Loading...
11-13-1996 ARC PacketAIRPORI" R�LA'iiO�BS COt�IMISSION � ACENLi.4 IVoverr�ber 13, 1996 - 7 p.rr�. - Large Conference Room 1. Cali to Order - 7 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of October 9,1996 Meeting Minutes. 4. tlnfinisheci and New Business: a. Discuss .MSP Noise Mitigation Program ��� � b. Discuss Non Simultaneous Departure Procedures - FAA Letter c. Discuss Part 150 Sound Insulation Program 5. Updates � � a. Metropolitan Council's Aviation Guide Plan � � . . � - � , . . b. Contract on Third Parallel Runways 6. Acknowledge Receipt of Various Reports/Corresponcience• a. MASAC Agenda for. October 22 and September 24, 1996 Minutes b. MASAC Technical�Advisor's Report�for��September 1996 c. MASAC Complaint Summary for September (not available) d. � Part 150 Buyout Update - Issue 34 e. MSP ,Construction Schedule f. Eagan Airport Relations Commission Agenda for November 12, 1996 g. IV�ASAC Operations Committee Minutes of October� 16, 1996 7. Other Comments. or Concerns. � �-~ � 8. Adjourn. Auxiliary aids for disaliled persons are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of IVlendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please, contact City Administration at 452- 1850 with requests , . , � , : � . � ' . , � , . � . _ . . . .. _\ 0 ____ , _� CITY OF NIENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MIfVNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION �MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 1996 . The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, October 9, 1996 in the City Hall Large Conference Room, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. The following members were present: Beaty, Fitzer, Leuman, Olsen and Stein. Commissioners Gross and Surrisi were excused. Also present were City Administrator Kevin Batcheider and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Fitzer moved approval of the September 25, 1996 minutes. Commissioner Leuman seconded the motion: AYES: � 5 NAYS: 0 DISCUSS MSP MITIGATION COMMITTEE DRAF7' RECOMMENDATIONS Administrator Batchelder updated the Commission regarding the October 7, 1996 MSP Mitigation Committee meeting. He informed the Commission that at this four hour meeting, the Mayors proposed their final recommendations to the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Batchelder briefed the Commission on a October 8, 1996 Star Tribune article regarding the Mayor's meeting. He also updated the Commission on an article regarding Part 150 Sound Insulated homes and the problems of homes now being too air tight. He stated the MAC is currently reviewing how to correct these problems. Regarding the IVlitigation Committee's discussion on Sound Insulation, � Batchelder explained that the Mayors are recammending that the program be expanded after completion of the current.program to incorporate the area encompassed by the 2005 60 DNL. He informed the Commission that the Committee recommends that the MAC evaluate the airport noise environment 18 monfihs prior to the estimated completion of the expanded � � program. if conditions warrant, a modified sound insulation package should be offered to eligible dwellings/buildings within the 2005 54 DNL contour which achieves at least a 3-5 db interior noise level reduction. He stated that this contour wili include the Curiey, Friendly Hiils, Roger's Lake and Wagon Wheel Trail neighborhoods, as it is currently projected. Regarding Airport Operations, Batchelder stated that it was difficult for the Mayors to reach a consensus on this topic and he suggested that the Airport Relations Commission give specific recommendations to the City Council regarding departure procedures which are only generally covered in the MSP Mitigation Committee's recommendation. He stated the Council could then forward the information on to the MAC. The Commission recornmended that the City Council consider requesting the following departure procedures be evaluated in the Eagan/Mendota Heights corridor: . 1. IVon-Sirnultaneous Departure Procedures. 2. Use GPS/new radar technotogy to shrink the corridor. 3. Ten rnile final approach on arrivals. � 4. Eliminate head-to-head operations. 5. Recognize change in magnetic shift to return to origireal intent of Tower Orders. Regarding seeking the cooperation from F/�A to implement departure � procedures as appropriate at each runway end, the Commission recommended�that the City Council consider.requesting testing of the Close- In Departure procedure. Comreiissioner Fitzer felt that ANDMS data shouid . be used to specificaily identify the accuracy of noise distribution while the procedure is being.iested. The Commission discussed different runway use scenarios for when the new north/south runway is in use. It was' discussed whether or not all three runways could be used simultaneously. Commissioner Beaty stated that with the construction of the north/south runway, Mendota Heights wants assurance that the runway use system will be implemented on a regular basis. Batchelder stated that the MAC would like the construction to start as-soori-as-possible �because they need the runway for capacity. Commissioner Beaty stated that in July, MSP experienced the most operations ever. . The Commission �discussed the Nlitigation Comrr�ittee's recommendations for on Runway Use. The Commission agreed with the followingc 2 � 1. Completion of the environmental process and construction of the ,_ north/south runway should expedited and completed as soon as �. � possibie. Progress shouid measured against ihis schedule: a. commence constructivn - 1998 b. complete construction, opere runway - 2003 2. In the interim, Runway 4/22 should be used for noise mitigation purposes. This requires the following: a. construction of an associated taxiway; b. sound insulation at the end of Runway 4/22 only for those dwellings eligible for the expanded insulation program which are in the 2005 60 DNL. c. Insulation of these homes shouid be integrated into completion of the currently approved insulation program, starting as soon as the ireterim use of Runway 4/22 starts. The sound insulation commitment associated with interim use of Runway 4/22 . should be reevaluated if construction cannot be commenced by 1998 and the runway cannot be opened by 2003. ANNUAL STAGE III PERCENTAGES (1990-1995) 1996 MOMTHLY STAGE 111 PERCENT�4GES Administrator Batchelder distributed a report regarding Stage 111 yearly/monthiy percentages: The Commission discussed Northwest Airlines percentages. The Commission noted that the report acknowledges one month of backsliding by Northwest Airiines. The Commission discussed how the ANOMS report consistently documents backsliding by Northwest Airlines. It was noted that American Airlines' fleet is updated. DISCIJSS CON'TRACT OtV THIRD PARA�LEL RUNWAYS � Administrator. Batchelder informed the Commission that on October 3, 1996, the Mayor, Councilmember Jill Smith and himself inet with representatives from Minneapolis to discuss Minneapolis' goals regarding the fihird parallel runway. It was determined thafi Mendota �Heights and Minneapolis share mutual goals. He informed the Commission that Minneapolis has contracted with a Washington D.C. attorney office and that they intend on concluding contract discussions by December 31, 1996. He informed the Commission that ali meetings wili inciude the both cities and that both cities desire a joint contract. M • . ' •, � , . � . . � � The Commission acknowledged receipt of an October 1, 1996 letter from Administrator Batchelder to Ms. Annette Davis, of DOT FAA Great Lakes Region regarding the progress of the MAC's Corridor Refinement Proposal #1 for Non-Simultaneous Departure Conditions at the MSP International Airport. Administrator Batchelder stated that no comments have been received. He informed the Commission that he intends to send informafiion regarding the history of this request to Congressman Vento, Senator Weilstone and Senator Grams. MAYOR'S AND �ADIVIINISTRATOR'S BREAKFAST - JEFF HAMIEL, GUEST SPEAKER Administrator Batcheider informed the Commission that Mr. Jeffrey Hamiel, MAC, wii( be the guest speaker at the October 18, 1996 Mayor's/Administrator's breakfast. He informed the Commission that Mr. Hamiel may be speaking on numerous items such as MAC's strategic ( planning process, noise mitigation activities, FIS, growth rate at the airport, \. airport security and Star Tribune article. Batchelder stated that the Star Tribune article Mr. Hamiel referred to at MASAC regarding MAC's cozy relationship with Northwest Airlines has not yet been published. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S REVISION TO AVIATION GUIDE PLAN AND 11101SE ZONES � � Administrator Batchelder stated that Administrative Assistant Patrick Hollister �is in the process of generating information using the City's GIS computer. He stated that Hollister will print out land use information which will allow the City to compare Met Council's old and new noise zones. He stated that City staff will examine which undeveloped parcels of land will be impacted due to the air noise zone changes. �'� 4 � � . • � �.. � NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY AIRPORT RELATIONS COALITION Administrator Batchelder briefed the Commission on recent NDCARC activities which included MASAC representation. Many NDCARC members are not comfortable with ah industry representative as the MASAC Chair and this will be a topic of discussion at the October meeting. The Commission noted their support in the NDCARC effort's in returning the Chair of MASAC to a community representative and not an industry representative. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF VARIOUS REPORTS/CORRESPOIVDENCE The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC agenda for September 25 and August 27, 1996 minutes. � The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Technical Advisor's Report for August. It was noted that 288 Mendota Heights residents complained.about air noise. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Part 150 Buyout Update - Issue 33. � � r� � ' The Commission acknowledged that the MASAC Complaint Summary for August is not available. The Commission acknowledged receipt Councilmember Smith's notes from Jeff Hamiel's presentation to MASAC. The Commission acknowledged receipt of Eagan Airport Relations Commission' agenda of October 8, 1996. MISCELLANEOUS The Commission discussed inviting guests to speak to the Commission. It was suggested that a Mr. Brian Addis, Inver �Hills College, speak to the Commission regarding future aviation trends; IVIr.�Bruce Wagoner, FAA and Mr. David Braslau. Administrator Batchelder informed the Commission that a video by the FAA entitled "How We Measure Noise Contours" may be available� for fihe Commission to review in November. He informed the Commission that City of Eagan staff member Jon Hohenstein will be presenting this video at the next NDCARC meeting. �M r The Commission discussed receiving more statistics on long term trends, total number of flights during a specific timeframe, mix between Stage 2 and 3 aircrafts and runway use percentages during specific times of day. It �;� was discussed how staff could create a spreadsheet to depict these specific requests. There being no further business, the Airport Relations Commission moved to adjourn its meeting at 8:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secretary � � � � � Metropolita.ai Council Working for the Region, Ftanning for th.e Fi,r.twe _� �-� � � � �> , � , � :� � � � � � � ,�, �• • 1 1 i 1 I ' , � � � �, • . ��� ,, � � � �` ��• � ��'� (, . 1 1 1 , li 1; 1 r � �• Curtis Johnson, Chair Roger Scherer - I)istrict 1 Sill Schreiber - District 2 Mary Hill Smith - IDistrict 3 Julius C. Smith - Districi 4 1Veil Peterson - District 5 Martha M. Head - District 6 Barbara Butts Williams -1)istrict 7 Carol A. Kummer - IDistrict 8 David Hartley - District 9 Richard Packer - I)istrict t0 Esther Newcome - Distract 11 Charles Arnason - Distract 12 Diane Z. (DeDe) Wolfson - District 13 Stephen B. Wellington, Jr. - IDistrict 14 Kevin Howe - IDistrict 15 Terrence F. �+'lower - District 16 The mission of the Metropolitan Council is to provide leadership in the effective plannuig of regional growth and redevelopment, and in the delivery of quality regional services. The Metropolitan Counczl coordinates regional planning and guides development in the seven-county area through joint action with the public and private sectors. T'he Council also operates regional services, including wastewater collection and treatment, transit and the Metro HRA. - an affordable- housing service that provides assistance to low-income families in the region. Created by the legislature in 1967, the Council establishes policies for airports, regional parks, highways and transit, sewers, air and water quality, land use and affordable housing, and provides planning and technical assistance to communities in the Twin Cities region. On request, this publication will be made available in altemative formats to people with disabilities. Please call the Metropolitan Council Data Center at 291-8140 or T'TY 291-0904. Council information is available by calling the Metro Information Line at 229-3�80 and the Council's Data Center at 291- 8140 or T'TY 291-0904. Intemet address: data.center@metc.state.mn.us Web site: http://www.metrocounciLorg Printed on recycled paper with a minimum of 20% post-consumer waste. Publication no. 35-96-053 � � � Metropolitan Cc�uncil /► - - � - '� - ,, _ • � , . �/I�t�o oli��� � �3 e�e�o men�. �-u��.�e � Adopted by the Metropofitan Council fl/Ir+rnh i ��� ...... .be.C.�.v�tb'er` ��1Q �I' This repon was printed on recycted paper containing ac least 10°/u pos�-consumer was[e using so�-based ink. Upon request, �his publication will be made available in alcernative Eormars [o people �vith disabilities. Please call �he Metropolican Council Daca Cencer at ?91-81�}Q ��r T'i�' 291-0904 Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 E. Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 5� 101 291-6359 voice 291-0904 TIY Worhing for the region Plannina for the future �c [�� n'27 Publication no.-�T �1et.c� numtx.t'' � �Gh� ��r Metropotitan Councii Districts - - . . . , . - . - , r Curc Johnson, Chair C Roger Scherer, District 1, nonhwestern Hennepin Councy Bill Schreiber, District 2, Robbinsdale, Crystal, New Hope, Brooktyn Center, BrooWyn Park Mary H. Smith, District 3, Edina, Hoplans, eastern Lake Minnetonka communities Julius C. Smith, District 4, Lake�riile, Eden Prairie. Carver Counry, most of Scott County . Neil Peterson, Districc 5, Shakopee, Sa��age, Bloomino on, Itichfield Martha M. Head, D'ucrict 6, Golden Valley, 5�. Louis Park, souchwestem Minneapolis Barban Butu Williams, District i, downtown and north Minneapolis, portion of south Minneapolis Carol A. Kummer, Discric� 8, easLern half oI Minneapolis David Hartley, District 9, Anol:a Counc}- e.�:cept Coon Rapids pa�ric�r{.=:..L�euag, District 10, Coon Rapids, Fridle}; Hilltop, Columbia Heiahts, St. Anthony, New Briah�on, Mounds Vien� Esther Newcome, District 11, se�•eral communities in notthem Ramsc�> Count�• Charles Arnason, District 1?, almost all of Washin��on Count}; ponions of Vonh Sc. Paul, Maplewood Diane Z. (Dede) Wolfson, District 13, southern half ot St. Paul Stephen B. Wellington, Jr., District 1?, nonhern half of St. Paul, Lauderdale, Falcon Heights Kevin Howc. District 1�, h9endota Heiahts, Lilydale, Eajan, Burns�•ille, Apple �alley ?errence F. Flower, District 16, sou�h \�ashinoton Count�; and laroe ponion of Dakota County � � �JCc.�,rr�be.r- �99 t� AVIATION METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE ft�erel�89g ` Preface Summary i• - Introduction Purpose and Authority Uses of this Plan Regional Objectives: Aviation System Goals, Issues and Policies Facilities and Services Protection and Com:patibility Governance and Finance System Plan 33 Metropolitan Auports System System Facilities Roles and Functions Heliports 34 The Major Airport-MSP Dua1-Track Planning Process TiiCD T T., (''.,++,,,,,-o4,e„c.;.�o'Dlcu� - --- ---� - , . ��U Tw,+o,.;,,� T„�,.,r_�E'�iPi��r-A TT A;,-,,,,,.+ Qe�,��t,�_rn�.r,rev ^+n�n r m�u MSP Reuse Policies T'he Reliever Airports The Regional Sysiem Reliever Airport Study: Recommendations & Highlights Long-Term Comprehensive Plans for Reliever A.uports , St. Paul Downtown Airport .A.irlake Airport Flying Cloud Airport /�Pi/�1'ION METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 4 5 : . 