— designed to study the region's long-term aviation needs — was established by the Minnesota Legislature's "1989 Metropolitan Airport Planning Act." The process is being conducted by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the Metropolitan Council. 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 is also being examined, along with other feasible alternatives as they are developed. MAC is responsible for site selection in the Search Area, preparing a comprehensive plan for an airport on the selected site, developing the MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan, and prepar- ing the federal and state environmental documen- tation. The Airport Planning Act also requires the MAC and Metropolitan Council to make a recommendation to the Legislature in 1996 on which approach should be taken for future airport development. DMOR SEARCH AREA AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN LAYOUT DAKOTA SEARCH AREA COPIDEPTUAL AIRPORTLAYOUT -_' + i OR E j I 1 I CfiGROVE �• Wr OROVE ., -•- onmu e. "Z YRN I � . �• I I: ORENOYNT ' ••� r'en m+• 8.0 e 1 1 Twd� E V T I fr`;17CI Nlnln ynr .i y^9'. r. WTEB I � � I' MTINOO - �•`� . -;F'- - ------ - 1------ ----i r--i--� •r I `\ Vu In I I I1 eni w•m i Ri vonna .I M. r.N n I t EmPlre 1 �LN(E LLE i FMMIN S� r @) I I 1 1 A A mm A}/ arw^ .. �! I NMIPTON � I �• 1 v' i I NEW IE9V0.1.� j W .Ian I p, ISI Cnv Ile Root I TRIE r er Isk L E - I U V I L__i I 1 i (1 In December 1991, the Metropolitan Council designated the Dakota Search Area in Dakota County for the planning and development of a new major airport. The Dakota Search Area measures 17 miles east to west and eight miles north to south and encompasses about 115 square miles or 74,600 acres. The new airport conceptual design layout, developed by MAC, was used in the site selection process in the Dakota Search Area. Y 0 9 40 0 splMuf Poi 1889 -1816 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Search Area Study Site Selection New Airport Comprehensive Plan Federal/State Environmental Documents Community/Economic Studies MSP LTCP MSP LTCP Update Decision Document Public/Agency Coordination Dual Track Planning Process MAC has developed this schedule, consisting of eight major elements, in order to meet the requirements set forth by the "1989 Metropolitan Airport Planning Act." The Act requires the MAC and Metropolitan Council to make a recommendation to the Minnesota Legislature in 1996 on which approach should be taken for future airport development. AGENCY ANI PUBLIC 1NI NEMENT Throughout the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, there has been a major emphasis on public and agency involvement before, during, and after the completion of key study components. Affected local, state and federal agencies have been contacted to determine the type and location of resources within their jurisdiction and in the new airport search area, and to identify potential issues and concerns. In addition to these agencies, the following groupslcommittees were involved in the site selec- tion process: • State Advisory Council. The Minnesota legislature established the Council to provide a forum for education and discussion on metropolitan airport planning. The Council reviews and advises the legislature on the Dual Track planning activities of the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Metropolitan Council. Council members include House and Senate legislators, federal, state and metropolitan agencies, representatives of the aviation industry and members of the public residing within and outside the metropolitan area. • Contingency Planning Committee. This group monitors trends in technology, travel habits and the economy and makes an annual assessment of any changes or modifications that may be necessary for the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. The group is 0 comprised of Metropolitan Council and MAC members, local officials and business representa- tives. • Site Selection Technical Advisory Committee. This committee reviewed technical studies and documents, and provided input into the studies. Membership included representatives of affected state/federal transportation, planning and environmental agencies, local government staff and aviation industry representatives. • Site Selection Task Force. The Task Force provided policy guidance and advised the MAC on policy issues during the new airport stud- ies. The broad-based group included community officials from the Dakota Search Area vicinity, along with representatives from the metropolitan area, the business community, current airport users, MAC, Metropolitan Council and Minnesota Department of Transportation. A public involvement program provided early and continuing opportunities for the public to be informed and to review and comment on the technical and environmental studies prior to deci- sions and selection of preferred alternatives. This program included public information meetings, public hearings, news conferences and news releas- es, informational brochures and newsletters. The public had opportunities throughout the process to comment both informally and for - 4 0 mally. In addition, meetings of the Technical Advisory Committee and Tack Force, as well as Commission meetings, were open to the public. Formal input was solicited at public hearings. Interested persons received copies of published reports and documents upon request. ,71-1 r: 117111-1 i As part of the Dual Track environmental review process, which was approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, environ- mental documents were prepared for the site selec- tion work. This work complemented the technical analysis, and is being co-sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration and MAC. The environmental documentation associat- ed with the Site Selection Study provided a record of community and agency participation in the process. While the environmental documentation was separate from technical reports on the Site Selection study, the work and timing of tasks on the two processes were necessarily intertwined. A document, entitled "Environmental Review Procedures" for the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, was published by MAC in March 1993. This booklet details the environ- mental procedures and is available to the public by calling the MAC. 40 Inx • .