10/18/1994 - City Council SpecialSPECIAL
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY
OCTOBER 18, 1994
5:00 P.M.
I. ROLL CALL AND AGENDA ADOPTION
11. EAGAN /MENDOTA HEIGHTS CORRIDOR
COMPLIANCE AND POLICY
III. STATUS UPDATE ON PENDING
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
MEMO
city of eagan
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: OCTOBER 14, 1994
SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR OCTOBER 18, 1994
A special City Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October 18, 1994 at 5:00 p.m.
The purpose of the meeting is to 1) provide a Council update the Eagan /Mendota
Heights Corridor Compliance and policy and 2) receive a status update on pending
development projects.
EAGAN /MENDOTA HEIGHTS CORRIDOR COMPLIANCE AND POLICY
There are various issues concerning airport operations that need input and response by
the City Council. Assistant City Administrator Hohenstein has staffed airport relations
issues for several years and as a result prepares agendas and discussion topics for the
Airport Relations Committee, is present for action items related to the airport at City
Council meetings and attends MASAC and other airport operations related meetings on
a regular basis. It is becoming more apparent to both the City Administrator and
Assistant to the City Administrator Hohenstein that the presence of an elected official as
a spokesperson for the community at MASAC and related airport meetings is
important consideration for the City Council. Enclosed on pages 3 through/ is
a memo entitled "Council Update - Eagan /Mendota Heights Corridor Complianc and
Policy" for Council review. This information, along with an attachment entitled "MAC
Aviation Noise Program," provides a succinct review of the issues.
The City Administrator and Assistant to the City Administrator are looking for direction
from the City Council regarding future involvement and a position on the items raised in
the staff memorandum.
STATUS OF CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Enclosed on page is a memo prepared by the Director of Community Development
addressing several projects for update at the special work session on Tuesday.
There are no items for Other Business at this time.
/s/ Thomas L. Hedges
City Administrator
OTHER BUSINESS
MEMO
city of eagan
TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HOHENSTEIN
DATE: OCTOBER 12, 1994
SUBJECT: COUNCIL UPDATE - EAGAN /MENDOTA HEIGHTS CORRIDOR
COMPLIANCE AND POLICY
Through Airport Relations Committee action items and minutes, we attempt to keep the
City Council informed regarding airport planning and noise issues. Recent information
concerning the level of compliance with the Eagan- Mendota Heights Corridor, an increase
in Eagan residents' complaints and comments from other communities concerning the
corridor itself suggest that a more direct update and briefing is appropriate at this time
on this issue. I would appreciate an opportunity at the October 18 City Council workshop
in this regard.
Background
Attached is an excerpt from the most recent MAC State Report on Aviation Noise which
provides a fairly concise and accurate discussion of the corridor and its history. Since
the Blue Ribbon Task Force work was concluded in 1992, the MAC staff has fairly
consistently supported this description of the corridor and its basic intent. Since its first
comprehensive plans, the City of Eagan has made a concerted effort to limit residential
development within the corridor. The FAA encourages cities around the country to
provide noise compatible land use as the best means of noise abatement. Naturally, the
City has expected the FAA to maintain traffic over this area in return for the City's
planning efforts.
The corridor evolved and worked reasonably well from the early in the jet era until after
airline deregulation. As post - deregulation traffic levels began increasing from 400
operations per day in the late 1970's to the current level of 1,300 per day, traffic began
to spread to the edges of the corridor and eventually out of it. The Blue. Ribbon Task
Force determined that traffic could be contained within an area of about twenty compass
degrees and recommended a procedure which would contain traffic between the
extended centerline of the south parallel runway and a track twenty degrees north of that.
This was intended to keep traffic north of the Country Home Heights Addition and
3
disperse the worst of the noise over the industrial uses before leaving the corridor.
Although the corridor procedures themselves apply only to the first three miles from the
runway end, aircraft will generally continue over the industrial area for a distance during
turns if the procedure is flown correctly initially.
Resident Concerns
Staff has consistently dealt with complaints regarding the corridor with information to
residents and direct discussions with MAC and FAA personnel. The City has developed
a good rapport with the key airport and FAA staff and we have reasonable access to
them. Since the Blue Ribbon Task Force meetings, staff has received some cooperation
from the FAA when operations have been observed south of the corridor, but the City has
been requesting ANOMS flight tracking data to provide an objective basis for these
discussions. The MAC began providing corridor penetration reports in July 1994. A copy
of the August report is attached. The City has requested that similar reports be
generated for previous months as far back as ANOMS data is available.