10 11 11 20 28 33 34 35 41 42 � 44 47 47 50 53 53 54 54 `�� Crystal Airport Anoka County-Blaine Airport South St. Paul Airport Lake Elmo Airport System Irnplementation Procedures Guidelines for Content and Preparation of a Long-Term Comprehensive Airport Plan Planning Context Plan Content • Aviation System Content Requirements for Loca1 Comprehensive Plans Mandatory Elements Non-Mandatozy Elements Land-Use Compatibility Guidelines Process Compatibility Guideiines Definition of Compatible Land-Uses Infill Development and Reconstruction or Additions to Existing Structures Noise Exposure Zones for Major and Intermediate Airports Aircraft Noise Exposure Zones for Minor Airports Heliport Planning and Development Federal Funding for Land-Use Planning Implementa.tion of Land-Use Compatibility Guidelines Implementation Actions for Heliport Planning & Development Capital Investrnent Review Guidelines System Planning and Development Activities Irnplementation Appendices ,� c+.,,,,+„M, n „t�,,,,�,�, p��ly Deleted B. MSP International Airport Activity Data and Forecasts � ' ��.hcdula �r �tTrac,lc Plan �,e,c�,srs D. General Aviation Activity Data and Forecasts E. Typical Land-Use by Standard Land-Use Coding Manua1 Codes Glossary 55 55 55 55 56 ��� 56 56 57 58 59 60 60 60 61 62 64 6'7 67 70 72 74 75 76 � 79 � 81 82 83 �" ION METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 Figures 1. Existing Public-Use Airports 2. U. S. Airline Hubs 3. Total Air Passenger Enplanements 4. Tota1 Air Cargo Tonnage 5. Tota1 Annual Aircraft Operations 6. Range of Projected Passenger Enplanements 7. Range of Projected A.ircraft Operations 8. Average Delays � 9. Daily Demand and Hourly Operations/Capacity � n c�,o,a y f r� „� rr,,.,,.r� n;...,,,,.� u7.,,,,,;,,n nr�r�r� 11. MSP Year 2020 Deveiopment Plan � � rT n ; ,,,.+ r,. .,,.e�,on��,.�a��^„ � 14. Tota1 Based General Aviation Aircraft 15. General Aviation Aircraft Allocation 16.Tota1 Annual General Aviation Aircraft Operations 17. Minneapolis-St. Pau1 Noise ��bt,e cy �e6t64 18. St. Paul Downtown Noise Zones 19. Airlake Noise Zones 20. Flying Cloud Noise Zones 21. Anoka County-Blaine Noise Zones 22. �Crystal Noise Zones 23. South St. Paul Noise Zones 24. Lake Elmo Noise Zones 25. FEDERM. FUNDIN6 �OR CA�ND USE C'OMP/�T'!6KlT' Tables 1. Functional and Operational Characteristics of Metropolitan Airport Facilities 2. Airport Characteristics/Status 3. Schedule for Preparing/Updating Long-Term Comprehensive Airport Plans 4. Major and Intermediate Airports Land-Use Compatibility Guidelines 5. Minor Airports Land-Use Compatibility Guidelines 6. Structure Performance Standards 7. Conditional Land-Use Review Factors A/l/�'iON METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 33 36 36 37 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 49 49 50 66 - . 68 69 69 70 71 71 72 73 . 34 52 � 61 62 63 63 � '� � � � � A �! Z�J� �l�:t���' - - - -- ' - - - - - -- ��- --- - '- - --••-- -- „` - - • ' -- - ---- - -c -= = ��&���G�� b b' � b b• � TL ++, � 1' .-f 1 „a .ao 01., n+.,n+i:.;+.o� L.n� l,e b � � � b D v �e�$' r - - - � � •� a _ _- - - Y. _ - � �1� �IA'0001 METROPO�ITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 This is the s�th uodate/revision to the Aviation Chanter of the Metronolitan Develooment �� Guide CNIIDGI, first adopted bv the Council in 1972. This revision, which realaces ihe 1995 version, has been orepared to anclude a�ency and legislative decisions on the maior airport dual-track nlannin� nrocess. The 1996 I,e�islatnre anproved egnansion of Minneanolis/St. Paul International Airport 'lCherefore, the maior chan�e in this update is to remove all outdated or le�asiaiivelv repealed information concernin� a notential new maior airnort, site selection, land preservation, or search area land-use control authority. The sumanarv and svstem plan sections are undated to reflect the results of the dual-track plannin� nrocess, and the arohibitions and directions on continued major airport plannin�/develonrnent resultin� from 1996 session 1aws. A significant comuonent of the le�islative direction deals with noise mitigation efforts around 1V.�SP International Aia-qort New infornaation about it is included ia► this docuanent. The vear 2020 concept Alan for MSP Internationai Airqort has been incorn►orated alons with the vear 2010 deveiom�ent plan. The status of airnort nlanning aa►d development activities has been uudated for MSP, Airlake, Anoka Co: Blaine, Crvstal and Fivin� CIoud airports. Technical review was concluded on undating the noise nolicv contours for MSP `_ Internationai Airnort and Flvin� Cioud Airport, and are included in this update. The issues/�olicv section was totallv rewritten in 1995 to be consistent with other NIDG claapters and oniv mfnor chan�es to uolicv lan�uase has occurred. This update includes minor additions to the tezt concernin� Re�ional Bluenrint planning and aiso a 1995 amendment to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act reyuirins updates of local comprehensive ulans bv December 31,1998. A maior guide revision is anticfuated in 1998. Revised Page 4. • his Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide contains policies and a system plan to guide the evolution of the Twin Cities area's airports. The chapter contains policies and guidelines for the facilities and, as well, for appropriate adjacent land uses. In addition, it contains management procedures to guide the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and local governments as plans are made for improvements at the airports, and for land uses adjacent to the facilities based on safety and noise considerations. The guide calls for planning the region's airports as a system. The system now, and into the future, should consist of one major hub airport for commercial flights, and a number of smaller airports for general aviation. The general aviation facilities are "reliever airports," because they provide an alternative facility to Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP), the major hub facility, for smaller business and pleasure aircraft. MSP should provide direct passenger and freight connections to all large American markets and � � major foreign destinations. It should be served by several airlines offering competitively priced, '' frequent service. The facility should be of a scale to enable the region to compete for corporate �1te in�j0�' �ie'poB't headquarters. MSP and the reliever fields should be safe, convenient and have the latest technology. sho�el�! ser�e �1/ I�r�e An�e�°iean ra�arl[e�s aetd ma�ow f�'ored9n de:s�dna�i0�es. �€ As MSP is expanded, ', the activity must be accompiished in a way that allows for continued growth in operations and passengers and uninterrupted service. The Guide includes recent action bv the 1996 Minnesota legislature concernin� the maior airport dual track_planning�►rocess The 1996 session law directs the expansion of MSP International airport �rohibits planni� fundin� site preservation or development of a new major airportyprohibits a new west terminal at MSP recommends noise miti�ation activities and fundin� (See apaendix C for overview of dual-track findings and recommendations„� The develo�ment phasing and costs for the MSP vear 2010 imQlementation plan and year 2020 conc�t plan are incorporated in the Guide alon� with future direction of the dual-track planning recommendations. b ' �c » u n � r�}�03���3H�: 01i METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 C� Major improvements proposed for MSP in order to keep pace with forecast demand include a new north/south runway on its western edge, additional air- cargo facilities, a new terminal, parking facility and underground people mover. In addition, 30 more arrival and depariure gates would be added, and ground access to the airport would be improved. The forecasts project 520,000 aircraft operafiions in the year 2020, up from 440,000 in 1993, and 33 million passengers, up from almost 22 million total passengers (equivalent to 11 million enplanements) using the airport in 1993. b �sp ��e re �es�a br �� r„ b� . .,,.i,o+ i,.,� .,,+...,..+ „o.,. ,• „t, .i +• '+, n l. + +L. • a naillion p�ssengier� in ifee yea9' lOROy 10� ott '!'2 • ' nailliOn nOw. The guide plan establishes noise zones for all of the airports, then calls for cornmunities affected by airport noise to change their comprehensive plans, if warranted, to incorporate noise zone requirernents. It suggests considering whether an "airport development area" ' be put into effect around MSP as a way to protect MSP from new incompatible development. / \ Various noise mitigation �rograms are in effect around MSP that deal with insulation of residences and schoois, housin� re�lacement districts, and establishment of an urban revitalization and stabilization zone. The MAC is to s�end a minimum of �185 million on insulation and �ro�erty acc�uisition in noise im�acted areas from 1996 to 2002. The chapter calls on the MAC to develop long-range plans for its airports and to include in them ways to protect ground water quality and wetlands. The plans should also look at ways to affect air quality by reducing surface travel to MSP through traffic demand management. The regional p1an includes 11 aviation facilities in the system: MSP, St. Paul Downtown, Airlake, Flying Cloud, Crystal, Anoka-County Blaine, Lake Elmo, Forest Lake, South St. Paul Municipal, Rice Lake and Wipline seaplane facilities. In addition, it identifies a need for an additional general aviation facility in a seazch area in northwest Hennepin County. � • 101� METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 �� � � � �`�� �� �� � " �.,� � � � �--� 4�� � � � � n � ,��� �, , � 3� a �^�' s: � ��t� � �,� .���.� � aH � :� � �.��.:�s � � � �` :� , �, B���A� �6Sh� M�TROPOLiTAN DEVELOPUENT GUID� March 1995 „ � C �� N •• � Purpose and Authority This Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide charts the direction for regional aviation planning and development to the year 2020. The chapter contains aviation goals, policies, review criteria, guidelines, a coordination and implementation process, and an airports system plan. The relationship of the Aviation Guide to other metropolitan systems and local � plans occurs through linkages with the Regional Blueprint chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide MS 473.145. 'The Blueprint contains data and development plan assumptions. It provides the regional physical and policy framework that is the basis for the type, location, investment priorities and general implementation review procedures for metropolitan systems. Consequently, the metropolitan system plans are linked through a common data base and set of policies. The Aviation Chapter is more than a guide for decisions to be made by `'' } the Council. It also provides direction to airport authorities and to local communities in preparing and amending their comprehensive land-use and airport development plans. The Aviation Development C'ruide is the chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide related to aviation. It has been prepared pursuant to Minnesota Sta.tutes, section 473.145 (1992), which requires that the•Metropolitan Council prepare and adopt a coznprehensive development guide for the orderly and economic development, public and private, of the metropolitan area which includes the necessity for and location of airports. The Aviation Development Guide is also a "metropolitan system plan" as that term is defined by Minnesota. Statutes, section 473.852, subdivision 8, �+" "� '-� �'+^� T.,.,.a Dt�.,.+..+�+ ��+�, Local com�rehensive �lannin$ occurs under the Metro�olitan Land Plannin� Act M S 473 175 473 851 and 4'73 872, and is ex�Hained in the Council's Local Plannin� Flandbook. The Council is designated by state legislation as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (Minnesota. Statutes, 473.146). This requires the Council to assure administration and coordination of transportation planning with appropriate state, regional and other agencies, counties and municipalities. The administration and coordination is carried out through the established transportation planning process. � /�/I,A`IOIi METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 C� . Uses of this plan The Council will use this policy guide to fulfill its state and federal sta.tutory responsibilities (See Append� A) including: • Reviewing applications for federal and state fmancial assistance. • Review/approvai of long-term comprehensive airport plans. • Reviewing environmental assessments and impact statements. • Review/approval of certain airport capital improvement projects and programs. Reviewing community comprehensive plans. Reviewing public and private development projects affecting the aviation system. Guiding policy implementa.tion strategies. • Providing local planning assistance. • Providing the basis for system monitoring and evaluation. • Providing direction for coordination and implementation activities. �� Providing a basis for identifying issues and developing policy input. • Providing a forum for informing the public and ensuring citizen participation. A/I�'AO11 METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 � C._ . C� land in the develoAment remains in open space The area would be�lanned so it would never need urban services p The "urban reserve" is a new concept added to the Blue�rint It is a reservoir of land estab�ished to accommodate the reqion's need for urbanization �o the year 2040. � The urban reserve would rin� taday's urban area in all parts of the reqion Its outer edge would become the_Twin Cities area's urban arowth boundary' The boundarv is based on watersheds which allows the area to be served by more economical cLravity sewers Gravitv sewers carrv wastewater "downhill " reducinq pumping costs_ • The Council would plan its rggional sewer and transportation services and facilities based on the maA. The Council plans and builds the larqe intercommunitv sewer �i�es operates the �ublic transit system• and in partnershi� with other units of aovernment plans the regional highway network The Council would size new wastewater facilities for the entire urban arowth area. Communities at the arowing eda� of the region would define and stage their 2020 Metropolitan Urban Service Area or MIJSA within the urban reserve in collaboration with the Council The MLTSA is the �art af the reaion with urban scale development and services The area in the urban reserve but outside the new 2020 MUSA would be planned so short term develo,_pment decisions are ^��^istent with eventual full urbanization. • There is a policv emphasis on increasing the housina density in �he newlv urbanizing areas as well as in rrent urban areas so the urban reserve can meet housina nPeds for 40 vears or be�ond The desired density would be closer to historic trends which are hiaher than todav's t�pical densitv in the newly developina areas af he resion � In the urban area the focus would be on jobs and economic develo�ment activities within. and arounc3 �he Tnterstate Hw,y' 494/694 beltwa�,, with par�.icular emphasis c,�n the urban core (see map) and the nodes and corridors connected to it The transportation system esneciallv transit would be used to help brinq about -iob concentrations xigh levels of transy�ortation services would be maintained in and around the maior c.c,���zntrations The Cauncil would offer transit service and other incentives to encourage higher-densitv housina and business concentrations in the corridors • Redevelopment of housing and business �roy�erties thro,�tahout the area woulc3 be encauraqed Wavs to accomt�lish this include Livable CcZmmunities qrants and �olluted-site cleanun • The "urban core" of the region would be a ma-ior focus of reinvestment and redevelo�ment The care area is limited lOB to the areas in and adjacent to the two downtowns and in the corridor alonq University Av befiween them • Job concentrations and develapment nodes will be �ncouraqed in the urban core area, and brownfield sites (polluted former industrial sitesl in he urban care •would be prime taraets for reinvestment and tax-base development. Access to jab oppor�unities for core r�sidents throuqhout the region would be increased • The urban core would be a�riority for Cauncil investments and incentives The pragrams would aim at improving economic opportunities for residents and to improve the area's physical characteristics The Cauncil would use all of the tools at its dis�osal (such as Livable Communities grants and transit) to improve conditions in the core area recognizinq that its tools are limited. • In the counties adjacent to the Twin Cities th �ropased policies support requiring long-rana�planning in cQmmunities with a population of over 5 000 �eople or where 50 pereent of the residents commute to th Twin Cities to work The policies support �rawth management and transportation planninq as well as steps toward economic self sufficiency. The ad�acent counties are encauraged to coordinate their planning with the Council's planning. • The emphasis in the permanent agricultural area and the � permanent rural area is on preservation and permanence The areas wauld not be develoy�ed for urban uses 8lueprint Directions for the Aviation System The Regional Blueprint calls for the Aviation Development Cuide to carry out Blueprint policies in a number of specific elements These elements will be included in �he next revision of the Aviation Development Guide • Develot� aoals �olicies plans and priorities for investments to promote economic renewal and eQm�eti�ivenesa of the reqion in the international market. • Develop strateaies to resolve airport/cammunity land-use compatibility issues around all airports in �he regional system_ ' • Define and develop strategies to address concurrent major airport system develapment/investment needs and requirements with regional transporGation (highway and transit) and reqional wastewater systems d�velopment/investment_ l0C ( j Goals, Issues and-Policies The aviation goals indicate how the Metropolitan Council would like to see aviation develop and operate in the Area. The goals are a mixture of aviation goals from the former aviation chapter and ideas from the Metropolitan Council's Metro 201 S Vision and Goals report. Some of the goals are quite visionary and may never be fully achieved, but they are useful as targets for shaping aviation planning and development efforts. The policies indicate the general positions or actions the Council will take to bring issues to a resolution. Many of the policies have an incremental impact; each makes its own contribution to the achievement of a broad goal. The policies avoid getting into the myriad details involved in execution and administration. The detailed guidelines for implementa.tion and administration of the policies are conta.ined in the System Implementation section of this plan. Facilities and Services Goals 1. To continue as a major hub for the north-central U.S.A. and adjacent parts of Canada with direct passenger and freight connections to all large American markets and to major foreign destinations. 