• SITE STUDY APPROACH The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) began the new airport site selection study in January 1992. This work was initiated after the Metropolitan Council designated the Dakota Search Area as the general area within which a potential new airport would he located. The Dakota Search'Area is 115 square miles in size. It includes the cities of Coates and Vermillion, and Empire and Vermillion Town- ships, as well as Parts of the city of Rosemount, Nininger and Marshan Townships. SITE IDENTIFICATION The first phase of the process included iden- tification of all possible locations for the new air- port within the Dakota Search Area. This phase began in January 1992. The MAC, working with its Site Selection Technical Advisory Committee and Site Selection Task Force, developed six site identification criteria to identify potential sites, as follows: • Airport runways, taxiways and other facili- ties must he contained within the Search Area. It was also assumed that Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Runway Protection Zones and land within the FAA Building Restriction Lines should also be contained within the Search Area, because the FAA requires these areas to be airport property. State Safety Zones may extend To select a site in the Search Area, a three—step approach was developed by the MAC, as follows: 1) Site Identification — to identify all possi- ble locations for a new airport based on a limited number of general criteria. 2). Site Screening — to reduce the number of potential sites to the three or four best sites using a set of detailed criteria to assess physical character- istics, operational efficiency, community/social beyond the Search Area boundary. • Stare Safety Zones A and B and the LDN 65 noise contour may not impact urbanized areas or population centers outside the Search Area. • The runway layout must maintain the full operational capability of the Conceptual Layout design. • No site would be considered which places airport facilities in areas of extensive wetlands. • No site may be considered which would result in major ground facilities located in flood - ways. • Physical features not compatible with low altitude aircraft overflight must be avoided (specif- ically avoiding overflights of the Pine Bend Refinery). impacts, environmental impacts, and development costs. 3) Site Selection — to analyze the final candi- date sites and recommend a "preferred" site. Analysis during this final phase included the fac- tors addressed during site screening at a more comprehensive level, and additional factors that were required to distinguish among the sites and to meet Alternative Environmental Document (AED) requirements. During the site identification phase, a potential site included a specific land area within a site boundary and a specific runway configuration. A conceptual airport layout, which was developed and adopted by the MAC in the New Airport Conceptual Design Study in 1990, was used in the identification process. In June 1992, a number of potential sites were identified by the Site Selection Technical Advisory Committee. After eliminating duplicate and/or overlapping sites, seven potential sites.were identified. Three sites were east of the Vermillion River, southwest of Hastings. Four sites were west of the Vermillion River, near the center of the Search Area. SM CRITERIA F z-A JKKI 'j t i I . AMPTON r ho a -Ir a h a- -n— WETLANDS PINE BEND ARC FLOODWAY (Runway within this arc may not point directly to the Koch Refinery.) $EM�UNT Ippi jt�o� P ON ..... U.S.P. . VE C 55 N I n I IPOATES Yr TA till"'V e r rn l l I o.n C7 E n p I F z-A JKKI 'j t i I . AMPTON r ho a -Ir a h a- -n— CA SM 39E t s AND DESCRIPTIONS - • East of the Vermillion River, south of Hastings. • East -west primary runway orientation. SM 3 SITE t SITES • East of the Vermillion River, south of Hastings. • Northwest -southeast primary runway orientation. I �:� _... - • East of the Vermillion River, south of Hastings. • Northwest -southeast primary runway orientation. • East of the Vermillion River, along Search Area southern edge. • Northwest—southeast primary runway orientation. • �:� _... - • East of the Vermillion River, along Search Area southern edge. • Northwest—southeast primary runway orientation. • �%1 SITE SIZE 4 AND • West of the Vermillion River, near center of Search Area. 00 • Northwest—southeast primary runway orientation SITE 6 • West of the Vermillion River, south of Pine Bend. • North—south primary runway orientation. 10 - M=NsnFs SITE 5 71 • 4. I.f . _ q . I. I • West of the Vermillion River, near center of Search Area. 00 • Northwest—southeast primary runway orientation SITE 6 • West of the Vermillion River, south of Pine Bend. • North—south primary runway orientation. 10 - M=NsnFs SITE 5 • West of the Vermillion River, south of Pine Bend. • Northwest—southeast primary runway orientation. SRE 7 • West of the Vermillion River, south of Pine Bend. • Northwest—southeast primary runway orientation. 8 s 0 • 4. I.f . _ � II—_ Iii_ , .l M,�ni T• - � �. II_ • West of the Vermillion River, south of Pine Bend. • Northwest—southeast primary runway orientation. SRE 7 • West of the Vermillion River, south of Pine Bend. • Northwest—southeast primary runway orientation. 8 s 0 0 SITE SCREENING The site screening process began in the fall of 1992 and included extensive input from the Site Selection Technical Advisory Committee and the Site Selection Task Force. Each of the seven poten- tial sites for a new airport was examined using 56 criteria within.the following broad categories: SFE 1 • Good site expandability • Virtually no wetland impacts • Relatively low site preparation costs • Greatest potential impact on Hastings • Likely displacement of Vermillion • Less than optimal runway orientation u • Good operational characteristics • Does not displace Vermillion or Coates • Minimal natural environmental impacts • Few siting constraints • Longer access time than for western sites • Potential impacts on Hastings SFE 3 • Good operational characteristics • Does not displace Vermillion or Coates • Minimal natural environmental impacts • Airport characteristics • Community/social impacts • Other environmental impacts • Differential site preparation costs As a result of the screening process, two eastern sites (Sites 2 and 3) and one western site • Longer access time than for western sites • Least impacts on Hastings of eastern sites SITE 4 • Displaces Vermillion and Coates • Highest site preparation costs • Proximity to encroaching urban development • Only fair runway expandability • Highest potential bird strike hazard SFE 5 • Shorter access time than for eastern sites • No impact on "very highly sensitive" aquifer areas • Displaces Coates and likely Vermillion • Significant potential off-site noise impact • Constrained by Pine Bend Refinery and Vermillion River • Highest population in State Sifety Zones 0 (Site 