Over the past several years, staff has received complaints from the Country Home
Heights and Highview areas concerning continuing erosion of the corridor. Concurrent
with the new MAC reports, staff has begun to record an increased incidence of noise
complaints from areas of east Eagan which claim to have observed recent changes in
operations. Staff has been compiling letters from these residents to be correlated with
the historical MAC reports when they become available. While none of these residents
expect to receive no noise, they have indicated that traffic patterns have substantially
changed since they moved into their homes in the last two to three years. Staff and the
Airport Relations Committee believe that this observation is directly attributable to the
large a percentage of traffic which is outside of the corridor to begin with.
Other Perspectives
Historically, the City of Mendota Heights has been Tess committed to the corridor and in
recent years has come to oppose it, suggesting that concentrating traffic unfairly affects
that city. Recently, certain residents of Inver Grove Heights have become active in the
airport noise issue and they too are opposed to the corridor because they believe earlier
fanning would provide relief for overflights in their residential areas. Inver Grove Heights
has sanctioned these residents efforts, but the City has not been directly active.
Periodically, Rep. Wes Skoglund of south Minneapolis has attacked the corridor claiming
that any controls on operations southeast of the airport will restrict capacity and result in
increased traffic over Minneapolis. While this position is not shared by other Minneapolis
representatives, Rep. Skoglund has begun to press this agenda with MASAC and the
MAC again this fall. All of these parties claim that the corridor results in an unfair noise
burden in their communities, that fanning traffic southeast of the airport would more fairly
distribute noise and that Eagan enjoys a noise free environment.
Factually, none of these assertions hold up. Mendota Heights currently experiences lower
noise levels in their older neighborhoods at comparable distances from the runway end
as Eagan's. The percentage of aircraft leaving the corridor to the north in the first three
miles is Tess than one percent in the last two months. The largest concentrations of
complaints in Mendota Heights continue to come from newer neighborhoods which that
city has permitted to develop within the Metropolitan Council Noise Policy Contours. Inver
Grove Heights residential areas are primarily impacted by eastbound aircraft that would
not turn even if traffic were fanned earlier. In fact, turning traffic is fairly substantially
fanned within the first six miles with or without the corridor procedure. As to Rep.
Skoglund's assertion, FAA and MAC staff have consistently indicated that the capacity on
the two ends of the parallels is the same. Since Eagan routinely receives more than half
of all departures when weather permits, it is evident that no recognizable restriction exists.
Fanning of traffic would offer no relief to the areas suggesting that the corridor be
dismantled. The specific traffic affecting them now would probably continue to affect
them. It would only shift more impacts at lower altitudes over urbanized residential areas
in Eagan and underutilize the noise compatible character of the corridor. This can be
further illustrated in staff presentation.
Discussion
While it appears that Eagan's position is historically and logically sound, this is an issue
area where good ideas do not always find natural allies. At the present time, the issue
appears to be taking on a political aspect that may require more attention from Eagan's
elected officials. Eagan's elected officials have played various roles over the history of
the issue. In particular, the Mayor or Councilmembers have participated in various task
forces on noise, airport adequacy, the corridor and other specialized studies. The
Council has tended to delegate MASAC activities to resident representatives and staff.
Other communities have historically or recently exhibited a City Council presence at
MASAC which has also afforded them a forum to press their individual agendas.
Bloomington and Richfield have long appointed a City Councilmember to serve on
MASAC. Councilmembers of the most affected areas of Minneapolis have tended to be
appointed to MASAC or attend the meetings. In recent years, Mendota Heights has
committed both the Mayor and a Councilmember's time to the group's meetings. While
it is essential for citizen representatives and staff to remain active in MASAC, elected
officials seem to have broader latitude and greater impact in the group's debates. With
the current attacks on the Corridor, it may be appropriate for Eagan to have more of a
Council presence at MASAC in the near future.
1 respect the demands on Councilmembers' schedules and I believe that the City's
positions have been aggressively and effectively pursued to date. It may appear to MAC
and FAA decision makers, however, that the issue is more important and, therefore, the
problem is more real to communities which have an increased Council presence. While
both agencies insist that they respond to objective data and not political pressure or
complaints, that may not be entirely true. The Mayor's current tenure as NOISE President
may be particularly important at this time.