2. To be served by several airlines with frequent passenger flights at competitive prices. 3. To be a major aviation industry center in terms of employznent and investment, including the ability to compete for corporate headquarters and specialized functions. 4. To provide facilities that are safe, affordable and technologically current for all facets of the aviation industry. 5. To make flying convenient and comfortable for everyone using Twin Cities aviation facilities. ,�/1�'AOl1 METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 Issue 1 The Twin Cities as a maj or aviation CE�I1tC�z' assen9ers should be Council Role Legislation requires the Council to prepare a comprehensive development guide that recognizes and encompasses the physical, social and economic needs of the Metropolitan Area. To meet this legislative charge, the Council is concerned about aviation services and the physical facilities that support them. A more specific legislative charge r�quires the Council to include in its required metropolitan development guide "the necessity for and location of airports." This directive focuses on all airports, not just on the major commercial airport. By law, the Council is to be fully involved in the tota.l aviation system serving the Metropolitan Area. These two legislative charges establish the rationale and base for the more detailed aviation legislation described elsewhere in the guide. Issues and Policies High-qualiiy air transporta.tion services to major domestic and international markets is essential for an urban area wishing to compete and grow. As the Twin Cities area economy becomes increasingly more global in nature, the need for extensive air connections, along with backup facilities and an operational structure to support them, becomes an ever more critical item. The Council recognized the need for a high level of air services in its 1992 Metro 2015 Vision and Goals report. The report indicates the area should have an air transportation system capable of ineeting the demands from people and businesses in Minnesota. and the upper rnidwest for national and international air connections. The area's major airport should serve as the home base for one or rnore commercial airlines and also be an international hub. Passenger service should be provided by a number of airline companies, each with a sizable presence here to create a competitive airline market. Finally, to the extent the market warrants, there should be economical and cornpetitive passenger and air freight services available to the �e�ei �y a eeeatere��r o� world's major cities. Government alons cannot bring about these service airline eoonpanies th� aspirations, but it can assist the private sector by being receptive to the need for aonstdtuie a eompetBtive adequate public support facilities. maNlSet. In addition to transportation services, the airline industry generates a substantial number of jobs in the Area. About 20,000 jobs in the Metropolitan Area are directly attributable to the activity at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and about another 20,000 jobs are generated through the purchases made by these airport employees and by the travelers passing through the airport. T'his employment figure of 40,000 is conservative because it focuses on MSP International and does not include other system airports or airline company corporate headquarters, irnportant here because Northwest Airlines maintains its corporate headquarters in Eagan. In addition to jobs at the corporate headquarters and jobs directly tied to air services, there are a number of other activities in the aviation industry with relatively fluid locationai needs. These activities include market research, computer services, centralized reservations, and rnajor repair facilities. The decisions on where to locate these activities involve a variety of factors ranging from taxes and physical facilities to the lifestyle preferences of key company decision-makers. � /�ii/�I�N METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 The Twin Cities is not the only area in mid-America wishing to grow as an aviation center. Pittsburgh, Chicago, Detroit and St. Louis all have ambitions for major futures in aviation and all four have more populous hinterlands (potential service areas) than does the Twin Cities. Kansas City has a relatively new major a'rzport, and one of the largest airports in North America began operations in Denver in 1995. In this competition for a larger share ofthe aviation industry, there are a limited he �de�o� need� number of things that the Twin Cities can deliberately affect. This area can offer �e�aBi�v faeilitaes io the aviation industry a quality of life that surpasses that offered by its eorrepete arith otieer competitors. It can provide top level physical facilities comparable to those in other well-equipped airports, and it can demonstrate an attitude and behavior ���°°`� �r o°O0°��• supportive of the aviation industry. OL I CY 1 Quality facilities at the major airport will allow the Metropolitan Area to compete with other major hubs for routes and high levels of service. Investments, however, should be made on the basis of anticipated need and the ability of the Metropolitan Area to support them over time. Despite best efForts to forecast anticipated facilities needs, unforeseen events can upset the most rational forecasts. The best way to deal with changing facility demands is to have a decision-making structure in place with the flexibility to respond to changing conditions quickly and in a cost-effective way. Operation of a top level airport system requires the development, maintenance and upgrading of the area's reliever or secondary airports at the same high-priority level as the major airport. A wide varieiy of business, recreation and training activities depend on these airports. The major airport can better serve its prime function of providing commercial passenger service if operators of the smaller non-commercial planes find the relievers to be aitractive and competitive alternatives. By continuing to provide a high-quality airpart system of reliever airports and a major airport, the area can enhance its attractiveness for economic development. An attitude of receptivity toward the aviation industry seems appropriate, but care must be taken so assistance offered, such as direct aid, new/expanded facilities, or streamlining of rules and regulations, is proportionate to the employrnent benefits and the improved services promised. Long-term, well-paying jobs and reliable competitive services are the critical determinants guiding special benefits to the aviation industry. a. State of tha art facilities should be available at the major airport and reliever airports as inducements for aviation companies to expand their operations and provide additional jobs. b. Public investments in air transportation facilities should respond to forecast needs and to the area's ability to support the invesiments over time. �/i�'iON METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 13 Issue 2 One Maj or Airport i�e fly��e� ��blie A�estefits fi°ottt havin9 ostly one �et�jor aie�ort. OLI CY 2 14 Since the early 1970s the Council has taken the position that scheduled commercial passenger service should be �rimarilX ofFered at only one major airport. T�,o a.,.,� +...,,.i� Y i..,,,,;., +t,..+ �. �� �, a�,a . In late 1993, limited scheduled commercial passenger service was initiated between St. Paul Downtown Airport and Chicago Midway. This is a point-to-point service that does not rely on transfer trafFic. It may expand in the future, but because of physical constraints at and adjacent to the airport and the lack of transfer potential, it is unlikely St. Paul Downtown will ever become a major airport for scheduled comrnercial passengerservice. There aze several metropolitan areas in the United.States dividing scheduled passenger service beiween two or more airports. Doing so offers some opportunity on the part of passengers to go in or out of an airport relatively close to their origin or destination. The major meiropolitan areas served by two or more major airports are: New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay Area, Washington-Baltimore, Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, Dallas-Ft. Worth and Houston. The smallest of these metropolitan areas with two or more airports is Miami-Ft. Lauderdale. It has 700,000 more people than the Twin Cities and is the major port of entry and departure for flights to Latin America. For the flying public, there are very substantial advantages in having most scheduled commercial passenger flights operating from just one central location. Connections and flight substitutions are maximized under these conditions. In a market the size of the Twin Cities, it would not be economically feasible to offer a complete range of regularly scheduled passenger flights from more than one airport. With two or more major airports there would likely be substantial confusion as to which airport is to be used for a flight along with time-consuming and costly land transfers, and great potential for missed connections. There is also considerable savings in facility capital and operating costs when most scheduled commercial passenger service can be carried out from a single location. On balance, a strong argument can be made that the public and the commercial airline companies are best served by continuing to operate all scheduled passenger flights from one major airport. The Metropolitan Area should have only one major airport. O METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 Issue 3 Maj or Airport Accessibility The big advantage air travel has over land movement is its ability to cover substantial distances in a relatively short period of time. However, this advantage does not hold true for the trip to and from the airport. This part of the tota.l journey is likely to become ever more time-consuming as trafFic congestion and trip dista.nces continue to grow in major metropolitan areas. '—� l In the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area today (1993), most of the urban service area is within about a one-half hour off-peak driving time or less from MSP International. If the outward development trends of the last 30 years and the increases in traffic continue by 2020, a large number of urbanized area residenis will be 20 to 30 miles away from MSP International and have driving times during the peak traffic periods of 60 minutes anc� more. , ��, + 1, +'t � 7 t .7..:.,o +., TA�''U ravel time io iise airpowt is enoe•e �m�or�a�t ihan aas��nce eore��. � - - �� � - - ��r The time it takes is more important to most travelers than the actual miles covered. This is a very important point in dealing ' � � with the expansion of MSP International. Since �-e�e�sase; tens of thousands of urban residents will likely live andlor work a substantial distance frorn the major airport. There are several ways this disadvantage in location can be mitigated. High-speed fixed-rail transit, nonstop airport express buses, helicopter service, remote check-in terminals, and mobile check-in vehicles are examples of some actions that might be considered to improve time accessibility for urban users located far away from the major airport. Areas located close to a major airport can also experience poor land accessibility. Many of the roads near MSP International are already heavily traveled and the transit service to the airport consists of buses in mixed tra�c on these same roads. . , , b a . , � . � Providing better access to an expanded MSP International a�e� will involve a combination of new/expanded facilities and transportation management practices. Major airport planning should view ground access as part of tota.l air-land travel time. In addition to access for air passengers, there is the requirement for efficient access and support facilities for air-cargo. Air-freight forwarders, small-package express operators and air-mail services all depend upon trucks for delivery and pickup. These activities occur in mixed traffic and involve different size vehicles. Care should be taken to ensure that roads and interchanges to freight terminals and other facilities on the airport adequately address special design and operational needs of trucks serving the major airport. /�/il�'IOiI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 � _ _ _ . Air cargo also requires adequate space on-site for direct ac�ess for aircraft loading/unloading, and for security reasons. The airport plan must provide space for siting these unique aircraft parking aprons and cargo terminals. Another aspect of accessibility is the difficulty of getting to the major airport if an automobile is not available, affordable or cannot be operated by the air traveler. These people have to choose between an expensive but timely taxi trip or a slow, ��+her infrequent, but inexpensive transit trip. Reasonably priced and relatively fast transit servi� should be provided ���'_:�*?:�_� =o,=l�Ja= �P��-�f� ���.�Sat��e-MSP Intemational Air�ort OLICY 3 Issue 4 A User- onvenient Ma� or ' •• 16 ' Plans for the major airport must include, provisions for achieving high-quality ground accessibility, as measured in travel time, by automobile and by transit to all portions of the metropolitan urban service area. With a broadly based clientele for air travei, there is need for a vaziety of airport services and facilities, particularly at the major airport. Passenger support facilities and services available range from parking, waiting rooms, restrooms and emergency aid to such things as restaurants, bazs, newsstands, grooming shops and amusement areas. Some of the facilities and services offered are essential while others are discretionary, but all of them should be clean, comforta.ble and safe. Efforts should be made to cater.to the wide range of clients who make up the traveling public and to make certain that afFordalile options are available for services. Other important aspects of a user-friendly airport aze clear and readily visible signing and directions on the location and use of major airport facilities and services. A large airport can be an intimidating place for foreign travelers and infrequent users. As the Twin Cities population grows ever more diverse and the potential number of foreign visitors increases, the need will grow for simplified, perhaps more pictorial, signs and direction information. In addition to directions for in-terminal movements, information on access to all modes of transportatio (,�^* travel outside the airport should be included in any airport signage program. T'he area's major airport should be usable by all the population, which means facilities and services must be accessible to people with disabilities. The new federal "Americans with Disabilifiies Act" requires facilities such as the airport to avoid discrimination against persons with a physical or menta l impairrnent. � Most people use automobiles or t�is to go to and from the major airport. Consequently, the airport's facilities tend to be most convenient for the auto and taxi users. Equa1 concern should be given to the convenience and safety of those traveling to and from the airport by public transi and charter buses and for those who must use buses for transfers between terminals on the airport grounds. Consideration should also be given to coordination of existing public transportaxion services for areas in outstate Minnesota and adjoining sta.tes. A/i/�1011 METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 C� POL I CY The Area's major airport should offer on-site high- quality passenger services and facilities at a full 4 range of prices and a directional and signing program that is geared to the inexperienced users and to those largely unfamiliar with English. All facilities arid services should be clean, convenient, comfortable and safe. Issue 5 A Fully Operational Maj or Airport Forecasts of passenger enplanements and operations for the area's major airport show a substantial increase in passengers and aircraft activities. Consequently, expanded facilities will need to be in place by the 2010-2020 period. �� , To expand at MSP International, �sting facilities would be demolished, expanded or revamped. New facilities, including ��a�, runways and road system, will be built. . „ • - „ • � - e9ioe� needs �.''