6) were recommended to the MAC by the Technical Advisory Committee and the Task Force. The MAC adopted Sites 2, 3 and 6 in February 1993 for the final step of the site selection process. SFE 6 • Lowest travel time from metro area • Fewest off-site noise impacts • Lowest population in State Safety Zones • Displaces Coates • Higher wetland impacts than eastern sites • Two landfills and three contaminated waste sites within site boundary • Site constrained by Pine Bend Refinery SFE 1 • Shorter access time than for eastern sites • No impact on "very highly sensitive" aquifer areas • Displaces Coates and likely Vermillion • Greatest potential off-site noise impacts • Most significant noise impacts on public parks • Highest wetland impacts • Site expandability complicated; by Vermillion River floodway 6- G) SM SELECTION The final phase of the site selection process ria in the overall site selection process, including involved a detailed evaluation of Site 2, Site 3 and specific factors to measure the operational, Site 6. environmental, geographic, economic and cost This evaluation had the most extensive crite- aspects of the alternatives. SM SELECTION CRITERIA The purpose of the site selection criteria was to help choose the "best" site and to meet environ- mental analysis requirements. These criteria were developed during the site screening process, and were supplemented by additional criteria and detail to meet the documentation requirements of the site selection phase. Y5Ii y 7.IV; ,r 11th • Operational Efficiency • Airspace Interaction • Site Expandability • Site Accessibility ,'7 lllllllll <'a:r; l IIIii IMf' • Displaced Communities/People • land Use Plans • Community Services/Infrastructure • Noise Impacts • State Safety Zones A and B • Total Population Impacts Summary • Historic/Archaeological Resources • Farm and Non—Farre Businesses • Farmland • Public Parks/Recreation land �0 • Some refinements were made to each site at the beginning of the site selection phase to mini- mize impacts. Other minor adjustments were made during the site selection analysis. NWBMMMMNMU • Wild and Scenic Rivers • Wetlands • Waste Disposal Sites • Water Quality • Air Quality • Bird Strike Issues • Endangered/Threatened and Special Concern Species • Energy Supply and Natural Resources • Floodplain Illllhi% llr;l I II;{I,IUiilll 11 hi::J f. 0 SITE Two eastern sites (Sites 2 and 3) and one western site (Site 6) were selected for detailed analysis in order to identify a preferred site for a potential new air- port. Descriptions of the three sites appear on this page, followed by illustrations of each site on the next three pages. Site 2 is located east of the Vermillion River in the eastern third of the Search Area. The termi- nal area is centered about 4 miles southwest of Hastings and 3 miles east of the City of Vermillion. Site 2 is generally bordered by the Vermillion River to the northwest, Route 316 to the northeast, U.S. 61 to the southeast, 220th St. to the south, and Goodwin Ave. to the west. The four main parallel runways are oriented in a northwest -southeast direction. The crosswind runways are perpendicular to the main runways, with one runway on the east and one on the west side of the main runways. Two refinements to the site were made dur- ing the early phase of the site selection process. First, the site was rotated approximately 10 degrees clockwise from its initial site screening alignment to reduce noise impacts in Hastings and Prescott, Wisconsin. Also, the eastern parallel runway nearest the teminal area was shifted to the southeast.to move it off the Vermillion River flo odway. Site 3 is also located east of Vermillion River within the eastern third of the Search Area. The terminal area is centered about 5 miles southwest of Hastings and 3 miles east of the City of Vermillion. Site 3 is generally bounded by the Vermillion River to the northwest, U.S. 61 to the east, 220th St. to the south, and Goodwin Ave. to the west. The four main parallel runways are oriented in a north.northwesterly-south southeasterly direction. The two crosswind runways are in the northeast and southwest quadrants of the site, opposite to the crosswind runways in Site 2. Three refinements were made to Site 3 at the outset of the site selection process. First, the entire site was shifted approximately 1,000 feet southeast relative to its initial site screening position to reduce impacts on the Vermillion River and Hastings. Next, the crosswind runways were rotated 10 degrees toward the main parallel run- ways. This enables aircraft using the northeast crosswind runway to stay farther south of Hastings and Prescott, Wisconsin. Third, the longest run- way was moved to the farther west position to eliminate its crossing the Vermillion River. 11 Site 6 Site 6 is located northwest of the Vermillion River in the central third of the Search Area, about 6 miles west of Sites 2 and 3. The teminal area is centered about 9 miles west of Hastings and 3 miles northwest of the City of Vermillion. Site 6 is bordered by Rt. 42 to the north, Goodwin Ave. to the east, the Vermillioti River to the south and University of Minnesota property to the west. The four main parallel runways are oriented in a north -south direction. The western crosswind runway is perpendicular to the main runways and centered on the University of Minnesota property. The eastern crosswind is also perpendicular to the main runways and located in the southeast quad- rant of the site, approximately l mile north of the City of Vermillion. Three refinements were made to Site 6 as the final phase of site selection began. The first two changes included a shift in the entire site approxi- mately 1,500 feet south, and a slight rotation of the site from its initial site screening position. These refinements moved the runways farther away from the Koch Refinery at Pine Bend. The last refinement moved the longest runway to the Far west parallel runway position. This resulted in better clearance of the refinery's tall stacks and also eliminated any runway crossings of the Vermillion River. /C T SITE 2 - Stale Safety Zones and Terminal Building and Runways Runway Protection Zones Airport Boundary s PPi Ri"I � I SEM UNT._-l rst z °•... nlrr�lu f� UN/V 4,4f I` _J EI r e 0 �Q z NM 56 COATES 4ini_hg_ 12 10 0 0 316 P �, Vermil ion % a '•8ha Ma •� n,' -- — - — Jill 47 '1♦' � 2 0Th S�E P% i AMPTON 12 10 0 0 SM 3 State Safety Zones and Terminal Building and Runways Runway Protection Zones Airport Boundary 13 1— SEM UNT �• ippi MIAT �C_- 1 r•',NfSr a REfIM w U.S.PA \ � �NOPi TE C. NJi ❑ °. 