The Council has been very active in other groups and boards where appropriate - in
particular, the MVTA, Dakota League of Governments, Koch Refinery Committee, the
Economic Development Partnership Board, L.MC, AMM, MLC and others. The potential
impacts of aircraft noise and airport planning decisions appear to be at least on par with
these issue areas. MASAC typically meets on the fourth Tuesday of the month at 7:30
p.m. If the Mayor or a Councilmember does become active in the organization, it will be
necessary to consider this when scheduling special workshop meetings.
I would appreciate any Council discussion or feedback in this regard. tf you have any
question, please let me know.
tant to the City Administrator
(0,
State Report 1993
Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport
MAC Aviation Noise Program
Metropolitan Airports Commission
6040 28th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
PROGRAMMATIC MEASURES
As MAC's Aviation Noise Programs team continues to use ANOMS and GIS
technologies, uses for the TIS will continue expand, with emerging technologies at the
heart of solutions for difficult airport and airspace challenges.
Airport noise impacts and the public perception surrounding those impacts, represent the
greatest obstacle to individual airport and National Airspace System (NAS) capacity
enhancements. Thchnical Information Systems (11S) like the ANOMS -GIS link,
correlating noise, operations, land use and community information are coming into vogue,
with demand accelerating at an astonishing rate. As airports worldwide grapple with the
dichotomy of expansion to promote aviation while protecting airport neighbors from
undue environmental impact, technical information systems will surface as sophisticated,
requisite tools for establishing airport operations and impact baselines. With rapid
proliferation of these systems at major airports will come an attendant community demand
for demonstration of an airport proprietor's dedication to off - airport impacts through
acquisition of an integrated monitoring system, and dedication of resources to the
program. Ownership of a TIS, available through FAR Part 150 funding, will become a
moral litmus test of an airport's sensitivity to noise in the community. Complexity. number
of microphones, and cost, will serve as measures of an airport's perception of its impact on
the surrounding community; forcing a quasi- competition, of sorts. This demand must be
harnessed, and TIS exploited for the benefit of the community, the airport, and the overall
National Airspace System. Proper management of the constantly evolving technology
must be proactive with specific goals and expectations, facilitating the dialog between
community and airport, and allowing prudent expansion to suit all interests.
1.5 Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor.
A long standing noise mitigation operational procedure at Minneapolis -St. Paul
International Airport (MSP), has been to direct as many aircraft operations as possible
over the more noise - compatible land use areas of Eagan and Mendota Heights, southeast
of the airport. Significant amounts of industrial, office, and commercial zoning and
development have been concentrated in this "corridor" area. A chronology of Corridor
development, revisions and modifications follows (all indicated headings are magnetic):
1968 - MASAC and local FAA review MSP operational alternatives.
1969 - Development and implementation of Preferential Runway System (PRS).
1972 - South boundary established. (runway heading, Cagan- runway 11RR9L).
1973 - South boundary moved north. 110 from nmwdy 11R departure end.
1974 - New Terminal Control Area at MSP established requiring 15° separation for departures.
1974 - South boundary moved north. 105° from =wily 1 IR departure end.
1975 - "River Departure" established for prop aircraft.
1981 - Air -Traffic Controllers Suite.
26 Metropolitan Airports Conuutssit_ f late Report 1993
1
1982 - New voices beard from communities on north side of corridor area.
1984 - Significant increase in traffic at MSP.
1984 - MASAC reviews discrimination of corridor headings toward Mendota Heights.
1984 - MASAC unable to resolve equity issue.
1984 - FAA implements "cone" of 090° to 118° departure headings.
1985 - Tower Dual Local Control implemented; 115° Rwy 11R. 090° to 100° Rwy 11L.
1986 - ATC unilaterally sets south boundary as Rwy heading and no northern boundary.
1986 - ATC agreed 090° (although not official north boundary) was operationally recognized.
1987 - MASAC establishes special Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor Committee.
1988 - MASAC special committee considers alternative corridor operational procedures.
1989 - Eagan and Mendota Heights submit proposals far review.
1990 - MASAC unable to resolve issue; MAC Exec. Dir. appoints Blue Ribbon Task Force.
1990 - MAC / MPCA conduct Corridor Definition Study.
1991- FAA -ATC conducts 60 Day Corridor Test requested by Blue Ribbon Task Force.