�+���� I}t will be a substantial challenge to keep operations moving ex�anie�! �irpoe� smoothly with minimal restrictions or constraints during the construction period. fac�li�ies by 4he �O � A Logistical problems nnust not be allowed to effect adversely the expansion ofthe aviation industry in this area. The local economy, residents and visitors depend - 30�0 �ime �ee�io�. on the Twin Cities major airport for services. They are the losers if there is stagnation or a decline in aviation activities, even if for only a short time. If ground is lost in the competition for routes and passengers, it can be very di�cult to gain it back. Poz z cY 5 The expansion of MSP International e� ��e �' '��"'^'"` �� � �;,T—�„ccJe� a��ei�"� "�'��''^ ^"""''Y must be carried out in a way that allows for continued growth in operations and passenger enplanements, an uninterrupted service schedule, and an overall smooth transition to the new or the expanded facilities. Major airport plans should. indicate how this will be accomplished. /4/IA�'LON METROPO�ITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 :17 I,�-,�..� ,�..��.,, Ue 6 MSP International is the only major airport serving the Twin Cities area and much of the upper midwest region. It has been designed and is being operated US 2 o f Re 1 i eve r P��'ily to serve regularly scheduled air service. MSP International is the only Ai rport s airport in the system capable of handling the largest comrnercial passenger planes in service. During the 1983-93 period, the number of passengers using MSP International has grown from 12 million annually to over 22 million, and flights have grown from 308,000 to 440,000 per year. � MSP International is only one ofthe eleven aviation facilities in the Metropolitan Area's regional system. The other ten facilities are classified as intermediate or minor airports and are also referred to as reliever airports., They not only provide services to general aviation users, but are intended to relieve MSP International of much of its generai aviation trafFc. The general aviation aircraft range from single-engine piston planes to business jets. The general aviation activities include corporate air travel, air taxi, recreational flying, civilian flight training, cargo flights, and personal travel. The seven reliever airports are planned, developed and operated to accommodate these diverse general aviation activities. Despite the e�stence of the quality reliever airports, over 10 percent of the air �n �ea�en� o� ilee n'a�c at MSP International is generated by general aviation. The major airport ��afFie � MSP ds 9enea�l has a central location, good land accessibiliiy and easy transfer of passengers from private planes to commercial flights. A recent survey of transient aircraft a�nta�don. pilots and registered aircraft owners found that there are actions that could be taken to encourage general aviation to rely more on the reliever airports and move away from MSP International. Many transient aircraft pilots indicated they would switch their flights to a reliever airport if the reliever airport afforded them instnunent landing capabilities, Fixed-Based Operator Services/Security, good ground transportation, and snow removal. Locally-based aircraft owners put convenience to horne or office as a major factor that attracts them to reliever airports, and said they also look for adequate snow removal, aircraft security, and ( f the existence of the right fuel types and prices. There has been some support, particularly in areas subject to heavy levels of noise from MSP International, to have MAC ban general aviation from MSP International. The MAC cannot legally ban general aviation aircraft from MSP International unless it forgoes federal financial assistance. Others have suggested that short of an outright ban, the commission should malce landing fees prohibitive for general aviation and drop the leases for the MSP International-based general aviation operators as they expire. MAC is stressing selective financial incentives that make it less costly to use the reliever fields than to fly out of MSP International in the hope market incentives will bring about the desired results. If more general aviation activities can be encouraged to transfer their operations to the reliever airports, the major airport will be better able to accommodate regulaxly scheduled passenger flights. This will also help to reduce congestion for flights using the airport, provide some noise relief and contribute to the already fine safety record at MSP. � � AIIA'IOIi METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 The MAC is urged to provide the facilities needed by general aviation operators and to maintain all of its reliever airpbrts at a high-level POL I CY 6 of operational readiness. If experience indicates that further inducements are necessary to encourage greater use of reliever airports, the MAC should use financial inducements that would make it more economical to use the reliever airports than the major airport. I,�"+a„ Sue 7 Helicopters account for only a small share of the region's aviation activity, but they perForm a variety of essential ta.sks. Nonmilitary helicopters provide such services as law enforcement, He 1 i eopt e rs c111C�I. emergency medical activity, corporate transport, tr�c news reporting and pest control. Military He 1 iport s helicopters a.re used primarily for training purposes and for handling special emergency conditions. The major concentration of locally-based helicopters, military and nonmilitary, is at the St. Paul Downtown Airport. Helicopter operations are limited in number, duration and location, but their noise levels and safety concerns are very significant to the people frequently exposed to them. Federal and state controls deal with design, aircraft safety, and general operation of helicopters and heliports, but these controls do not cover local planning and development of heliports and local operations. Military helicopters are under the operational control of the Army Reserve and the Minnesota National Guard. Currently, the Metropolitan Area is not in a crisis situation for helicopters and heliports, but it �he re9ion ae�eds should have better local and regional planning to resolve existing problems and ward off future better planning ¢or ones. Most Metropolitan Area communities lack a helicopter-heliport zoning ordinance. They helieo�ter use. treat heliports as special or conditional uses; this results in a lack of local control (e.g., l conditional use in a light industrial zoned district may legally allow helicopters in all city areas � zoned light industrial), or an array of controls, with little consistency among connmunities. Forecasts indicate that some new heliport facilities to serve business and commercial travelers might be justified. Potential candidates for public heliports are the downtown, districts of Minneapolis and St. Paul, the southwest Interstate 494 commercial strip, and the rnajor airport. For medical services, the Area's emergency medical services plan designates a few hospita.ls that are fully equipped to handle all major emergencies as the only ones that should have the emergency helicopter facilities. Flying medical emergency patients to hospitals lacking the essential facilities and talents will require a land movement transfer. POl1Cy ^% Communities with potential or existing demand for public heliports should adopt model helicopter ordinances. The major- , airport comprehensive plans should evaluate the potential for a heliport at the airport. A/I,RA'I�IN METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 � Protection and Compatibility Goals 1. To allow each airport in the system to perform in the manner and at the levels \' pianned for it. 2. To develop and operate an airport system that gives the highest priority to the safety of passengers and people living and working around the airport sites. 3. To allow adjacent to each airport only new developments compatible with the aviation activities planned for that airport. 4. To minimize the adverse impacts of aircraft noise on people's homes and places of work. Council Role Council policy has long focused on protecting the public investment in regional facilities and fostering compatible development and operational practices between regional facilities and their adjacent neighbors. This is especially important for aviation. The ability of an airport to function to its m�imum extent can be severely limited by the impact it has on nearby areas. Most of the state legislation on airport protection specifically addressing the Council ' . is the metropolitan significance legislation and the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, �� which define airports as one of four metropolitan systems for local-regional planning consistency. Under metropolitan significance, a development proposal that could be a threat to MSP International or the reliever airports can be referred to the Council for action. The Council can initiate negotiations and/or suspend work on the proposal for up to 12 months following issuance of its imal determination. Through its review of local comprehensive plans (19'76 Land Planning Act), the Council can also help protect the system airports from proposed uses that are incompatible with theAviation Development Guide chapter and other Guide components. The Aviation Guide chapter includes the Council's positions and actions on reliever airport long-term comprehensive plans. All local comprehensive community plans must be consistent with this Guide chapter. �. - - .. �. „ . - � �IOSI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 In the mid-1980s, operational and environmental trends (especially aircraft noise impacts) at MSP International, and farecasts of increased future levels of activity signaled a need to give more attention to major airport planning. ''''��^'�-�:R^��r��' « » b b b � ��: . l..o +1„0 !"'n,.,,nil .,,.o. T +k 1 + .�i 1, +1, !'+ '1 t.. ...�; .,il b7 b � � ! '+ +,a F' +1, 1. .a f'47, " ' ..+.� 1 + ��n,,.�'ie..el.,., .,..a...._ _--r-----•-- -------- � b tc • D! Gc • �! • . Y�c$�i�cttY�Y'tFBs%. . cc • » �� �� .I�� > > � .. � b 0 ..� +, 1 �f+l, T�Tot,-,-....,l:�n., A=o� T+ +• � �^ri�o^��^*?• r� A 1993 report by the legislative auditor on the rrrcvxzrrrcn��xxsrr. c.,...,....1 � � — � dual-track planning process recommends that the Council determine whether it needs more authority or needs to be more proactive in working with affected communities to ensure that future development does not jeopardize viable development options at MSP. This guide contains a new policy 14 under which the Council takes the lead in setting up a multi-participant group to make sure any new developments around MSP are compatible with possible future aviation uses. /�/IA'IORO METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 21 ' Issues and Policies I S S-ue 8 The public has an interest in allowing the airports in the regional system to deliver fully all planned services. Protection of airport performance levels is NOl S E� Zone s and important for two reasons. First, parts of the regional airport system are Land Us e interdependent; and second, it would be di�cult to replace existing airports with ( comparable sites in or near the urban service area. \ ��e is ae� si9�ai#d�a� �issue at MS� and The ideal way to allow the airports to function as planned over the long-term is to achieve compatibility between the airparts' operations and the pattern of land use and development in nearby areas. This compatibility is especially critical with respect to noise levels experienced by residents and workers near the airports. Many objections to the location andlor operation of airports turn on the noise issue. In fully developed locations, various noise abatement measures can be taken. Examples are to favor quieter planes, (the Council supports the federal program to phase out Stage II aircraft), prohibiting late hour txa�c, and using alternative flight patterns. Where there is still nonurbanized land near an airport or where redevelopment is anticipated, the prefened way to protect long-term viability of the airport is to allow only developments that will keep people from being exposed to significant levels of noise. Adoption of noise-compatible land uses means that certa.in types of development will be unacceptable or acceptable only if buildings are given acoustical treatment. oowr�o S�. Patal Currently, noise level impacts on development are most critical at MSP ai�ports. International and St. Paul Downtown Airports. This is due to the kinds of aircraft used and the levels of activities present. Recently, new aircraft noise contours and. noise zones were defined for these airports. Associated land-use and development types acceptable in each noise zone have been defined and adopted by the Council. Land-use and development criteria, originally adopted in the early 1980s, are continually reviewed and updated. The noise zones and land-use recommendations for MSP International, St. Paul Downtown and other airports are contained in the System Plan and Implementation sections. Local comprehensive plans for communities affected by aircraft noise should be reviewed, and if necessary, amended to incorporate the current recommendations on OL I CY pri land uses and developments appropriate to each noise zone. In developed areas, the communities and aviation interests should work together on noise abatement. In azeas OLICY around an airport, land uses should be compatible with the role and function of the airport. Once regional and local efforts have been made to bring about land-use compatibility in runway approach and depariure areas every effort should be made by the airport 8� authority and the FAA to direct air traffic operations over such areas to minimize aircraft noise impacts to the greatest extent possible. It is expected that such operations would not compromise safety or be counter productive to overall noise abatement and reduction efforts. �'ION METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 C The planning and developing of facilities and services �o suppart a full complement of aviation activities requires I S SU.e 9 dealing with a number of considerations. These include maximizing service schedules, minimizing costs, protecting Aviation investments, attracting airline companies, reducing noise Safety levels, stimulating economic development and preserving the environment. All of these objectives are germane and need to be addressed, but the number one priority must be on safety for those in the air and those on the ground. Issue. l0 Surface Water Management, Wetlands and Water Quality Direct responsibility for aviation safety.is primarily up to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the Minnesota Department of Transportation, which oversee aircraft operations and establish the use of the region's airspace for aviation purposes; to the MAC, which is responsible for providing the facilities and services at the airports; and to the airline companies and private airplane operators, who maintain and operate the equipment. Use of the area's airspace also involves the F'ederal Communications Commission (FCC) because the airspace is shared by communications and aviation. The federal government's authority over use of the area's airspace relative to tall structures is exercised within the context of existing, not proposed, airports and air operation patterns. In the interest of keeping options open for future changes in aviation needs, the Council reviews and comments on all proposals for tall structures, parCicularly for those 500 feet and over. Currently, there are clusters of structures exceeding 500 feet only in downtown Minneapolis (office buildings) and in Shoreview (communications towers). None of the buildings in downtown St. Paul exceed 500 feet, but some are close to this heighC. If additional structures in excess of 500 feet can be confined to the downtovm Minneapolis and Shoreview locations, there will be greater flexibility in providing for changes in airports and flight patterns, while maintaining the highest levels of operational safety. Individual airport safety occurs through completion of Long-Term Comprehensive Plan's (LTCP) and joint airport zoning boards. Safety is the number one priority in the planning and provision of aviation facilities and services. Structures over 500 feet tall should be clustered, and no new structures over 1,000 feet tall should be built unless they are replacements or provide for a function that cannot otherwise be accommodated. New airports or the expansion of existing airports involve the construction of facilities that may require the draining and filling of wetlands, alteration of floodplains and lakes, and diversion of natural watercourses. These resources provide natural storage, water fowl and wildlife habitat, conveyance of runoff and the recharge of groundwater. Replacing these resources with large impervious areas will increase the rate and volume of runoff from the site and may lead to costly management techniques to avoid or abate downstream flooding. The state Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 indicates that it is in the public interest to achieve no net loss in existing wetlands, to enhance diminished wetlands, to restore drained wetlands, to avoid direct or indirect impacts and where replacement cannot be avoided, to do so at a one-to-one ratio in agricultural areas and a two-to-one ratio in urban areas. Ei/li�'1011 METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 _:23:.'