21 sc Nini ger 52 COATES Q A TIN ' UN/VCRS/ of / NC50TA n e7 _ 316 O "'� d�yW V e r m l l i o n-- o E p I r e J 7 as P N' - - EFt AMP TON - —� 13 SITE 6 State Safety Zones and Terminal Building and Runways Runway Protection Zones Airport Boundary 14 �. EMUN �JI yS�T .!_ I s= "o. A C'I---=--tN--- !PINI B D I I •'�O- ,,! z 56 ---N ''`i0A ES I n I_{e_r �-9- TIN A Ira ei_ 'm I 1 , 10 n - - ._ M a r s h it n a ,n u 074 6 -. -('–�-- --- s21 I — a oP 2 iTn St _E `ion•�� I];AMP'TON: I - --1- - — ------I---.. 14 CA, 9 SITE 3 SELECTED The analysis of Sites 2, 3; and 6 indicated that the two eastern sites (Sites 2 and 3) offered the best opportunities for airport development while producing the fewest impacts on surrounding communities. Since Sites 2 and 3 occupy approximately the same piece of land, they have similar impacts. In 27 of the 67 site selection criteria, both sites have identical impacts, and for most of the remain- ing criteria, the differences were considered to be negligible. One principal difference is that Site 3 offered greater expansion flexibility for the City of Hastings to the west and south, as well as more airport development flexibility to the north and east. The second principal difference is that with Site 3, Hastings would be located north of the major flight corridors to and from the new airport With Site 2, however, Hastings would he situated between two heavily used aircraft flight corridors to the south and north. The western site (Site 6) had some draw- backscomparedto the two eastern sites. First, the proximity of Site 6 to the Koch Refinery would 9 result in potential adverse visibility impacts for aircraft. Second, future airport expansion would be constrained by the refinery to the north, wet- lands to the west, and the Vermillion River to the east. Expansion of the refinery would also be restricted by the airport if it were in this location. Third, Site 6 would displace the City of Coates, and would he the closest site to the encroaching suburban development to the west. Finally, South St. Paul Airport would have to close and operations at the Downtown St. Paul Airport and the new airport would be dependent on each other during bad weather, which would limit capacity at both airports. The primary asset of Site 6 is that it had the shortest ground access time from the centers of the metropolitan area. The Site Selection Task Force recommended Site 3 at a meeting on July 28, 1993. Following public review and comment, Site 3 was selected as the preferred site.by the Metropolitan Airports Commission on Jan. 27, 1994. 15 0 Nest Steps With the selection of a preferred new airport site, work will begin on developing a New Airport Comprehensive Plan. The plan will determine the size, location, phasing, and initial design of run- ways and taxiways, passenger terminals, ground access and parking, air. cargo, general aviation, support facilities and utilities. A series of alternative airport development concepts will be evaluated. The final plan will be similar in scope and detail to the Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Long Term Comprehensive Plan in order to compare the two. The New Airport Comprehensive Plan will be completed in early 1995, In addition, a New Airport Alternative Environmental Document will be prepared, which will detail environmental impacts. Scoping for the environmental process begins in February 1994. APPENDIX CMMIS Lon Richard Braun, Chair Mark Brataas, Vice Chair Steve Cramer Laurel Erickson Edward Fiore Alton Gasper John Himle Darcy Hiresman Daniel Johnson Nick Mancini Thomas Merickel Louis Miller, Jr. Patrick O'Neill Paul Rehkamp Georgiann Stenerson For further information on the Metropolitan Airport Commitrion or to re?zwt copier of bnxhurv, room or rnrutlaten, place call Jenn Unruh at 7264189. 40 Commissioner Tommy Merickel, Chair Commissioner Alton J. Gasper, Vice -Chair Richard Beens John F. Bergford, Jr. Scott Bunin Colonel Larry Burda Joseph M. Finley Kathleen Gaylord Edward G. Gutzmann Joe Harris Lawrence McCabe E. Craig Morris Thomas Novak Gloria Pinke Tom Rhei neck Ray Rought Stephen P. Tatum, Sr./Kevin Molloy Richard Theisen Ray Waldron John D. Williams Wendy Wiberg Wattenberg P'Ill:!'dl_hiliil !H Illllrl ; itlr.iiu =7111lll Metropolitan Airports Commission Metropolitan Council FAA Air Traffic Control Tower — MSP FAA En -Route Control Center — Farmington FAA Airports District Office Minnesota Dept. of Transportation — Ofice of Aeronautics Minnesota Dept. of Agriculture University of Minnesota Dakota County City of Eagan City of Burnsville City of Apple Valley City of Rosemount City of Farmington City of Hastings City of Inver Grove Heights City of Lakeville City of Vermillion City of Cottage Grove City of Coates Washington County Goodhue County Empire Township Vermillion Township Marshan Township Ravenna Township Hampton Township Eureka Township Douglas Township Cattle Rock Township Northwest Airlines Air Transport Association Mesaba Airlines UPS Minnesota Air National Guard US Air Force Reserve Minnesota Business Aircraft Association Airline Pilots Association Aircraft Owners Pilots Association Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources Minnesota State Historical Preservation Office Minnesota Environmental Quality Board US Fish & Wildlife Service US Environmental Protection Agency US Army Corfu of Engineers Minnesota -Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission 40 • E FEBRUARY 1994 OPERATIONS AND COMPLAINT SUMMARY Table 1: OPERATIONS SUMMARY - ALL AIRCRAFT Runway Arrival . % Uae Departure %' Um 04 230 15% 82 0.6% 22 •59 0.4% 561 3.8% 11 6080 405% 6670 45.9% 29 8654 57.6% 7242 49.7% Table 2: MSP FEBRUARY FLEET MIX PERCENTAGE Stage - Table 3: AIRPORT FEBRUARY COMPLAINT SUMMARY Airport Scheduled UW ANOMS MSP `1993 1994 Cann L"4 Surge 2 615% 615% 61.1% Stege 3 385% 385% 38.9% Table 3: AIRPORT FEBRUARY COMPLAINT SUMMARY Airport 1993 1994 MSP 734 498 Airlake 4 0 Ark*n 0 0 Crystal 0 1 Flying Cloud 4 5 Lake Elmo 0 0 St. Paul 8 3 h isc. 6 1 •... TOTAL 736 .. Si0 Table 4: FEBRUARY OPERATIONS SUMMARY - AIRPORT DIRECTOR'S OFFICE t 1993 1994 . AIR CARPM 687 703 MbSO R 214 306 GA 141 129 MUZARY 9 7 AIR FRIEG917 47 42 CHARTER 23 31 TOTAL 1121 1218 t MSP FEBRUARY 1994 COMPLAINT SUMMARY MSP COMPLAINTS BY CITY CITY ARMAL DEPARTURE TOTAL PERCENT Arden Hills 3 8 11 22% Blooctington 0 5 5 1.0% Burnsville 0 7 7 IA% Carver 0 1 1 02% Eagan 26 75 101 20.3% Edina 0 6 6 12% Inver Grove Heights 4 68 72 145% Mendota 2 1 1 02% Mendota Heights 5 IS 20 4.0% Minneapolis 102 100 202 40.6% Minnetonka 1 0 1 02% Oakdale 0 1 1 02% Plymouth 1 0 1 02% Richfield 9 18 27 5.4% Shoreview 0 2 2 0.4% St. Anthony Village 0 2 2 0.4% St. Paul 9 26 35 1 7.0% West St. Paul 0 3 3 0.6% TWAL `168 338 :.: 498 300.0% TIME OF DAY NATURE OF COMPLAINT TJME TOTALNATURE OH► TOTAL - COMPLANT . 