1991 - Task Force reviews 60 Day Test results and separate city proposals.
1992 - Task Force unable to agree after two years of deliberation.
1992 - MAC makes final recommendation to FAA for approvaL
1993 - FAA -ATC Manager suggests minor changes in the wording of the two proposals.
1993 - FAA Regional Staff determine an EIS is necessary before implementation.
The "final recommendation" currently with FAA for environmental review, is in the form
of two separate "proposals ", as follows:
PROPOSAL 1
Whenever possible, under non - simultaneous departure conditions:
+ Aircraft departing Runway 11R will be assigned a heading to maintain an
approximate ground track of 105 (M).
+ Aircraft departing Runway 11L will be assigned a heading to maintain a
ground track along the extended runway centerline, approximately 118
(M).
PROPOSAL. 2
Whenever possible, under simultaneous departure conditions (when diverging paths are
necessary for aircraft separation):
• Establish a Northern Boundary of 95 (M) from Runway 11L departure
end.
+ Maintain a Southern Boundary along the Runway 29L iocalizer.
4 Assign aircraft headings such that approximate ground tracks, as close as
feasible, remain on or within the above boundaries.
Metropolimu Airports Commission - Slate Report 1993 27
Eagan- Mendota Heights Corridor.
PROGRAMMATIC MEASURES
Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor Perspective
MAC encouraged community members of the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement
Council (MASAC) to address the corridor issue during the mid- 1980s. After meeting for
three years without success, the MAC Executive Director appointed a "Blue Ribbon
Committee" of parties directly involved with the issue. Mendota Heights and Eagan were
the only cities appointed because they adjoin the airport and corridor area, have existing,
implemented land use policies relating to the corridor, and are exposed to the most intense
noise impacts southeast of MSP airport.
Because land use protection in Mendota Heights and Eagan extended approximately to
three miles from the ends of the parallel runways, an agreement was reached with the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to issue turn instructions after aircraft wexe three
miles from the runway to help maintain the integrity of this commercial/industrial
corridor. This strategy kept aircraft from overflying areas south of the corridor. The
northern boundary was maintained as an operational limitation due to the proximity of the
St. Paul Downtown Airport (SIP).
When considering noise distribution equitability, noise level and intensity of impact must
be considered. An aircraft producing 90 dBA measured on the ground one to two miles
from the airport produces about 75 dBA seven miles from the airport, due to increased
altitude farther from the airport. Both levels create an impact for residents, but the
intensity of impact Is significantly different. No matter what the initial noise level,
distance from the airport equates to altitude above the ground, and increased distance
between noise sources (aircraft) and noise receivers (residents). Consequently, noise
abatement programs at MSP, and at airports around the world, have concentrated on
programs addressing the highest level, most intense noise impacts close to the airport,
before addressing those impacts farther from the runways.
From the Mississippi River northeast of MSP, counterclockwise to the Minnesota River
south of the airport, a nearly homogeneous development of residential land use exists. No
direction for aircraft departures provides lesser residential noise impact than another
direction. On the other hand, to the southeast, thanks to efforts on the part of
Mendota Heights, Eagan, the Metropolitan Council, and MAC, land uses within three
miles of the runway ends are predominantly river bottom, commercial and industrial. This
allows the highest intensity noise (when aircraft are close to the airport and departing) to
be concentrated over an area purposefully intended to exclude residential development
Land use policies close to an airport represent the most powerful noise abatement tool
available. The FAA overflies compatible land uses wherever possible, and encourages
development and protection of compatible land uses as its top priority for noise abatement
strategy through the Part 150 Program. MAC's goal is to affect the lowest number of
residents with the highest intensity noise levels. This requires assigning areas closest to
the airport the highest priority relative to noise abatement strategy. To the northwest, over
south Minneapolis and north Richfield, this means spreading the highest intensity noise
impact over a greater area, since no favorable direction exists to impact the fewest
28 Metropolitan Airports Corn • • n « Slate Report 1993
I °
1
Eagan- Mendota Heights Corridor.
residents. The same technique must be employed for departures southwest, over
south Richfield and Bloomington, and northeast over Highland Park
Disregarding the noise advantages of the commercial/industrial corridor for southeast
departures would open residential areas very close to the airport in the city of Mendota,
residential areas in Mendota Heights north of Highway 110, and residential areas in Eagan
south of Interstate 494, to extremely intense jet aircraft noise impacts. Noise events from
90 dBA to 100 dBA are infrequently experienced in these areas today, but would become
commonplace within one to three miles of the airport if a "fanning" departure were
implemented. This level of intensity is unacceptable in light of the option to avoid it by
1 operating over the existing commercialfuidustrial "corridor" close to the airport.