- nofe' ea� a�feet quality o# s�rface and 9o°oundw�ter near airports. Issue 11 Groundwater Management The runoff from airports, with their extensive areas of impervious surfaces, could affect the quality of lakes, streams and other surface waters on and off site. Airport facilities .and activities, such as airplane maintenance, are �' sources of a variety of potential non-point source pollutants, � such as: sediments from construction erosion; chemicals from deicers, maintenance operations and aviation fuel; and nutrients from on-site vegetation and atmospheric deposition. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permits (NPDES) are issued for airports by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These NPDES permits provide for protection of water quality but have no coverage for runoff or water quantity. Long-term comprehensive airport plans should contain a plan for surface water management that contains provisions to protect groundwater. In addition to including information that must be consistent with WMO plans and the state wetland regulations, the water management plan should include provisions to mitigate impacts from construction, restore or retain natural functions of remaining wetlands and � waterbodies, and include the pretreatment of runoff prior to being discharged to surface waters. Groundwater is the water supply for 75 percent of the region's population. It is recharged by precipitation or surface water iniiltrating the soil and its underlying geologic materials. A potential contaminant released ( on the surface will move downward into the groundwater toward a lower `. point in the system where it may be taken up by an active well or discharged to a river, stream, or lake. The rate of movement depends on the characteristics of the soils and geology. If it is not detected early, even a small amount of contaminant may affect a large portion of groundwater and eventually surface waters and water supply wells. Airport terminal and maintenance operations involve the use, storage and handling of many potential contaminants to groundwater, such as fuels, oils, solvents, paints and deicers. In the absence of early detection or preventative measures, these contarninants will affect the groundwater quality and the wells that draw on it. Storage facilities, handling procedures and waste disposal practices can be designed or managed to prevent spills and other releases of these substances Prom reaching groundwater. Cleanup plans to speed the response to any spill can be adopted by the airport operator to provide additional protection. Long-term comprehensive airport plans shall include a management strategy to protect groundwater quality that indicates proposed policies, criteria and procedures for preventing, detecting and responding to the spill or release of contaminants on the site. The plans should identify the POLI CY 1 l location, design, and age of individual/group/central sewer systems on- site, all well location sites, and evaluate system deficiencies and pollution problems_ C QA�,�Z, IS sU.e 1 2 Airports generate varying volumes of wastewater depending on the number of users, employees and related businesses on the site. Wastewater� Tne major airports are the biggest generator. Unless this waste Management is handled and treated properly, groundwater and surface waters may be polluted and public and private wells affected. � Solutions to these problems may require the premature extension of inetropolitan sewer services. OLICY l2 Issue 13 Air Quality Where sewers are available or planned, the preferred method of handling and treating sanitary wastewater is to connect all the facilities and activities at the airport ta these systems. Because of the volume of wastewater generated, the major airport must be served by a treatment plant, either existing or new. The airports located in rural areas where sewer systems are not available may be served by on-site sanitary disposal systems. These systems should be properly located, designed, installed and maintained to handle and treat the wastewater. Systems should be installed and maintained consistent with the state law and Council policies that apply to on-site systems in the Metropolitan Area. The long-term comprehensive airport plans and the major airport plan shall include detailed proposals for providing sanitary sewer services. Reliever airports should be connected to the sewer system when service is available near the airport. Whenever this is not practical, the airport owner and the local governmental units must adopt and implement ordinances and administrative and enforcement procedures that will adequately meet the need for trouble-free on site sewage disposal in accordance with the Council's guidelines in its Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan. A new major airport must have central sanitary sewer services with a treatment plant. Aviation-associated air quality is a concern primarily for MSP International. Currently, the area's reliever airports are relatively free of air quality issues because the level of activity and the amount of ground traffic are modest. However, should the air charter business grow substantially at St. Paul Downtown Airport, air quality could become an issue. The three aspects of air quality concerns at the major airport are: 1. Non-point sources of pollution associated with surface trips to and from the airport by motor vehicles. 2. Non-point sources of pollution associated with aircraft activities such as arrivals, departures and taxiing. 3. Stationary or point source pollution from various facilities on the airport, including the power plant, offices, maintenance I� �� q�a�1d�/ proble�es, esow e�n#ined to the te isia' area' $9eo{�'d Ei� �dd�S'S@d '�/�!Q°°m01�h t��aC H09��a„�ei1Be�4m �OLICY l3B shops, incinerator and fire-fighting equipment. The first of these, i.e., air quality problems associated with Metropolitan Area surface travel, is the concern of the Council. The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) requizes the Council to determine whether transportation plans, programs and projects conform to the reguirements of the CAAA. Investments in the regional transportation system should contribute to the attainment and the maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards and not result in a"frequency or increased severity of a violation." The CAAA places the Council in an oversight role to ensure a reasonable response is made by the regional agencies to the national ambient air quality standards in planning, design, construc�ion, operation of tacilities and provision of services. Major air pollution problems attributable to surface travel to and from MSP International are found only near the main terminal with its stop-and-go traffic. However, there are some 30,000 employees working in the general MSP International-Fort Snelling-Veterans Administration Hospital area, and airport patronage is growing. There is a potential for more widespread air quality problems to develop in the future. An aggxessive travel demand management (TDM) program initiated now at MSP International can help ward off future surface transportation-associated air quality problems, particularly if it includes strong programs on transit and dealing with the passenger terminal curbside "pick-up/drop-off problem." Air quality problems associated with aircraft activities and with the stationary sources are under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for permitting and enforcement purposes. Currently, stationaxy sources do not appear to exceed air quality standards. The long-term plans for a major airport should include provisions for reducing surface transportation trips through a Travel Demand Management (TDM) program. The TDM program should include various forms of transit as well as private vehicle uses and should clearly indicate who is responsible for program implementation. The MAC should periodically evaluate the air guality impacts of the airport operations and report to the Council on air quality problems or issues through the MAC annual environmental capital improvement program and updates of the airport long-term comprehensive plans. ►. �1/�Q'AOi1 METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 Cw C Issue 14 . . Interna�.ional "Airport Development Area" SE� expans�on means ho�ree and business o+e�toovaUsoue'e��sroogin9. Several issues and policies in this Guide stress the importance of having land use and development compatible with.aviation in those areas most directly impacted by aviation activity. This helps protect tY�.e long-term ability of the airport to function as planned and also protects residents, businesses and natural resources from aviation-generated problems. There should be compatible land use and development around all the airports in the regional system, but it is especially important for the area's major airport, where the levels and types of activity are substantially greater than at the reliever airports. . _a„ „a ,, a 1 .i /.i �.FF...-.i.�..i-R- �� s �te �ea's e��� m37e� a��e����+� -�' �g��ea��e �e � �tera ma�e� a��e�� 'rr'r P4F�i- � , ' � eav e€ ��e �a�ge ��� �eqt���emer�� - �.., a ,.^ , ��e�ee�}er� e` �a�a�a� �ese�t�ees •—,:��='-=�P� r r . The natural resources in the federal, state and regional park and open space lands in the Minnesota and Mississippi River valleys near MSP Intemational need to be protected. However, there are also large areas of nearby urban density residential and commercial development. Market-driven renewal and/ or expanded operations at MSP International may in the future result in the demolition/removal of many homes and businesses and a large-scale program of soundproofing structures in the area. An airport development area mechanism could be used to determine which areas should be cleared or undergo structural treatment, and to establish development controls needed to psotect the airport, its adjacent residents, and the natural resources in the vicinity. MSP International is the major airport for the - foreseeable future. Serious consideration should be given to establishing an MSP International �.��-��—�-�---�-�'_�^t re POLICY 14 .� "airport-development-area" designation � �--�-��'�' T�= a-_-��^^� rr �;r���_ The Council, the MA.C, the adjacent cities, and involved state and federal agencies should work together on this matter so the long-term viability of MSP International and the land in its vicinity are protected. �7mA'10N METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 "27_-= Governance and Finance Goals 1. To bring aviation planning into the mainstream of public decision-making so all�interested persons have an opportunity to participate in the process ( and become acquainted with major development proposals. 2. To have in operation a regional aviation management system that clearly defines government roles and responsibilities for planning, development, operations and oversight. 3. To deliver high quality services at afEordable prices to users. 4. To operate within a long-term financial plan that stresses maximizing nonregional funding sources; avoiding or minimizing financial impacts on regional taxpayers and maintaining a high rating on aviation bonds. Council Role Council responsibilities for aviation planning stem from the legislative directive to prepare and adopt a comprehensive development guide for the Metropolitan Area that must include a plan £or airports. This directive specifically requires the Council to prepare an airports or aviation plan. The airport or aviation plan is reierred to local units of government in the area, who are required to prepare local comprehensive plans consistent with the Council's development guide, including its aviation component. The Council can require !' local governments to change their local comprehensive plans if they ` are inconsistent with the development guide. The Council prepares a long-range aviation system plan for the regional system and reviews MAC�s detailed plans £or consistency with the Metropolitan Development Guide. If the MAC's plans have an area- wide or multi-community affect or a substantial effect on metropolitan development and are found to be inconsistent with the development guide, the Council can direct that all or part of the plan be put on hold until the required changes are made by the MAC or the state legislature deals with the matter. Any proposed developments, public or private, with a potential to adversely impact regional aviation can be found to be of inetropolitan significance by the Council. If a finding of inetropolitan signiiicance is made, the development proposal can be held in abeyance during the time it is reviewed by the Council and for a period of up to 12 months following the issuance of the Council's determination. This waiting period can be used to give the Council and other interested parties an opportunity to work out differences. The dual-track planning process imposes some temporary planning responsibilities on the Council. Several of the _ _ Council's important dual-track planning requirements decisions were acted on in 1990, 9Z and 92. They include ( adoption of a dual-track planning inter-agency agreement `, � /�/1A'IQitA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 between the MAC and the Council, the selection of a new major airport search area, approval of a long-term development concept for MSP International, and establishment of policies for reuse of MSP International if a new, major airport is eventually developed. All planning activities under the dual-track process are being carried out in consultation between the Council and the MAC. Dual-track planning requirements still outstanding as of Jan. 1994 are: l. An annual report to the legislature on dual-track progress, and an assessment of air transportation trends and factors that may affect major airport development. 2. Council approval of a single site to be selected by the MAC in the search area. --- - ' - -- -- -- -- _-_ _ - ' - = -- The Council's most significant role in aviation financing is its review of a11 capital projects of $5 million and over at MSP International and $2 million and over at the reliever airports. If a project has "a significant effect on the orderly and economic development of the Metropolitan Area," the Council must approve the project before it can be built. The legal definition of what constitutes a"significant effect on the orderly and economic development of the Metropolitan Area" is rather limited. For example, in a recent MAC capital improvements program, the Council actually had approval authority over about 10 percent of the CIP, with review and comment on the other 90 percent. The Council reviews and comments on requests for funding assistance from federal and state governments for projects of inetropolitan significance or for projects where the granting agency requires the review of a regional agency. The Council must approve the MAC's issuance of refunding bonds in years when there may be problems with the debt service fund balance or with making the payments due on certificates of indebtedness. , .a-��� e� ���e e� i�aa�re��e �� ��e-�=�e�� Qe�*e�eP�te�t� ��'e� _�-�� , �e� �e���t� �t�e� �'^ �,,. ,. ;.