00:00 - 05:59 40 Excessive Noise 397 06:00.06:59 26 Euiy&m 50 07:00- 11:59 134 Low Flying 9 12.00- 15:59 46 Structural Diswrbaoce 1 16.00-19.59 84 Helicopter 1 20:00.21:59 99 Ground Noise 15 22-00- 22:59 49 Engine Rum -up 0 23:0}0y--23:59 Fmqueo*cy �20y �25 y • • 0 s• February Runway se Report - All Operations -.o 0! 7-� \nl AN I-494 ' 29L Runway Use T FAM I-494 - All 3 Ea Percent of =`Operations 29L 0 0 Metropolitan Airports Commission Friday, March 18, 1994 Jet Carrier Operations By Type Febmary,19% Ai craft Type cmw Percentage 8747 153 0.8 B74F 49 03 DC10 879 4.7 MD11 8 0.0 L1011 108 0.6 DC87 31 02 B727H 152 0.8 B757 1477 7.9 EA32 2117 11.3 B733 614 33 FK10 592 3.1 MD80 961 5.1 MD88 3 0.0 MD88 150 0.8 DC8 94 OS DC86 2 0.0 DC8S 101 OS B707 2 0.0 B727 3423 18.3 DC9 7287 38.9 8737 314 1.7 B73S 175 0.9 FK28 47 03 Total 18,734 19D% >: 38.9 % Stage 3 61.1 % Stage 2 � Mro 91 St. Pant 1 ►` �J 2 • O • 11 9 4 • 3. 0 10 O S 6 • .12 7• khReld 23 20 . 18 /y'f "4 D 17 19 16 •14 _--1IJ B C7 Ilie pple dW rnBusviller0000 rrey Mendota 1 ' 13 d ' 21 Rasenonl 40 9 0 Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport 2 Airport Noise Monitoring System Locations Site City Approximate Street Location 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Avenue & 42nd Street 2 Minneapolis Fremont Avenue & 43rd Street 3 Minneapolis W. Elmwood Street & Wentworth Avenue 4 Minneapolis Oakland Avenue & 49th Street 5 Minneapolis 12th Avenue & 58th Street 6 Minneapolis 25th Avenue & 57th Street 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave & 641h Street 8 Minneapolis • Longfellow Avenue & 43rd Street 9 St. Paul Saratoga Street & Hartford Avenue 10 St. Paul Itasca Avenue & Bowdoin Street U St. Paul Finn Street & Scheffer Avenue 12 SL Paul Alton Avenue & Rockwood Avenue 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 14 Eagan Vwst Street & McKee Sheet IS Mendota Heights William Court & Thresm Street 16 Eagan Avalon Avenue & Vitas Lane 17 Bloomington 84th Street & 4th Avenue 18 Richfield 75th Street & 17th Avenue 19 Bloomington 16th Avenue & 83rd Street 20 Richfield 75th Street & 3rd Avenue 21 Inver Grove Heights Bar bare Avenue & 67th Sheet 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 23 Mendota Heights End or Kenodon Avenue 24 Eagan Chapel lane & Random Road Metropolitan Airports Commission Jet Departure Related Noise Events For February, 1994 • Count Of Events For Each RMT RM77D City ... Approximate Street Location Eveats AM Events AM Events >900 Events X1000 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 42nd St. 448 34 0 0 2 M innewlis Fremont Ave. & 43rd Sc 411 45 0 0 3 Minneapolis W. Elmwood St. & Wentworth Ave. 1090 87 4 1 4 Minneapolis Oakland Ave. & 49th St. 1297 206 21 4 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 2967 %9 285 23 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 3010 1156 597 114 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave & 64th St. 2055 319 45 2 8 Minneapolis Lmgfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 1008 134 8 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hanford Ave. 49 3 0 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin St. 1131 18 7 1 11 St. Pend Finn St & Schaffer Ave. 233 5 0 0 12 St. Paul Alton Ave. & Rockwood Ave. 610 9 2 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Cart 1475 174 2 0 14 Eagan First St. & McKee St. 1438 185 12 0 15 Mendota Heights William Cant & Thresee St 1770 271 13 0 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & Ytlas Lme 2308 642 142 5 17 Bloomington 84th Sc & 4th Ave. 334 23 3 0 18 Richfield 75th St & 17th Ave. 1153 159 59 3 19 Bloomingmn 16th Ave. & 83rd St. 340 85 24 1 20 Richfield 75th St. & 3rd Ave. 427 15 1 0 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St. 697 60 2 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 965 65 0 0 23 Mendota Heights End of Kemdm Ave. 2389 765 300 19 24 Fagan Chapel Lane & Rand® Road 1824 1 171 2 0 • Friday, March 18, 1994 �) Metropolitan Airports Commission 0 Jet Arrival Related Noise Events For February, 1994 • Count Of Events For Each RMT RMTID Ctey Appamdmme Street Lonttoo Events a65dH :- ; Events ::;a80dB ..Events >90tUi Events >1050 1 Minneapolis Xerxes Ave. & 42nd St. 2190 22 0 0 2 Minneapolis Fremont Ave. & 43rd St. 1623 82 1 0 3 Minneapolis W. Elmwood St. & Wentworth Ave. 2043 719 25 0 4 Minneapolis Oakland Ave. & 4% St_ 1886 409 3 0 5 Minneapolis 12th Ave. & 58th St. 2754 1494 161 0 6 Minneapolis 25th Ave. & 57th St. 2722 1560 236 3 7 Richfield Wentworth Ave & 64th St. 460 1 0 0 8 Minneapolis Longfellow Ave. & 43rd St. 713 17 0 0 9 St. Paul Saratoga St. & Hartford Ave. 39 15 1 0 10 St. Paul Itasca Ave. & Bowdoin SL 535 25 4 -0 11 St. Paul Finn SL & Schaffer Ave. 193 0 0 0 12 St. Paul Alton Ave. & Rockwood Ave. 422 0 0 0 13 Mendota Heights Southeast end of Mohican Court 292 3 0 0 14 Eagan First St. & McKee SL 1912 24 0 0 15 Mendota Heights William Court & TLresee SL 716 12 0 0 16 Eagan Avalon Ave. & V lass Lane 3389 1168 3 0 17 Bloomington 84th SL & 4th Ave. 190 50 0 0 18 Richfield 75th St. & 17th Ave. 577 51 0 0 19 Bloomington 16th Ave. & g3rd SL 48 1 0 0 20 Richfield 75th SL & 3rd Ave. 188 0 0 0 21 Inver Grove Heights Barbara Ave. & 67th St 64 0 0 0 22 Inver Grove Heights Anne Marie Trail 1141 2 0 0 23 Mendota Blights Fed of Keandon Ave. 1687 48 0 0 24 Eagan Chapel Lane & Random Road 2720 26 1 0 0 Friday, March 18, 1994 J Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events 0 RMT #13: Southwest End Of Mohican Court (Mendota Heights) DATEMS AMCRAFr TYPE MA?QEVEL ARR/DEP 02/16)94 8:11:27 B727 92.8 D 02/1619418:17:55 8727 91A D 02/19/94 6:43:36 B727 88.9 D MON 12:18:28 B727 88.7 D 02/119419:32:22 DC9 88.4 D 02/18/94 16:08:01 B737 88.0 D 0282194 6:13:16 B727 87.3 D 02/17/94 9:55:28 B727 87.3 D 02(27)9415:09:59 DC9 87.2 D 02(27/9412:13:57 B727 86.7 D RMT #14: 1st St. & McKee St. (Eagan) DATEr014E AIRCRAFT TYPE MAXLFVFZ ARR/DEP 02/19)94 7:24:39 B727 98.3 D 02/19/94 7:04:35 B727 94.8 D 02/11)9414:09:30 B727 94.6 D 02/18)94 6:08:25 B727 94.6 D 02)079419:28:18 B727 91.5 D 02/169418:57:36 B727 912 D 02/1894 732:04 8727 91.2 D 02/1994 7:44:28 8727 91.2 D 02/1994 6:42:00 B727 91.0 D 0212394 6:56:43 8727 90.7 D Friday, March 18, 1994 7 0 9 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events RMT #15: William Court & Thresea St. (Mendota Heights) DATETIME A riP Fi MAXLEVEL ARR/DEP 02/1119419:31:27 DC9 914.5 D 02/104 8:35:46 B727 93.5 D 020/9415:04:12 B727 92.8 D 0227,9412:13:40 B727 92.0 D 02/18,94 7:44:12 B727 91.1 D 02/17194 20:20:01 B727 90.9 D 0227194 