1 As with every public policy, trade -offs in benefits impact the most well- intentioned
proposals. With respect to maintaining the integrity of the commercial/industrial corridor,
frequency of overflights for small pockets of residential uses inside of three miles from the
runway ends is the immediate cost for protecting as many residents as possible from
excessive aircraft noise levels. MAC is firmly dedicated to an extensive Part 150 Land
Use Compatibility program to address those residential areas close to the airport impacted
by intense noise levels. The Part 150 program utilizes soundproofing, purchase guarantee,
I property acquisition, and combinations of these land use compatibility techniques to
alleviate intense noise impacts. Distributional Fairness is an on -going issue with respect
to noise impacts. However, numbers of overflights must be weighted by nearness to the
airport because aircraft close to the facility are closer to the ground, creating a greater
impact than they do farther out.
Retaining a compatible land use corridor is not the final word on corridor issues. Moving
1 ahead with the corridor- refining proposal is just one phase in an on -going effort to
minimize noise impacts for all airport neighbors. This position has been made clear on
numerous occasions. MAC has explicitly stated that staff would address the most intense
impacts closest to the airport as a priority, then move farther out to refine procedures. This
t avenue is chosen precisely because the Metropolitan Airports Commission does not
represent one or two neighborhoods, but rather communities throughout the metropolitan
area. An airport proprietor must exercise effective management by making the best
decision based on the available knowledge. MAC policy is to minimize noise impacts for
airport neighbors. Those closest to the airport are burdened with the most onerous noise
impacts and should be addressed first. The next step is to consider options for airspace
management beyond three miles from the airport.
Spreading aircraft overflights over a wider area does not necessarily spread noise impacts
out "fairly". In the case of areas north, west and south of the airport, fanning represents an
attempt at equitability. This so- called "fanning" presents itself as the best alternative given
the available technologies and existing demographics. However, MAC is often attacked
1 for not reducing noise impact, but merely "spreading it out ". By overflying relatively
unpopulated areas in the industrial/commercial corridor, we realize an opportunity to
actually reduce intense noise impacts on residential areas, by not overflying them.
1 Additionally, maintaining the commercial/industrial corridor southeast of the airport does
not "target" communities downstream from those areas closest to the runways. The
Metropolitan Airports Con ntiasion • State Report 1993 29
PROGRAMMATIC MEASURES
Airport Noise and Operations Monitoring System ( ANOMS), utilizing radar tracking
information, continuous noise monitoring data, and GIS information, provides a
multidimensional view of airport operations previously unavailable. The most
sophisticated of its kind in the world, ANOMS will help the airport, surrounding
communities, and the FAA reach reasonable, viable conclusions regarding how to operate
the airport in the most responsible manner possible, especially farther from the runway
ends where more flexibility in operations exists.
Each community surrounding the airport perceives its impacts to be greater than they
should be exposed to. MAC understands this perspective, and agrees that the impacts
should be minimized to the greatest extent possible. It must be noted that airspace
decision - making is not accomplished by considering only the airspace above individual
communities. Noise impact per flight is approximately equal at equal distances from the
airport. In general, that impact decreases the farther a receiver is from the runway.
Therefore, in considering impact at distances farther from the airport, number and
frequency of overflights provides a reasonable measure of impact. The Metropolitan
Airports Commission is prepared to work with the various communities surrounding the
airport using ANOMS generated data to review alternative airspace management
techniques to minimize distant noise impacts.
1.6 Runway 04/22 Extension Environmental Impact Statement
The proposed extension of the crosswind runway addresses two primary airport concerns -
Noise Redistribution and Operational Considerations.
Noise Redistribution
From 1972 to 1990, the FAA Air Traffic Control lbwer at MSP operated a Preferential
Runway System (PRS). The PRS used Runway 22 to shift departures, and therefore noise,
away from the high residential impact areas in south Minneapolis. However, use of the
PRS was dependent upon airport demand remaining within the capacity limits of a
combined Runway 04/22 and parallel runway operation of fewer than 50-60 operations
per hour. (The intersecting geometry of the three runways results in a significantly lower
capacity than that of the parallel runways alone.) When this capacity was exceeded, the
parallel runways (11L -29R and 11R -29L) had to be used because of their greater capacity
(up to 108 operations per hour). As airport operations Increased, the number of hours
during which the PRS could be used continued to decrease.