� � ) _ �i-3�t�r'-�- /�/1�IOYi METROPOLiTAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 � Issue l5 Urban and Rural Service Areas Issues and Policies The Metropolitan Area is divided into urban and rural service areas for investment and development management purposes. The metropolitan urban service area (MUSA) includes the large contiguous concentration of urban development that grew outward from the two core cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. It also contains several smaller detached places such as Stillwater and Hastings that have long been urban in character but are physically separated from the Minneapolis-St. Paul concentration. The MUSA currently has about 30 percent of the total land area of the Metropolitan Area and some 93 percent of its population. The rural service area (RSA) has around �o percent of the area's land but only seven percent of the population. It is characterized by agriculture, low-density housing, small towns and various low-intensity uses, including uses that serve people in the urban service area such as airports, parks, and waste disposal facilities. The MUSA will receive or already receives a full complement of regional and local services, including central sewers, transit, parks, a dense road network, and full-time police and fire protection. The people in the urban service area pay for the services they receive. The RSA is to be retained for agriculture and other low-density types of uses. Its residents can do without urban services and normally will not receive them. They are not asked to pay for services delivered only Co people in the urban service area. The MUSA has moved outward over time as the urban areas has expanded. As of he e�eliede�° aio°powts 1993, the Lake Elmo Airport was located totally in the RSA, and the Anoka a1'C �/tC9'QaS��t�1�/ aff�C��Od County-Blaine, Flying C1oud and Airlake Airports were partially in the RSA and �%Y �0'��� 9�►wth. partially in the MUSA. �..,,;,�„---- -�--,-»� <� ��eR��eta�-Fer�t��e�ea�e� e��}�e�3 �� �i�e 3�34 It is likely that any new reliever airports will be in the RSA because of the large tracts of land required for such facilities. A reliever airport, such as Lake Elmo, which is located in the RSA, should be treated as an isolated urban use for purposes of regional investment and service. Such things as sewage treatment and stormwater drainage should be self-contained and serve only the airport. Transportation facilities should be strictly limited to necessary airport access roads. Any investments that will stimulate nonairport development in the vicinity of the reliever airport should be diseouraged. � C Reliever airports straddling the boundary between the RSA and the urban service area pose more difficult questions. .In a strict application of Council policies and guidelines, urban services could be extended only to that part of the airport located in the urban service area. Most of the land in a reliever airport has no need ior urban services, but the part of the airport housing terminal facilities, hangars, flight training, aircraft service facilities, etc., may require urban services. These areas should not be precluded from receiving such services because they are on the wrong side of the urban-rural service area boundary. Those portions of a metropolitan reliever airport facility located within a local community are not considered a part of the community for purposes of determining MUSA capacity. Airports should pay for � their sanitary sewer services. , /�'A011 METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 Reliever airports straddling the boundary between the rural service area and the MUSA should be included in the MUSA so POL I CY l 5 metropolitan facilities and services can be provided when they are needed. Reliever airports totally in the RSA should be treated as isolated urban uses and not have any regional investments that could stimulate urban growth. Major-airport legislation requires the MAC to prepare a I,�j SU.e 1 6 long-term comprehensive plan for MSP International Airport. This comprehensive plan must be updated every five years and Long-Term conform with the Council's development guide. Consequently, Comprehens ive there is a legal precedent for preparation of a long-term comprehensive plan for the area's current major airport. Airport PZ.a11S Legislation does not specifically require the MAC to prepare comprehensive plans for the reliever airports under its jurisdiction, but the Council's Development Guide Aviation chapter requires such plans and includes plan-content guidelines. The reliever airport plans prepared by the MAC, or by local governments for airports not owned/operated by the MAC, must be consistent with the Council's Development Guide. Federal authorities call for physical layout plans for the reliever airports, but these plans are not intended to protect the metropolitan systems or to coordinate airport development and activities with adjacent land uses and other local interests. Long-term comprehensive plans should be prepared for a11 POL I CY l 6 system airports according to an established timetable and with required contents contained in the Aviation Guide's System Implementation Procedures section. A/I/�/ON METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 _31_ �- - - - -- — - • -- - .__ ..__ „_• - --- -- -- -- .�:,.,.,...��� - - - - - - MSP Capital Improvements and Financing in a Transition Period ����-a-�������e�-�e��e� 6a�t��e-� =xe��� ��e���s kir�-i n� r7r�ar � r a �., i.a t.. � �.r- a-.. +.i.,....,,. ..�... ����-a��e�tt�e��-�teee�s�s���=--�e �teez e�e�az=�tg �e�-- '���� � s�ea���-���������t��e e������ f i n�n r-� ^ ,a J �e���=3�����tg-�ees �e� �a�,��e��te�t� a� ��e�e6a ������ e3a��g��t���,�ts-�e��t��g �� ��e ���te a�-�� �ae��- ��-��Pe}sre�-�--�-�ele-�e Fnr�3re �e a �eda a��e�� s��e, ��e ��E ^1"^+•�f��4f�PP�-A�'R�P a.mar_ti.a&��i�E3 6� C'9E�5��ii� @59G�9 @� £�s� ���� ,r�' �eea�Fe�-�e�a-�s r�}e3��y-as�eee=��e a�� e�=Q�ee ���r--€�eva—�a«,�������fl� ee�e��t�es a�� �eaee � F �'��...'-�- -��e�*�ex�e-` s�s��� �e-s��e���e� �e a�te���se�'� •••L *�e ��s�e�-��e ��e�������e� �e ��e �a�e ����e� �e ��e �eFa a��e�� ��e}e���g �e�� - , ` �' " T„�-••.•••sa�-t.�d.az�a1—cahcssld h xccs�e�—��'�6i'—�6 ee�e�ee�e�� 6� eiBE?-r�ti�z��nf � nrv;� v-- -* ..r. ;� � . . - - - -- - -- --- _ � � � - - - -- •�-- -- Pe�s}e�e�a��e�e e� a� Fnexe �e a�eba a}�e�� �e ma3e}m}�e�� �}�a���-��ese�t��as, }�e��t���� �e�a��g att��e���•-�a�a��a��e �e ���a�ee ��e . � /.iii�'10A� METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 C � � � Metropolitan Airports System There are seven airpor�s under the ownership and operational jurisdiction of the MAC and one owned and operated by the City of South St. Paul. They function as an integrated system. The largest of these airports, MSP, serves as the area's primary scheduled commercial airline passenger facility. It ' is commonly referred to as the area's major airport. St. Paul Downtown Airport is the system's intermediate airport with facilities for regional/commuter and corporate aircraft services as well as general aviation. The other six facilities funetion as general aviation airports,.and along with St. Paul Downtown Airport, also serve as designated reliever airports to MSP International. In addition to the eight above-mentioned airports, there are special purpose facilities in the system; an airfield in Forest Lake and seaplane facilities at Lino Lakes and South St. Paul. Figure 1 shows the 11 airports which constitute the ; regional airport system. AVIATION METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 33' ; Airport facilities serving the Metropolitan Area are classified by functional and operational characteristics. The metropolitan classification system has four airport types: major, intermediate, minor and special purpose. The intermediate airport and the minor airports functian as reliever airports to MSP. Each facility can be defined functionally based on its system role and its primary users and geographic service focus. Tt also can be defined by its operational characteristics—runway length and degree of instrumentation. Table 1 provides information on the functional and operational characteristics of the Metropolitan Area's airport facilities. Heliports Heliports with relatively limited space requirements do not fit well into the overall airport classification schemes. A heliport can be located on the roof of a building, in an open lot or on the grounds of various classes of airports. When it is within the confines of an airport, it becomes part of that airport's overall activity mix. Table 1 � Functional and Operational Characteristics of Metropolitan Airport Facilities Functional Characteristics Operationai Characteristics Area of InIluence Air-Service Primary Approximate Airport Users Access Runway lnstrumentation Airport Influence Airport Type System Role Accomodated* Provided Length Capability Area Radius** Major Scheduled Air Air Carriers International, 10,000 feet Precision 4-6 miles ( Sen�ice • RegionaUCommuter Nacionai, and • Minneapolis - • Passenger and Cargo Regional St. Paul • Supplemental/Charters Incerna�ional • Air Cargo ?�irport • Air Taxi • Corporace G.A. • Mili[ary Intermediate Primary Relie�•er Generai Aeiacion Interna�ional, 8,000 feet. Precision 2-4 miles • St. Paui • RegionaVCommuter National and 5,001 feet. Downtown • Air Taxi Regional ' • Corporate/Business • Flight Training • Personal-use and - Recreational • Military Minor Secondary Relie��er • Air Taxi National, 2,500 fee[ Precision or i-2 miles • Anoka County- • Business G.A. Regional and �,000 feet Nonprecision Blaine • Flight Training State rlpproach •Airlake • Personal llse and • Crystal Recrea[ional • Flying Cloud • Military • Lake Elmo • South St. Paul Special Special Uses All general aviaeion S�ate and Variabie by Visual Variable by Facility Purpose • Forest Lake users Metropolitan Facility • Rice L.ake (Seaplane) • Wipline (Seaplane) * Includes based and itineranr usPrr nnlv rvni�al ncvrc lictnrl hnra ** The area surrounding an airport where it is essential for land use planning to be coordinated wi�h air operations. The heliports are classified by function, size or facility into three groups to establish a planning consistency for dealing with the scale and levels of services to be provided by a facility. The three classes are: 1. Major. A full-service heliport with.complete air and ground facilities, including navigational aids and refueling, maintenance and terminal facilities. 2. Intezmediate. A heliport with limited facilities, such as lighting, communications, navigational aids and refueling capability. A hangar and tiedown area may be available. It is intended to serve primarily business and charter helicopter services and is not used for commuter or air travel services. 3. Minor. A small-scale heliport with minimal facilities such as a marked landing pad, often referred to as a helistop. It is intended to serve corporate and medical service helicopters. A number of regional hospitals have approved helicopter landing facilities consistent with the emergency medical services (EMS) provided. Navigational aids may only consisC of lighting, and tiedowns are not provided. The Major Airport — Minneapolis-St. Paul Iateraatioaal Airport Backg=ound and Description Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (Wold Chamberlain Field) is the major airport in the regional airport system, and the one primarily accommodating scheduled commercial airline passenger service. Wold Chamberlain's history as a flying field goes back to the 1920s. In 1943 the Minnesota Legislature designated it as the region's passenger carrier airport. This action resolved the air transportation service rivalry between St. Paul and Minneapolis and put an end to scheduled passenger service into two airports less than 10 air miles apart. The MAC took over Wold Chamberlain Field in 1944, and in 1948, the facility was officially designated as Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Its aviation call letters are MSP, and this identification is used frequently in this document. MSP occupies an area of approximately 3,3-8� 40o acres. It has three runways; two oriented in a northwest-southeast direction with lengths of 10,000 ft. and 8,200 ft.; respectively, and,one oriented northeast-southwest that is 8r�56 11,00o ft. long. The major terminal, the Lindbergh Terminal, accommodates domestic commercial traffic. It encloses over 1_5 million square feet of space and has �B 67 gates for aircraft. The much smaller Hubert H. Humphrey Terminal, located to the southwest of the Lindbergh Terminal, accommodates international arrivals and charter flights. In addition to these two terminals, MSP International Airport has facilities totaling an additional 4 million square feet of space that provide a full range of service to aircraft, airline companies and passengers. In the early 199$�s, MSP ranked a��----`-- ''' ,� 13th amon�the busiest co�ercial airports in the country. In 1990, for example, it ranked number 16 in total passengers. This puts it in the same general size category as Detroit, St. Louis, Las Vegas, Honolulu and Pittsburgh, but well behind the country's leading airports such as Chicago 0'Hare, Dallas-Ft_ Worth, Los Angeles International and Atlanta. Major hub airports in the U. S. system are shown in Figure 2. ION METROPOLITAN DEVE�OPMENT GUIDE March 1995 35 -- n Figure 2 U.S. Airline Hubs � '"Seen�e . � __. _, .� _ .. . ' � �. �i _ , . . ..; •--.... ., ; P , —��- . . �--��, "' "�� � - � Minnea olfsfSt.Paul - Boston , � : � yrecuse' � .� �. . � ; Detroit � �N o�k � ' Ittsburgh .' ;' ` Salt l.ake Clty � - .. .. .. . . ` Chieego O'Hare . e .� !��•`^ Franctsco � o . " � , Chicago Midway � Dayton ePh e e p ie . .--- . ' �. �mota an Jose : . '- � ----- � . � • ,j � i-� ; . • asfiing of � •,Las VegAs � � ! ` Kenaaa Gry � Cincinnett ' � •. o ' .. penver � . 0 . � . ��Raleig m-- � 'St — . .. .. __._ -- . .. . Louls i �'� . � . _ ._-- . _ . . . . � ,. � � ' '_ _ Los Angeles : ... ... . . _.. . .. � • .. . .. .... Orenge County ; : ; ' Nnshville • � �s ... .' Chsdotte. Long��aeeh %� Mem his • . .. P • Phoenixi � . �.��i�__ � ��Atlanta . �.-" DellaslFL WORh •` ,% ( � . _.... _. . '-. � " - '.-'. ,. . / ode ao ` _ � y� -�� nouston �- .. - ��� _ . . .. — " ..". � _ . .:._ — Mm i . _ . _" . ._' . . ... . _.._ ... .. .... . . _ _._.__ .. ..__. .. __.. .. _ . _.._.. . ._ .. .... . . . .. .. .... .. ._ . . ... .. ....___. SanJuan Saurce: FAAAviation Foracesk; Fueal Years 1989•2000 US. DOT/FAA Wash. D.G. Msrcb 1989 �- � Nofe:Hubanportssfrownon�h�smeperoOefinedsseiMinMutrs,w�f�airportslarvedDymrtiersoperetingeircretlwtMova�BOseatS. Trends and Forecasts Since the mid-1980s, MSP International's enplanements have grown largely because of on-line connecting passengers, regional airline activities and charter flights. Local originating traffic has been relatively flat for some period of time. Hoth military and general aviation activity have declined at MSP since the mid-1980s. Historical and projected trends in passenger, air cargo and aircraft �^ operational activity at MSP are depicted in Figures 3, 4 and 5. Air Passenger activity at MSP consists of people flying on scheduled and unscheduled domestic major airlines, regional/commuter airlines, charters and international flights. Figure 3 Total Air Passenger Enplanements Millions of Enpianements 20 ; � � .. _ '; • - • � . .. :. /I�i�� 15 � :: . - -.. . . . . :. . .. -' ' -- ---------- .. ... ...._ ..._... _ ----- r : . - � . . .. ... c:...-. ;:- ..., .,• .. .. 4 . - Historic � .' � . . t . .. . .. . . . . ., . ;.. 10 �` � �: . • � .. . .. . . .. . ; .; Forecast : ' ' = ; � .,. . . 5 . ..i-----'=--==-------------------=-. � ' � . � 0 i ' 1962 1972 1982 1992* 2000 2010 2020 'Forecast Base Year ( Source: MAC Annual Activity In/ormation and Minneapolis-SL Paul � Intemational Airport LTCP Revised Activity Forecasis �'�':� The historical data is included back to 1962. In the early 1960s, modern jet air service was introduced at MSP and entered the U. S. domestic air transport system with a significant presence. The 1970's can be characterized as full introduction of wide-body (B-747) aircraft, the 1980's growth by deregulation and hubbing, and post 1992 growth by increased code-sharing and global alliances within the airline industry. Historic and forecast data is shown in Appendix B. Zn 1993, over 22 million total passengers were handled at MSP. Passenger activity is normally defined as enplanements (defines those who board at the airport), in 1993 this was 11 million passengers. Normally, only revenue passengers are counted in annual_ enplanements; however, an additional 1.3 million non-revenue passengers also used MSP in 1993. Approximately 91 Figure 4 Tatat Air Cargo Tonnage Thousands of To�s 500 400 ---------------- ---- ------ -... .. �--------- Historic 300 ' ---------- ------------- 200 , --------�------- Forecast _ . � ----------------.._.: 100 _.. . .. . .. ;------------ 0 1962 1972 1982 1992' 2000 2010 2020 "Forecast Base Year Source: MAC Annua! Activity In(ormation and Minneapolis-St. Paul lntemational Airpori LTCP Revised Activiry Forecasts Figure 5 Total Annual Aircraft Operations Thousands of Operations 600 500 400 300 200 100 1962 7972 1982 1992* 2000 'Forecast8ase Year Source: MAC Annuai Activity fnlormation and Minneapolis-St. Paut lntemational Airpori LTCP Revised Activity Forecasfs 2U10 "LULU percent of total passengers were on major airlines, 5-.8 percent on regional/commuter airlines and 3.2 percent on charters. Air passengers are expected to increase over 56 percent from 1992 to the year 2020 (1.6% annually). ' Air cargo consists of heavy freight items, small package express and mail. C Some 32D,900 total metric tons of air cargo airlifted through MSP in 1993. About 58.5 percent was carried in the belly-hold of airline passenger aircraft, 1 percent by regional/commuter aircraft, and 40.5 percent by the all-cargo carriers. Air cargo is projected to increase 119 percent from 1992 to the year 2020 (2.8°s annually). , Aircraft operations at MSP consist of major airline activity, regional/ commuter airlines, charters, general aviation, air freight and military flights. Out of a total aa0,000 operations in 1993, about 59 percent were major airlines, 25 percent were from regional/commuter airlines, 1 percent by charters, 11 percent by general aviation, 0.5 percent by the military, and 3.5 percent by all-cargo carriers. Total aircrait operations are projected to increase by over 24 percent from 1992 to the year 202� (0.8% annual ly )' . Updated year 2020 forecasts of aviation activity levels for the Twin Cities major airport were completed in mid 1993. The new forecasts incorporate changes occurring in the aviation industry since development of the original dual-track forecasts in 1989. The major industry changes noted are 1) deteriorated financial conditions in the industry; 2) deferment of, capital costs and reductions in operating costs; 3) cancellation or deferment o£ aircraft orders to reduce excess capacity; and 4) grounding of aircraft in the fleet to help reduce excess capacity. Special consideration was given to the financial conditions of Northwest �� Airlines as of late 1992-early 1993 and to the £uture status of MSP as a major hub for Northwest. The latter is very important because a large share of forecast £uture traffic is associated with hubbing at MSP. Northwest has 80 percent of the air carrier activity in the Twin Cities market so its future operational status is critical to the forecasts. Figure 6 Range of Projected Passenger Enpianements I Enplanements (Miitions) 25 ' Range of low and high 20 altemative scenarios �Range of low and high scenario combinations 15 _ ------- ---.. _. ---------� 10� . ----�- - ----- 5_-! - _ / _ .