7:45:33 B727 90.9 D 02/1719420:10:30 B727 90.9 D 02/14,94 9:08:54 B727 90.7 D 02/104 20:25:24 B727 90.7 D RMT #16: Avalon Ave. & Villas Lane (Eagan) DATErVa A.n�T MA}Q.EM ARR/DEP 0223/9413:10:49 B727 101.6 D 02/104 8:20:23 B727 101.3 D 07/18/9410:06:45 8727 100.7 D 02110,9417:10:43 B727 100.1 D 02/19194 735:25 B727 100.1 D 07/24/9418:30:16 DC9 99.3 D 02/16/94 9:40:38 B727 99.1 D 07/1819413:42:47 B727 98.9 D 02/18,94 751:48 B727 98.8 D 02/14,94 7:45:14 B727 98.7 D Friday, March 18, 1994 Metropolitan Airports Commission Ten Loudest Aircraft Noise Events 0 RMT #23: Kenndon Ave. (Mendota Heights) DATETIME A GRAFI MAXIEVEL ARR/DEP 02(27)9417:20 20 8727 103.7 D 02(23/9410:17:31 B727 103.0 D 0211819420-.25:33 8727 102.0 D 02/19,94 7.43:50 B727 101.9 D 02/10194 10:02:47 B727 101.8 D 0211694 20:17:02 B727 101.7 D 02117/9416:17:37 B727 101.6 D 02/16/94 9:56:43 B727 1015 D 02UM 17:16:50 B727 101A D 0212319412:17:55 B727 101.0 D RMT #24: Chapel Lane & Random Road (Eagan) • DATETIME A TYPE MAXLEVFL ARR/DEP 02/19194 7.44:28 B727 92.7 D 02/1819410:10:25 B727 90.4 D 02/18/94 8:43:34 B727 89.8 D 02123/9411:40:21 B727 895 D 02/2294 8:16:16 B727 89.2 D 0]112)94 851:26 B727 88.9 D 02!12)9418:50:16 DC9 88.9 D 02/18194 8:10:41 DC9 88.7 D 0223)94 656:39 B727 88.4 D 02/1219414:58:52 B727 87.2 D 11 Friday, March 18, 1994 9 Minneapolis -St. Paul Analysis of Noise Events with Time/Date Between February 01 and February 28. 1994 Aircraft Ldn dB(A) Noise Monitor Locations DATE 91 12 I3 N 1 i5 06 . I! 0 19 010 1 011 1 112 113 114 IIS 116 1 117 118 119 IM 021 422 123 124 1 513 323 583 61.8 71.8 74.6 64.6 57.6 37A 5.1.4 50.8 34.153.6 36.0 59.3 65.7 55.9 61.7 56.0 51.7 42.9 54.2 63.1 51.9 2 33.1 $1.2 37.4 39,0 666 71.8 62.0 56.0 36A 50.4 42A 53.6 5.1.0 36.6 560 66.9 52.5 37.7 59A 46.1 47.3 53.7 59.8 SR,2 3 49.8 503 54A 36.6 67.2 71.9 60.7 55.6 46.6 47.0 36.2 47.9 49.8 383 54.2 68.1 32.7 56.9 60.9 32.8 46.6 34A 60.1 59.R 32.2 52.4 l6.0 58.1 68.7 70.9 62:1 SSA 0.0 56.7 51.2 $4.0 31.7 603 563 68.2 56.0 583 64.9 57.7 38.0 57.2 62.0 604 5 48.2 49.1 53.7 38.2 69,0 70.8 653 33.9 47.1 51.7 36.6 45.0 51.2 53.0 53.9 640 56.S 65.6 64A 50.8 493 31.1 61.6 SS.3 6 48.9 49.5 53.2 53.7 65.6 70.9 l9.S 33.0 36.2 39.5 32.4 31.0 44.0 39.2 41.7 66.9 34.6 69.0 63.4 52.2 46.2 54.3 52.5 59.9 7 54.4 36.2 610 60.9 68.9 72.8 64.0 35.8 42.6 46.7 44.5 47A 57.0 63.2 55.3 673 61.9 69.6 69.8 51.2 31.9 56.5 62.3 61.7 8 58.2 393 623 633 68.7 713 WA 57.0 31.6 • 473 44.4 35.1 33.0 54.6 61.1 433 54.0 47.8 49.7 51.0 50.4 67.8 37.5 9 35.2 57.0 613 61.8 70.2 74.7 629 54.7 33.8 49.9 43A 473 47.8 60.0 513 64.2 573 68.9 67.6 34.0 44.3 52.1 59.1 36.7 10 57.2 59.4 61.6 63.1 68.1 70.9 47.4 34.1 36A 52.9 43.1 47.3 39.4 61.9 613 69.2 48.6 52.4 51.8 44.2 35.1 S83 70.2 61.1 11 38.6 60.1 64.2 63A 69.2 70.7 60.9 61.3 48.8 573 50.8 32.2 59.7 60.9 65.1 69.0 56A 64.6 68.5 53.8 53.7 58.1 69.0 61.R 12 38.1 !641 60.2 59.7 69.6 72.6 633 35.2 41.8 533 46.2 47.4 33.9 39.4 39.8 69.6 57.8 653 61.8 51.2 54.8 56.6 61.1 61.7 13 55.0 30.9 38.7 563 683 71.7 37.4 56.9 40.1 57.1 49A 56.4 563 59.2 60.2 65.7 38.8 69.7 65.1 39.1 47.1 53.1 64.7 37.9 14 34.6 56A 59.1 623 673 73.9 59.9 58.9 40.2 60.2 45.7 38.1 55.6 60.0 62.6 69.4 57.2 63.1 62.5 54.0 31.0 54.0 72.0 60.2 I! 33.7 333 60.2 62.0 703 75A 63.2 57.9 47.0 55.8 46.0 32.0 59.0 60.0 60.3 67A 53.1 61.8 61.8 533 SS.9 56.1 63.4 59.9 16 35.8 57.8 63.9 65.7 71.0 753 59.7 60.4 42A 630 53.9 SSA 60.3 62.3 623 70.2 59.3 64A 36.6 51.4 54.2 38.8 73.1 61.9 17 563 383 642 62.6 68.9 71.9 53.4 38.7 62.3 63.9 50.1 51.7 60.7 64.8 610 713 61.9 69.2 59.5 56.2 57.8 59.5 72.2 67.2 IB 6.3 JI) 63.2 70.2 66A 73.1 73.9 50.9 62.7 SIR 65.9 58.6 60.6 63.4 66A 65.6 72.1 U.0 58.0 49.7 49.3 39.1 6.7.6 72.5 65.5 19 (AI.O 59.166.2 66.5 75.1 17.3 65.4 60.6 • 61.4 51.4 54.3 60..1 66.1 60.7 71.2 46.1 611.R 52.0 47..1 54.5 59.1 66.7 64.1 Nisch 22, 1994 Minneapolis -St. Paul Analysis or Noise Events with Time/Date Between February 01 and February 28, 1994 Aircrarl Ldn dB(A) Noise Monitor Locations UATE 01 82 83 N 0S 86 97 NM 09 NIO I 911 912 013 N14 NIS 016 817 1 818 019 N20 1 $21 1122 023 N24 20 36.3 32.8 S7.8 61.3 73.1 773 65.7 39.7 44.4 45.0 47.7 40.1 44.5 S7.4 44.1 66.2 47.7 39.9 35.4 52.1 60.5 56.9 54.9 6116 21 54.4 54.7 59.3 38.4 7410 73.7 65.2 S6.8 • 48.9 412 463 54.1 57.4 37.5 67.8 61.6 59.9 46.1 49.0 53.1 58.5 66.1 61.7 22 56.9 6010 64.1 61.7 69.7 68.9 33.3 57.6 50.6 62.7 52.4 59.5 633 59.0 63.1 66.6 64.1 63.6 44.3 48.0 59.2 39.4 72.3 61.7 23 59.4 61.9 64.6 62.9 73.1 73.6 633 57.7 59.1 75.8 64.1 66.4 61.4 63.3 64.1 71.6 65.9 65.7 52.7 S7.0 55.3 62A 70.7 65,9 24 S7.0 58.6 6S.1 62.6 74.7 7210 65.2 55.4 41.0 5S.7 52.7 53.5 60.7 61.6 61.2 70.2 32.9 37.1 39.8 47.0 58.1 62.0 71.8 64.3 2S SI.7 48.7 61.8 59.1 68.4 57.3 61.1 46.3 44.6 50.1 42.8 49.2 54.7 50.5 33.1 S&I 423 45.9 49.2 42.1 52.4 45.5 43.5 %6 26 42.4 48.0 5210 $4.6 663 72.7 34.4 323 M.4 53.9 43.8 16.1 11.8 50A 50.8 633 33.6 71.7 39.2 38.7 54.6 50.9 W.7 57,0 27 55.8 57.8 65.6 61.9 6&9 68.8 473 3J.1 18.7 59.2 47.4 42.4 61.8 58.9 63.0 68.3 49.8 50.2 726 51.9 59.6 61.2 72.7 67.5 28 57.1 59.5 62A 61.5 67.2 69.8 46.8 51.8 44.7 57.8 49.0 SI.S 62.9 65.8 64.3 71.8 1 S6.2 57.8 41.1 1 39.4 60.8 63.7 77.7 67.2 •lels Than hreaty-roar hours of data available �me 22.1664 • � i 4, 14 'MAI I lip i rf �� ,, a r, r n ..-• • s 11. 1 m y I r. � ..cam � S it �I'` M, A!: 4-0 -kk q 0, �qyj FIV dot -It-Z WN Wall, it . . . . . . Y. FO 4,0*44 8 6y-_✓ Airport Noise Report _ P sem.._ A blweekly update on Udgadon, tegaladons, and technological developments Volume 6, Number 3 February 14,1994 Land Use PROJECTS SUPPORTED BY AIP GRANTS MUST BE JOINT EFFORTS, AIRPORTS SAY Airports will support the Clinton Administration's proposal to provide federal grants to local governments for compatible land use projects "if, and this is key," the projects are joint efforts between airports and local governments and the grants are meant to foster that, Robert Wigington, senior vice president for government and legal affairs for the Airports Council International - North America, told ANR. ACI has made its concerns clear to the Senate, which is considering the proposal, he said. On Ian. 26, the administration proposed legislation to reauthorize the federal Airport Improvement Program that would amend the Airport and Airway Improve- ment Act of 1982 to add a new Section on Compatible Land Use (6, ANR, 9). It contains several provisions designed to make sure that local governments do not attempt to carry out projects opposed by airports. 