This increasing disparity in the distribution of flights led to replacement of the PRS by the
Runway Use System (RUS) in 1990. Like the PRS, the RUS is designed to maximize use
of Runway 22 to relieve the closest and most heavily noise- impacted residential areas in
south Minneapolis. The RUS also calls for a "balanced" use of Runway 04/22 to achieve
greater equity in the number of flights off each end of that runway. Like the PRS, the RUS
cannot be used during hours with high trsiffic volumes without causing excessive delay.
Any increase in the number of hours per day that the RUS could be used would require an
30 Metropolitan Airports Commission • State Report 1993
Minneapolis -St. Paul
Runway 11L Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis
August 1994
3146 Total Jet Departures from Runway-11L
0.9% (28) Jet Aircraft North of Proposed 095° (M) Corridor Policy Boundary
Metropolitan Airports Commission
4.1A.
Minneapolis -St. Paul
Runway 11R Corridor Gate Penetration Analysis
August 1994
3856 Ibtal Jet Departures from Runway 11R
:-'-.-'.' -; L■r:_'--4;-Itz.fattii.-.■:::, .7-...11111111.0_,
I 7--......,_16-"1•:-.--- '''•- - 7 - le'Zvz-ttai-Num
`i•-...1.2...- ---,,,,.,.."'",,_ ".....- -4_111-;.-orgr-Z,L. 7*,,,iiiZ14-141,4.! .s'. ;
10. -.1"111a. 11'-'-'•-•'''%. '`■ __-"'"..-....‘...' ....t. 'IPP4.......7 • -144ilL .11:‘
- •zz4.role.". mi■,,N.,.,_ --7....---1-40.-z-k-V.- '..,- _ • -.414,Ecie,:kiNi • 4,F.T.:4; 4
I VA ".....4'-':-.4.--141*--:"-47•Ti6 - -- ' - s'a . . • t.-.1.4i,A
. , ....,Li!iNe.. , -. .,.. . _,,,,,,...,-...,_,_ - • w ,
ilL
,i Z".:z ...„ 4 4
■gjmp`mC-----;.'trwttd: , t...... `,, - --,-- - *ONIA , L Iiir
Illque"---2,-.2.■■-..-"-•--E6.1....-.7-X..---- .,-;17:zat-A.1146.
___ 4 1 1 4 4 2 0111111 1Niar tt--- " •1411 1 -
PCIENi,
111:444.11tM WNW* .. :.lt,44.'
val Z:4AT
on, vli
1101,.piratgv.
cook.
111111,___ ..1123-11--..„ riff. It..-... .. I, m 7. 41: -4. -'4.. F." -.V4
—. '-..... .1 , A.t■ 0 0
&Val 4 .-1.11111"1141'--,..11142 1 1 I Sili Wte et ie fr.lfr:,Alika l' .... s4 %I
---
- •:.---*--
- rupp „, .!%.
,..00.r.:-.
-.. ll ftli"■4 .. " - --..si.prie,.._ - .
' 7 r.
..t ..,_- ,.._-.•■•_ ,-,,-.
...‘,1111,...W.,..... 7, -...:. - : ....
....-i-
32.7% (1260) Jet Aircraft South of Corridor (South of 29L Localizer)
MEMO
city of eagan
TO: Tom Hedges, City Administrator
FROM: Peggy A. Reichert, Community Development Director
DATE: October 14, 1994
SUBJECT: Community Development Update for October 18, 1994
At the Council Workshop session on October 18, 1994, I would like to update the Council
on any development projects of interest to the Council that are upcoming or "in the
works." I hope the Council will take this opportunity to ask questions about anything that
is on their mind. A few things that we might want to cover briefly include the following:
1. Stinar Development
2. Easter Lutheran Church
3. Opus meeting re: O'Neil Development
4. Central Area Framework Planning Process (Downtown)
5. Adult Entertainment Ordinance
6.. HRA Townhouse Project (set time for visit to Apple Valley)
7. Cedarvale Reconstruction Potential
If you have any other suggested topics, please let me know. Thank you very much.