__.._------ ------------- 0 � � I ( • 1972 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2070 2015 2020 \, � I Source: MSP LTCP Vot. 6, Revised Activiry Forecasts Northwest Airlines views the 1990's as a decade of regaining equilibrium between airline/ airport capacity and air service demand. Airlines need to adjust to the effects of � overexpansion, poor economy, higher operating and financing cosCs; in the near and mid-term the domestic industry will likely have to live with less-than-universal scope. NWA has recently adjusted to this industry structural change by slashing its budget and reducing its workforce, cancelling orders for new aircraft, bringing older aircraft into Stage III noise compliance, debt restructuring, and taking the company public. The industry is likely to support ' improvements that maximize safety, utility and efficiency of existing resources, but not large expansions; no airline is pushing for a new runway or terminal at MSP and do not perceive any significant capacity problem. � Twelve different scenarios were used by a"panel af experts" in the forecasting. The scenarios deal with economic growth, financial yield, hub activity, aircraft size, regional carrier activity, international market potential and travel demand. The diiferent scenarios produced widely varying forecasts for 2020. Al1 the forecasts show growth in total passenger activity and all but one in aircraft operations, but the growth rates are lower than the 1989 forecasts. Figures 6 and 7 present the range of projected demand for individual altemative scenarios and combination scenarios. The highest forecasts are developed based on strong regional economic growth, maximum hub development assuming Northwest maintains its current connecCion ratio, and the introduction of low-cost, frequent service airline senrice (similar to a Southwest operation). The base-case forecast for the year 2020 estimates operations at 520,200, a 34.8 increase over 1993 levels or a 0.56 percent average annual rate of growth. The highest scenario implies a 1.34 percent annual growth rate. The scenario producing the lowest operations forecast was a combination of minimum hub, reduced � linkage between the regianal economy and aviation services, and low economic growth. The ��� minimum hub scenario assumes that the connections ratio falls from approximately 50 to just 30 percent of Northwest enplanements, producing the lowest forecast scenario, which results in 10.6 percent decrease in operations from the 1993 level. Figure 7 Range of Projected Aircraft Operations Operations (Thousands) 700 Range of low and high 600 . - alternative scenarios - - - - - - - � - - - . - _ _ . . 500 � Range of low and high scenario combinations 400 J 300 � -- -. . �... 200 .-- . _... ... 100 . 0 1972 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 �� / Source: MSP LTCP Vol. 6. Revised Activrry Forecasrs � �il�'i01i METROPOLITAN DEVE�OPMENT GUIDE March 1995 � 40 A summary of the new dual-track forecasts,� showi�g historical activity at MSP and the most likely forecast of future levels of passenger, air cargo and aircraft operations, is depicted in Appendix B. Capacity The MAC adopted a development concept plan for MSP in 1991. Forecasted demand indicated the need for improvements in al1 areas (i.e. airfield, terminal, support facilities, and ground access). In 1993 , the FAA performed a capacity analysis of MSP using potential demand levels of 530,000 and 600,000 annual operations. The FAA defined airfield capacity to be the m�imum number of aircraft operations that can take place in a given time, and the following conditions were considered: O Level of Delay 0 Airspace Constraints • Cloud ceiling and visibility conditions • Runway layout and use • Aircraft Mix • Percent arrival demand Figure 8 shows the average annual savings in aircraft delays resulting from each proposed capacity enhancement project. If forecasted demand occurs as projected, and nothing is done to improve capacity, the average annual delay per aircraft would increase from today's approximately three minutes - to almost 14 minutes 1Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Long-Term Comprehensive Plan: Volume 6 Revised Activity Forecasts, December, 1993. Figure 8 Average Delays � 5 Baseiine Future 1 Future 2 � � 14 � Do Nothing (No Build) � •-----..._....__......_..---- � � � � Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) o � � . �3 NewNorthParailelRunwayllN/29N �r------- ------------- - m 12 �� New North/South Fiunway 17l35 �� . ' • • • •NewRunways77/35and71W29N Nt-------�-------�-- ----- NI " : 11 - ---� -- t..l. . . m F-------------- ------- Average � � � > � Dela 10 ..--- � ---� � � N�_-----=---� Y �i Ni � �i __________' Per Aircraft o i o i o 9 wl �t.-----.. __o< Operation � � � �o� � ---, -- � y ♦ (Minutes) 8 0� o�.Yi � -- ----_ - �'-_- �� �i� i _ _ �. ._ 7 m� ��u� : ..'_i,•�.'.:• . �� - ^10 '....-- -`-r�I----�_..--.,-_ I IN� � ' :'s �' ; . ; : : . . . , .. , . --�---i" --- t�r ---... . . _._------� 1 �--?--�=-------.---- 1 .. . .' -: i I—� . s � . .' : '; . ' : . . 5 � . . . . � � . .. .� y a v _ . . �;--- ---- ---- - - :..; _:. . . _ . . . /.. � o�o t.. :..�..�., .iI s .., � f 4 ---._ � �.�<s -- -...F---- --�;a�--------� ��.P� �e„r •',. �. 3 - �r� --- �-t----. .. �,..+"t•---�-=---:.-��-'------- � 1 .,,r .► """ �"' . i . . • • . 2 '"' .••''� _. .....''� � . • . . • t----------------------.. .+ � • ���1� 1 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 _ Annuai Demand (Thousands) Source: MSP Capaciry Enhancement Plan, FAA/MAC, Decem6er 7993. A/l/�'AOl1 METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 C with 600,000 tatal annual operations. The approximately four minutes annual delay average is used by the FAA as an indicator of a generally acceptable level of service. The study indicated that with the addition of the proposed new north/south nznway, MSP could handle the year 2020 forecast demand of 520,000 annual operations. If two new runways were added, the 60.0,000 annual operations could be accommodated. A four minute average annual delay means some aircraft eacperience very minimal delay, while others can experience thirty minutes to hours of delay. Another, more critical test of the airports capabilities is to determine what level of traffic can be handled in the peak hour; delays to arriving aircraft, poor weather and/or heavy traffic• conditions have the most serious impacts on an airports capacity. Figure 9 shows the profile of daily demand and hourly operatians/capacity for the existing and future airport configurations. The FAA study did not, however, address the feasibility of building the proposed runways, or address social, economic and environmental impacts. These items will be addressed by the MAC in updating the MSP Long-Term Comprehensive Plan. Figure 9 Daily Demand and Hourly Operations/Capacity Operations Per Hour 160 140 Baseline Arrivais Baseline Departures __ -- — -._.---- _.__--------A ------------ — Future 2 Total � 120 _. ___ ------� ------------- -- — Future 1 Total - - , -- � � --- • Baseline Total r / , � � ` \ 100 ------. ---..__.._..---------/-- � -- \- -/-;�1 --- �`�� �`1-- i .� .. � � � , �I / �---��� so _ �....__✓...----,---��- - ---,- � ------- _ . , I�� ,`�`�i�`�..��' �{� J/ j � ``� � I_".._.__._ ._.___'__' �.'_ I"_"'_....'_ �. �' "' s� _`_'._ _. _'._._..'.__'.'� �- � ♦-' � �, + r `� 40 _ .. . .. _ . ._. _ .._.....'_ /,"_��_"' .",�'�'�_"�'_ "�-s ,` �_' �� .�� i-■i■i� e:ie��A i-�e■ 0 o�o�o�o�o�0000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 O O O O O O O O O O T T r r T T T T �T T N N N N Time of Day Dual-Track Planning Process �. +. .,'1-... ,+-_ L, 't.. ' 't ' +. �F p/jnn �- =cs �'1 S f�6�2@&S�—+�-_��-"^ -'-=_ 16&�5 �6it', a-�., � ^�n � t�o� nrt ...t-.. � � � -���ee�e� c�i2 nrt +. r � : a-.., n,., - -- .a a-u, nrtrn a-,., � - i e� PgSi�—e�—Q—n,o��-��a��—��e�t �48=—�o—u �,,.v.� ��- �w., � j �r��e� �a��-� ����_��--�l�xe �e�r�=���t�—"dual-�z'—' /�/1/�i'IOM METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 omic 5tudies -- - • -- -- _ - - - - - - - -- - -- �� - -- -- - . . , \ ��- - • , , , , r9r�n.,. a-... ..,.a c� ..�-. � -, .,a ,.a-.... .-.i : �--. ..� , l 1 �y .'kha axit.ar3a—�o�xz xxxccg�a�=ga�� 6� ��te��' e�a�tta��e� cciiE� �'�i��'E�fl'e�� @� �� .�•.,••�.•,•, ••l • ' � . �����-q - .�x}�-3-�—a��+�es ee�te�e�e a�e�� ��e—�t�� ��-� C ,; � /�/1/�'10M METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 � � . , , � a ��. �� i Y ' � �a --�.-------- - - -- - -- - - -- ` " c - -- -- - - ,- _ 'c c � � � - -'- ' ' ' '- ' -- • _ ... __ .,. -- -- -- -- - - - -- - - - -- - ;= - - - -- - --- --- - -- -_ - -_ - - - -- - - - •• - -- -_ =- -_- -- -: _ --- _ -_ : -- - - - --- -- - -- • - _ -- - - - --- -- - -- • -- - -- - �/ P�E 44 b AVIATIOtd METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 ( C. �� , Pages 41 through 44 Beginning at the HEADING "DUAL-TRACK PLANNING PROCESS", strikeouts are replaced with the ( - following text � . The 1989 Metropolitan Airport Plannin� Act required the Metropolitan Airnorts Commission and the Metropolitan Council to comqlete a comnrehensive and coordinated Aro�ram to plan for maior airnort develonment in the Twin Ciiies The ulannin� activities were desi�ned to comnare the option of future expansion of Minneapolis St Paul International airaort (MSP) with the option of buildin� a new airport. The lesislation required the MAC to adopt a Lons-Term Comnrehensive Plan fLTCPI for MSP that satis- fies the region's air transportation needs for a ZO-vear neriod (to 20101, and to adopt a concent plan for an additional 10 vear neriod (to 20201 In addition, the nlans are to be updated at least everv five vears, and amended as necessarv to include �� changes in trends and conditions facilities requirements, and develon- ment plans and schedules. The nlannin� and environmental issues associated with the dual-track alternatives were inte�rated throu�hont the process so that incremental decisions on preferred alternatives included detailed environmental analv- sis More than 30 cate�ories of environmental impacts were analvzed at kev decision points in the plannin� process, includin� search area selection, site selection, new airport plan development, and MSP LTCP de- veloAment. � A number oi other alternatives were evaluated durin� the coarse of the dual-track plannin� process. 7Chese alternatives included the followint: use of hi�h speed intercitv rail to divert sufficient nassen¢ers to rail service so that a new runwav and terminal facilities would not be needed. construction of remote runwavs on a new site, while retainin� the ticketan�, ba��a�e and sunnort facilities at MSP A hi h-sneed rail link would connect the two facilities. use of an existin� airaort to offload some MSP onerations, therebv eliminatin� the need for maior new facilities at MSP. ureservation of a site for a new airuort in Dakota Countv Development would occur on this site when demand exceeded capacitv at MSP. These four alternatives either did not meet capacitv repuirements, were not operationallv feasible, were inconsistent with the �oals established durin� the plannin� process, or involved unaccentable environmen- tal impacts or costs. The environmental arocess culminated with a Joint State/Federal Draft Environmental Imaact Statement SE�a; uuu;;a :eu ::. LGVGIAIUVl �ooc _.,,�,;..H p.,aluated the selected MSP nlan, the new airnort nlan, and the no action plan Followins the incorqoration of comments received durin� the public comment ner►od and public hearin�, a final EIS will be prepared The Minnesota Environmental Glualitv Board will determine the adequacv of the State Final EIS The Federal Aviation Administration must annrove the Final federal EIS. Al1�Q'1011 METROPOUTAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 �d� MSP 2020 CONCEPT PLAN The first of the two nrimarv alternatives addressed in the dual-track plannin� process was the continued develonment of MSP to meet 2020 demands. The need for airaort facilities is driven bv the level of demand The MSP concent plan can nrovide for the followin� level of facilities repuired to meet the forecast demand• - a minimum of three indepeadent runwavs with crosswind runwav capabilitv - 2.8 million square feet of terminal buildins (domestic, international, charter, re�ionall. - 83 air carrier sates and 34 re�ional aircraft narkin� positions. - - 31,500 Aublic and emalovee narkin� snaces. - 156 acres of car�o area. - 266 acres of airline maintenance area. In earlv 1996, Northwest Airlines (NWA1 proaosed an alternative develonment concent for MSP. Manv of the plan items were simi�ar to the concent adonted bv the MAC, except for a different terminal concept �roposed bv NWA alon� with an indication thev did not need �rowth in a number of the nroposed sunport facilities. After extensive discussion and review of the alternatives, the MA.0 and NWA determined that needs throu�h 2010, and potentiallv lon�er, could be accomodated bv coniinued phased develonment of the Lindber� Terminal, but ihat for 2020 alannin� and environmental review nuraoses, Concent 6 would be carried forward as the preferred concept. There will be continued discnssions between NWA and the MAC on develonment needs. In Feb., 1995, Concept 6(includin� a North/South runwav and new terminal on the northwest side of the / = airnort) was selected bv the MAC as the nreferred alternative and used as the basis for the develonment of \. the 2010 LTCP and 2020 Concept nlan. Both the MAC and the Council nrepared their findin�s and recommendations on the daal-track arocess,and submitted them to the Minnesota Le�islature in March. 1996. The kev findin� was that the MSP 2020 concept plan could nrovide adequate future capacitv; the maior recommendation was that an eznanded MSP was the mreferred airnort develoument alternative. An overview of the dual-track Arocess is included in Aapendix C. MSP 2010 LONG-TERM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The MAC is char�ed bv the 1996 dual-track legislation with imalementins the 2010 LTCP for MSP Inter- national airaort. The initial sten in this process is comnletion of the Joint State/Federal Environmental Impact statement. This process should be comnleted bv mid-1997, and is necessarv to allow construction of the maior facilities identified in the develoament plan. While the EIS is beins completed, the MAC will preaare an imtilementation nlan for the North/South runwav, focusing on boih on-airport and off-airnort impacts. Land acpuisition in the annroach end of the runwav will be a nrimarv focus durin� this process. �'he le�islativelv required miti�ation nlan must be adonted bv the MAC in late 1996 and submitted to the State Airoort Advisorv Council. This nlan is kev to identifvin� potential off-airport impacts associated with future MSP develoument and onerations, and will arovide a comprehensive and coordinated anproach to dealins with these imnacts. C ; e A/IA'1011 METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 MSP IMPROVEMENTS Six caiesories of factors were evalnated as part of the dual-track analvsis. Thev included: ' '� - Aircraft Onerations - Gronnd Access - Environmental - Economic and Communitv Develoament - Financial - Flexibilitv/Sensitivitv Much of the information from this evaluation was used in identifvin� airnort facilitv needs. A summary of the kev proiect elements is shown in Table The table also shows the nroiected develonment phasm� at MSP (1996 to 2010) and (2011 to 2020). The location of these nroiect elements, and their relationship to existin� airnort and commanitv land use, is de icted in the �eneral airaort lavout maps showin� the MSP 2010 LTCP (Fisare ), and 2020 Concent Plan (Fisure l. Proiected development costs (in millions of 1995 dollars) for on-site nroiects in the MSP 2020 Concept plan are• - Propertv Acauisition � 70 - Airfield . � 118 - Terminal Area �1,566 - Roadwavs (on-sitel $ �3 - Other Facilities � g'78 - Maior Utilities � Z� � Grand Total � 2,725 Preliminarv phasin� of the MSP 2010 Lon�-Term Comnrehensive Plan proiects is nnderwaY. The 2010 development nlan estimates do not inclade off-site noise mingation efforts which, under the 1996 Metropolitan Airaort le�islation directs the MAC to spend a minimnm of �185 million between 1996 and 2002 on insulation and land acquisition in the MSP noise imnact area. It also does not mclude about �53 million ori�inallv allocated for the runwav 4/22 noise miiigation measures. Costs attributable to several off-site road proiects affected bv airnort exnansion_ also are not included be- cause the proiects are not fullv identified The MA.0 will further evaluate the MSP development prosram to re�ne distinctions between land acauisition costs and construction costs, define Comm�ssion tagms au- thoritv limits, and identifv Commission revenue streams and nroiected fnancin� requirements. It as ant�ci- nated that the MAC will use that information to prepare a new capital improvement nrogram for nroiects startin� in 1997. A/i�'ION METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 ,� �� a, ' � � : � � :� � a �. � C � O �d � en � a � � °�' � �i � • � 3 `' O b �' O E " � °� r-% � U CN�i O � 'k c Q � . h y •� � 4 � o � o �0-+ W � a. a�f, C7 G�r S,+ C�.