9 Local governments would be required to consult with airport operators regard- ing any land use compatibility measures they sought to impose and any aviation data on which lead use compatibility recommendations were based; Grant approval would be contingent upon verification that land use plans, (Continued on p. 18) Raleigh-Durham Intl MODEL ORDINANCE WOULD REQUIRE SOUNDPROOFING IN 55-60 DNL CONTOUR The Raleigb-Durham Airport Authority is in the process of developing a model noise ordinance that would mquire a full disclosure statement, avigation caw ments, and sound insulation of homes as far out as the 55.60 dB DNL noise contour around Raleigh-Durham International Airport. The airport decided to begin developing the model ordinance after it entered into a settlement agreement last lune under which it agreed to pay S 1.3 million to about 100 property owners near the airport who had filed suit over noise damages. The settlement was reached after a panel of arbitrators awarded over 5100,000 in damages to seven homeowners living between the 55-65 dB DNL noise contours around the airport in a rest suit (4, ANR, 107). Armando Tovar, RDU's noise officer, stressed that the model noise ordinance would have to be adopted by each of the surrounding local jurisdictions and they would be free to revise it. At a Feb. 8 meeting of the airport's noise advisory commince, planning directors of the surrounding jurisdictions expressed concern coover the use of a noise overlay zoning district to achieve the objectives of the ordinance and recommended alternative strategies. Strong criticism of the requirement to soundproof in the 55-60 dB DNL contour (Continued on p. 18) Copyright 0 1996 by Airyvn Noire Repan, Ashburn, Va 22011 In This Issue... land Use ... ACI says projects funded by AT grants must be joint efforts between communities, airports - p. 17 Raleigh-Durham ... Soundproofing in 55-60 DNL contour recommended in draft model ordinance - p. 17 Washington National ... MWAA review board ruled unconstitutional again; action could affect expansion - p. 19 Burbank ... Airport asks appeals court to stay ban on terminal project, increased operations = p. 20 FICAN ... NOISE wants more public input before federal noise research proj- ects approved - p. 21 DFW ... Constitutionality of law barring cities near airport from imposing zoning requirements debated - p. 22 Conferences ... ACI to host conference in Los Angeles on challenges of new large aircraft - p. 21 Aviation Policy ... NAWG finds parts of Clinton initia- tive 'hard to swallow' - p. 22 San Francisco ... NOAA delays decision on whether bay agency can review airport layout plan - p. 23 News Briefs ... - p. 23 18 Airport Noise Report Land Use, from p. 17 including noise contours, have been "coordinated" with the airport and are consistent with its operations and planning; and • The secretary of transportation could require written assurances from local governments regarding land use Projects - The administration's four-year AT reauthorization proposal currently is being considered by the Senate Commerce Committee. The committee is expected to incorporate some of the administration's proposal into its bill (S 1491), including the land use section, however it may be revised The Senate also is expected to revise its bill from a one-year reauthorization to multi-year. Last fall, the House passed a three-year ALP reauthorization bill. ACI is seeking a five-year reauthorization bill starting at a $2.1 billion funding level, far higher than the $1.69 billion funding level set in the administration proposal for fiscal 1994. Land Use Working Group The Clinton Administration's proposal to funnel AIP grants to local governments will be considered by the 15 - member Study Group on Compatible Land Use at its upcoming meeting in San Diego March 2-3. At its third meeting, the study group also will hear presentations from local elected officials of cities with airport noise problems. That session was suggested by study group member Sharron Spencer, a city councilwoman from Grapevine, TX, who feels the land use issue has not yet been discussed from the perspective of local officials. The study group is comprised of mptesentatives of airports, the air transport industry, the federal government, and local governments. It was formed by the FAA to help the agency develop recommendations on how to encourage compatible land use around airports in fight of the shrinking noise contours and increased aircraft operations expected in the future. The study group has only one year to develop recommen- dations and is already half way through that period. Some group members have expressed concern that there seems to be little focus to their efforts at this point. Study group member Dom McGrath, professor of urban planning at George Washington University, sent a memo to some study group members Jan. 28 outlining area he feels the group should focus on at the San Diego meeting. These areas are: • The validity of using the controversial federal noise metric DNL as the basis for developing local public policy on long-term controls to achieve land use compatibility around airports; • Restoration of the credibility of "the long -sought, but barely -delivered, planning process that would link the nation's airports with their neighbor municipalities"; • lrtclusion, in the AIP reauthorization, of some level of Passenger Facility Charge allocation to jurisdictions with zoning authority "to create a serious incentive" for compat- ible land use planning; • Examination of a policy of holding harmless local governments that incur expenses when airport plans are suddenly changed to benefit the airport, "especially when this abrogates prior agreements with neighboring cities and towns' • Determination of whether the Part 150 planning program should continue in fight of information provided at the last meeting that the program has not been effective in the land use area "What, in addition to the data collection and problem description functions performed are the actual long-term benefits of the program?' McGrath asked. He also suggested that an agenda for the fourth meeting be discussed in San Diego. "We are half way through the loosely defined term of our assignment, and our course ahead is not clear," he said. Steve Alterman, counsel for the Ar Freight Association, will not be able to attend the San Diego meeting because it conflicts with his association's annual meeting, but he said he "hopes in the next four to six weeks the study group can take what it has done and focus it on positive recommenda- tions." Alterman feels the group's recommendations should focus on "providing a carrot and stick" to local governments. Local governments can do what they want to with land use, he said, but the federal government should only reward them with money when they do things that will foster compatibilty. Regarding the Clinton Administration's proposal to give AIP grants to local governments, Alterman said it's a good use of federal funds and he supports it "in theory." But, the AFA official said he "wants to see more spelled out because there is the potential for abuse" A RD U, from p.17 was expressed by one builder, Krosland Land Co. of Charlotte, NC, Tovar said. The builder argued that the sound insulation requirement would add too much to the cost of housing and would be discriminatory because existing housing in the contour is not requited to have it, Tovar told ANR. RDU's model noise ordinance was based somewhat on ! requirements adopted by Loudoun County, VA, which borders Dulles International Airport, although the RDU ordinance would require more in the 55-60 dB DNL contour. - In the 55.60 dB DNL contour, RDU's model noise ordinance would require a full disclosure statement for all residential and non-residential construction, avigation easements, and acoustical treatment to ensure that the interior noise levels in heated living spaces are at least 30 dB lower than exterior noise levels resulting from over - Aur;"Report 0 • • l i 6 l• (• 1994 flights. Loudoun County recently expanded sound insulation requirements to cover homes in the 60-65 dB DNL contour and adopted a requirement that disclosure information, showing the proximity of property to the airport, be given to all prospective buyers of homes located within one mile of the 60 dB DNL noise contour line, which would cover some buyers in the 55-60 dB DNL contour. Loudoun does not require sound insulation of homes in that contour, however. For homes in the 6065 dB DNL contour, RDU's model noise ordinance would require full disclosure, avigation easements, and sound insulation to reduce exterior over- flight noise levels by 35 dB. The model ordinance would bar the construction of new homes in the 65+ dB DNL contour unless they were approved prior to the date of adoption of the ordinance. Also barred in that contour would be other noise -sensitive uses, such as schools, churches, hospitals, and day care centers, as well as new amusement establishments, jails, radio and television broadcasting facilities, landfills, and storage tanks and facilities. New non-residential construction would be allowed in the 65+ dB DNL contour if disclosure and easement require- ments were met. Alternatives Suggested In a Feb. 3 letter to Tovar, planning directors from the cities of Cary, Morrisville, Raleigh, and Wake County said their "basic concern" is with the use of an overlay zoning district to achieve the objectives of disclosure of noise exposure, retention of avigation easements, and the institu- tion of acoustical treatments on residential structures. 'None of these are typical of the kinds of regulation currently found in overlay zoning district ordinances in Wake County and each appears to require methods of implementation which are separate from the current methods of zoning enforcement now used by us as local governments in Wake County," they said. They also noted that the process of adopting new overlay zoning districts and applying them to "literally hundreds of separate properties" is time-consuming and cumbersome administratively. There is also little guarantee that such an effort would be applied uniformly throughout the noise impact area, they told Tovar. The Wake County planners said the airport should consider the following alternatives to the noise overlay zone: • Consider placing disclosure requirements in a model subdivision regulation which could be incorporated in each local subdivision code. This would be fairly simple to administer at the time of recordation of lots or approval of site plans, they said; • Work with the area's legal and real estate community to include disclosure statements in other documents associated with the transfer of land ownership; • Ask the affected city and county attorneys to assess the feasibility of requiring the proposed avigation easement as a 19 condition of the transfer of affected properties in the county; • Ask the state building code council to consider the possibility of amendments that would require properties affected by airport noise to be sound insulated. "This would have the advantage of placing the enforcement in the hands of persons trained and capable of the enforcement," they told the airport; • Have the Airport Noise Advisory Committee identify any deficiencies in the land use restrictions in the local airport overlay districts already in place. The planners said they are aware that a "boundary adjustment" may be needed when the RDU Master Plan is completed. The airport noise advisory committee is expected to finalize the model noise ordinance at its next meeting in March.A Litigation MWAA REVIEW BOARD RULED ILLEGAL AGAIN For the second time in three years, the review board set up by Congress to oversee actions of the Metropolitan Wash- ington Airports Authority's board of directors has been declared unconstitutional. The Jan. 31 ruling by U.S. District Judge Joyce H. Green could delay or increase the cost of the $2 billion renovation of Washington National and Dulles International airports. MWAA and its Board of Review immediately asked Judge Green to modify her ruling to clarify that projects previously approved by the review board or pending before it are still "lawful, valid, and effective." They also asked her to stay enforcement of her ruling until the legal appeals process is completed, which could take several years and would allow the airport renovation projects to move forward. The ruling is the second victory for the anti -noise group Citizens for Abatement of Aircraft Noise (CAAN), which represents residents in the flight path of National Airport opposed to its expansion, and Ralph Nadar's Public Citizen group. In 1991, in response to their first challenge, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the congressional review board illegal on the grounds that it violated the doctrine of separation of powers (3, ANR, 103). Congress revised the review board following that ruling, but CAAN, Public Citizen, and several businessmen impacted by aircraft noise, challenged that revision in the suit ruled on by Judge Green, John W. Hechinger el al v. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority ei al (No. 92-556). Transfer Legislation In the mid- 1980's. the secretary of transportation decided to transfer control of Dulles and National from the federal government to a regional airport authority to ease the burden of financing capital improvements. The transferring Airport Noiw Report 97