�' � .� C '~ � O 4"a t� � ; '� a F .. � �o � Fy � v ,va�� o a�i o3i a�i � °a °a U G1 2 2 W ,� . . . . . . . � rn rn � .-. = d i � � ^ , � w � ti Y 'U a o N a � w a � o W C.i OO q � y C � '.�. � � w . � � U .. _, q a ; o o � � � b � �� � w � w �— a o•� w � 'rn o O0 .� F" `� an C7 '-' �� C'+ � .N � .0 aI C � •� 'Cb0 � C .0 � �' a�i .�.� � . a�i .�-� '� � O f.� v V�J �N � "" o b 'r'ao cG a C7 y � '.. o ....- a a � .y � o co m o� ° '�5'0 � "'� .a m � °' c ° w w Q � � 3 0 [ y o a � � � o ,.� � � e �� '� �p y y � p G1� W o 'C u+ � � m �] E� o � � .� � .'� � � °�° .°.? a a � 'o 'o y a � Y � fA (,�y �" �% N M � Cd i: �./ H Ir N 0 �" a� CL R� �^ � -0 3 0 `� e a �'• � > t� � c W c°'i y y Q � o �° •o a a�i �a, :� ° C •° � en m ' � ii� °: � �, 0 0 � � � w w o c �, �.c�,' � � � •� p � m o ,° � N w � N � � � m w o � o c E� p°, o00 � � � y O �i H y Q . T ?, �y � '-�i c�v � � � o � � j a � V .v `" � ° � � H v� a � o a, r° � �,�, m m m o�n C7 a -c o E E 'o '.� �n° a 3 '�' 3 � �`�„ �' � p" E a�i � o V c�i o o w° � o �.. 4. :O a a3i - � o '�-� a�i � a a y w a�i x n��i a a a�i c�i o c� Z c� 2 �4 Z H <C ¢ a.� C7 R: x P: �C ¢ Z w' v� . . . . e . . . . e . . . . . . . a . H�+ N p [A � � W 3 � � �; � � � � N � w a y •� •= � ;� V y � � F y O ' � � � � O •� H � c.�i 'O V p � w � cUd G. � o v 3 � �c W � � � � �"„ � a r�' P-� � �� � y .�.a a o � � o C a � ° ;� � OP�„ E"' w C ca �SM V � c a � ,� � •p�q cu �Sr T C% � O W^ � V] "�."i �j (yy 'a a FI � O �p bp q � Q c�V Q "~'� �y � •y O� �� � � 2 � � � y E� a N � 'o a � � a �¢ �¢ ci � W �. U c 0 :c .� A 0 .� U .�r � c .� ��fo N ..`". N b0 a F' a � �'- 3 � v c �o 3 .� .c ^, � w� .� � +.. �y W ., O G� V �� O�+ U G 1�.� O y � U o� -� ❑ � C � L •V N �� �U a` z � a� ° �, o:� ,. a �� � oo. b� �,o �U n0 ._. � `" p N Up O.� N ..G� b �"y ii 0 �%�N � � � O � C~U L' �� � �,o .�^�°o m� bw m'a d � 4 � �3 m'� �� [ q d .y �� a o� � ob �N W N( £3.�°- a 6� � c� .. �, ao b o w �b � y �N N� y �3 �� o� �� m� o.,a+ n. � a� � 00. C v b OM O � N y .r�. y c3 a�7r.O�r uW N � y O 4�,.� 4�^y�^ ,fO�„ 4�..4� :C a � ��.5� H [� M � t �%. � �►i.._lt 1 r�S�-f�e��„ n.., .. -- � - - - - - -- -- - -- - - -- - _:-- _ - _ - -' _= - • -- ----- - -- - - - :- _-_ - _ _- - - -- ---- - - • - -- -- -- -- ---- - --- - _ --- -= _ - � • � �eg�e�r�r- � , � +..., ,.,,a .-.ti,��„a—..,..,.....-,....,.i.. ,.,a �-- .a#'—�-w-m^,a-��� ��-ae�� . �G-- -���e d��te� � �e��aee�te�� ���e�� � '-,,; „� � �- �e�e�e ��te e��e ea� �e ~-��'���^' ^��a- The Reliever Airports Fuactions • The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has designated seven airports in the area as reliever airports for MSP. The reliever airports are St. Paul Downtown, Flying Cloud, Airlake, Lake Elmo, Anoka County-Blaine, Crystal, and South St. Paul. The FAA. designation is extended if an airport helps to relieve airport congestion in a metropolitan area by providing general aviation users with attractive alternatives to the major scheduled passenger airport and ION METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUlDE March 1995 ,� 48 = increases access to the airports for general aviation uses. To adequately fulfill their role within a metropolitan area, reliever airports must provide facilities and services for general aviation comparable to general aviation provision.s at the commercial airport they relieve, i.e., MSP. The reliever airports serve demands generated by both local aircraft based in the Metropolitan Area and transient aircraft traveling to the area from elsewhere. The reliever airports are relatively well distributed around the central urbanized core area or just a short distance beyond it. . The reliever airports are supported by fees and charges directly imposed on their users for the MAC facilities, and through a special arrangement by funds from the airline companies using MSP in return for the benefits they receive by having facilities in the area that divert traffic from MSP. • All of the reliever airports are open to public use and will attract some users who neither live nor work close to the airport they use. However, sirport users are encouraged to patronize the airports near their place of residence and/or business to distribute general aviation traffic, make use of public investments, and reduce overall operational delays_ Activity Trends and Forecasts The level of activity at the seven reliever airports is measured by operations (the number of takeoffs and landings). Operations grew each year from 1983 to 1990, then declined in 1990 and 1991, probably due to the national recession. There is a great deal of fluctuation evident over a long period of time. The 1990 Reliever Airport Study forecast continued growth throughout the duration of the study period, which ends in the year 2008. This growth forecast relies heavily on trends from the latter part of the 1980s (see Appendix D). � The 1990 study £ound that the number of civil aircraft based at reliever airports had been relatively stable during the 1984-1988 period. The report forecast moderate growth in aircraft based at reliever fields from 1988 to 2008 in keeping with FAA forecasts of more steady growth in general aviation during the 1990s and the first decade of the next century. . Perhaps more important than the forecast growth in operations or in the number of planes based at reliever airports is the likelihood that there will be a continued move away from single- and multi-engine piston aircraft toward turboprop azld business jet aircraft. These larger aircraft tend to locate at airports with more advanced facilitie's, such as instrument landing systems (ILS) or support services. In 1993, St. Paul Downtown, Flying Cloud and Crystal, with air traffic control towers, had the most advanced facilities, but all the relievers could accommodate nonprecision instrument landings. One of the main indicators of general aviation needs is the number and type of aircraft based at the region's public and private airport facilitates. The total number of based aircraft is depicted in Figure 14. The types of aircraft further define the kind of airport facilities and services that are needed. In the year 2008, about 3.3 percent of the total based aircraft fleet will be composed of turbo-jets, 3.0 percent turbo-jets, 10.1 percent multi-engine piston, 80.4 percent single-engine piston, and 3.2 percent rotorcraft. -- An allocation of general aviation aircraft to each reliever airport, based upon its historic regional share, is indicated in Figure 15 for the year 2008. IEiQ'ION METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 � C C 3;000 ` 2,500 2,000 1,5Q0 a,000 �oo 0 1958 1968 �978 1988* 'Forecast Base Year Source: MAC and South St. Pau1 Annual Activity Informa�ion Figure 74 _. TotalBased General Aviaiion Aircraf� �998 2U08 Figure 15 ._, ... ... General Aviatian Aircraft Allocation Cry►sial 9 v:5% MSP 2:8% _.__ _ _ _ I , . ��v���A���a, � �K �u.�n-�� .tnc - 11ji��c�ke xkL.�z +� , ,�„���z�� ,� . '°�.�"-`rmz.^,,„�,'t,��4F-Si^�k"��..''.�,^. 7.J��0 . " � `'�'�'� !� �� S�^a�'`� ��'��''.k''a!3�m . ..:. ��ir'�� s � �y ��*.�.1 '� �, �' �°`" �.4�,,x "�pi � �. I ��%` � - � y+r5,i�.t.r"�'���:,� '�«°.� �*„�"'�.a�,� r ��`'`��:.::. � . t . ���x zr e "' ..� �- ,+.�" :- I ,�`-1-�p� P`�i�'��� ,, i .... Y'�"� � gp�,'��''+�' Lake Elmo . . ' ��r�t�"�" � . �.���0 � . South St. Pactt . 12.1 % `Si :Paul Downfown - 11.7% - � Source: MAC and South SL Paul Annua! Activify informafion, _ _ , .. _,. . ... Arother key incLcator o€ aviation syste�n need'� resi.zl4s i fxorn aircraf� -ob.erati:onaZ d.emarsds... "�'�.g'uxe 16.`depicts. the tata? numi�er of general aviation operatior'a at the. regior_'s air�aor4s. In the year 2Q08, approxim\tely'50 pe�ce�.t or" these operatior_s are projected to be by aircraft based .in the region and 50 percer_t by itineran� aircra�t coming from other aixpo�s. BI�� METRt?POCIi'AAI DEVELOPMEtsi' GUID� `Ma�ch 1995 - , `. ( � � At the maj or is projected and the minor Figure 16 Total Annual General Aviation Aircraft Operations Operations 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 1968 1978 1988* 1998 2008 *Forecast8ase Year Saurce: MAC and South St. Pau/ Annual Activity Information airport, the split in local/itinerant operation in the year 2008 to be 5%/95o respectively; far the intermediate airport 30a/70o, airports would generally be 60a/40o. �� Total annual service volume (ASV) or airfield and operational capacity of the general aviation system in 1988 was determined to be 1,890,000 annual operations. The overall capacity utilization is expected to be 74 percent by the year 2008; several individual airports are expected to be at a much higher utilization (e.g. Flying Cloud 81 percent, Anoka County - Blaine, 123 percent). The FAA recommends planning for additional capacity at 60 percent ASV and . implementation by 80 percent ASV. By the end of the planning period, three system airports are expected to be over the 80 percent ASV, and system enhancements are currently being considered in the preparation of long-term compreh.ensive plans. Table 2 lists MSP, the reliever airports and several �descriptive characteristics of each. Figure 1 shows the location of Minneapolis - Saint Paul International Airport and,the �-�z�� other airports ia the reliever system, ��� The Regional System RelieverAirport Study: Recommendations and Highlights The regional system reliever airport study was completed in 1990 and presented to the Council for action. In December 1990, the Council accepted the study and authorized the staff to transmit it to affected governmental / t�nits and to the general public. The staff was also directed by the l, / I�11�@'11�1i METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 Council to coordinate with the MAC and affected communities to assess the feasibility of having MAC acquire the South St. Paul Airport and the Gateway Airport in Ramsey, implement other reliever study. recommendations and integrate reliever airport recommendations with the major airport dual-track strategy. 1 The City of Ramsey voted against the public sponsorship of the privately owned Gateway Airport and it has since been closed. The possibility of acquiring South St. Paul Airport and adding it to the MAC owned and aperated system has been evaluated and dropped by the MAC. The study recommendations for the various individual reliever airports will be developed further in preparation of long-term comprehensive plans for the airports. The regional system reliever airport study's findings are as follows: 1. Each of the existing relievers has the potential to develop on-airport storage to meet the projected number of system-wide based aircraft. 2. Anoka Coi�.n.ty-Blaine, St . Paul Down�own, and Flying Cloud Airports will surpass 80 percent of their existing operational capacity by the end of the planning period, i.e., 2008. Of these three capacity-saturated airports, only Anoka County-Blaine has a sufficient land envelope to accommodate major capacity enhancing airside improvements. (As a general rule, when 80 percent of capacity is reached, expansion plans should be advanced to the point where implementation can begin.) 3. As demand outpaces capacity, operational delays will increase. 4. Operational capacity will not accommodate projected demand in the rapidly grawing western and northwestern portion of the metropolitan region unless � � capacity is enhanced. 5. Geographic coverage should be increased, especially on the western side of the Metropolitan Area. 6. Additional precision instrument approaches are recommended in the northwestern portion of the Metropolitan Area. 7. The aircraft owners and pilots survey indicated that the type and quality of fixed base operations (FBO) e.g., secure storage, snow removal, and competitively-priced fuel are considered important in attracting users to the reliever airports. The major consequences posed by these findings is that if the deficiencies identified are not resolved by the year 2008, delays will become ever more common at the reliever airports and there will be growing problems with safety. Inadequate operational capacities will make the reliever fields much less attractive to general aviation as viable alternatives to MSP. The major system recommendations from the Regional System Airports Study are as follows: 1. Develop parallel runways and an air traffic control tower at Anoka County- Blaix�.e Airport because much of the .operational capacity shortfall identified ; � for the regional reliever system will be experienced at this reliever system � v airport. /�/(I�OON METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 � 2. Investigate the feasibility of providing an additional reliever airport in search area "A," which is in the northwestern portion of the Metropolitan Area. Operational capacity shortfalls and coverage by intermediate and IFR airports could be supplemented through development of a new general aviation airport in this search area. This facility could resolve operational deficiencies projected for Anoka County-Blaine, Crystal and Flying Cloud Airports. A new general aviation airport in this sector should be designed for ultimate development as an intermediate facility. 3. Encourage inter-system diversion to those airports that have surplus capacity as a way of making better use of existing capacity. This strategy is needed primarily to resolve capacity shortfalls for St. Paul Downtown Airport with the excess demand served at Lake E1mo. Other•inter-system diversions could also be encouraged. Table 2 Airport Characteristics / Status Lon rm Airport Total Number Primary Air Traffic Number of � Compre ive size of Runways/ unway Length Control Primary R 1992 1992 Airport Airport (Acres)' Type Exi g Proposed Tower Instrumenta Annual Op. Based Aircraft� Minneapolis - 1990 / Updati 3,100 Three / Paved 11R/2 — 24 Hour / Precision 413 502 48 St. Paul Intemational owntown 1990 / Approved Paul - an Fld. Flyin loud In Progress Crystal �In Progress Anoka In Counry - Blaine Lake Elmo 1994 / ake 1989 / South 1976 / St. Paul Approved Forest Lake /A / Private Rice Lake N Private SPB Helipons Major - u Minor - 10,000 Cus[oms Instruments / Runway Lights 0 Three / Paved 14/32 16 Hour'/ Precision 6,700' Customs Instruments / On-call Runway Lights 560 ree / Paved 9IU27L 9R/2 16 Hour Precision 3,900' 5,000' Instruments / Runway Lights 430 On rf 13R/31L — 1 our Non-precision 3,267' Instruments / �\ Runway Lighcs 1,900 Two / Pave 17/35 — Unicom �. Non-precision 4,855' Tower Instruments / Proposed ' unway LighuS Two / Paved 1 13/31 Unicom al / 2, 3,900' R ay Lights 565 One / Paved 112 11/29 Unicom Preci 4,100' `. 5,000' Inscru ts Runway ts One / Paved 16/34 Unicom Visual / 4,000' Runway Ligh 290 wo / Turf 13/31 — ., Wind Sock Visual / No 2,575' � , Runway Lights — Two. ater — — 'nd Sock Visual / N 0.5 to 2 I N/A / 0 Lighted Buoys — — Win ck Visual / Some Lighted 1 378 258 198,30 482 � 179,546 327 195,650 69,950 189 81,087 165 37,860° 2366 ' Continuous Property, does n clude easement areas = Single Engine / Multi-Engine Helicopters / Total ' 24 Hour Proposed � Unified Planning Work Program ' ILS Proposed / 101i METROPO�ITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE Mat'ch 1995 b 1988 Data ` C i � � u�i � N �p 3t�E p. 3bi �; �%�: ' - ; ' �Cp r.'.�. Cp Q?�: �:� 35s; � � LL N �Y' M �tt' ��:� �i- <1+.: � �.`.+.�i iMi1:; i � � d � iiiif � .'.,�.�'.; c� a � '�"' O � w � N w ¢ m m � � 2 Vi '?:�i :�:: �� �: :�: �*i�: i�F:: �n �j:; 1 � � Z' ;�' �1: �`G ': 1 1 1 � p ;�,; ;�i �;;c; :�': ''.,',�x.�, .i � t�:: r:C+:; #y� w M r. 4 �.. �li r. ti w# �i:<j�: � 1� TF �4TC: � I- Xf4: 34i: � ::Q: :K�: '.l*�.'.; �ly'.;: iY"J:� :1+�:;: :CF>'i � d ��Cki �:li �c:: �w; :CQ: �fl:: i!�i:i "it"1:� :kS+!: Z a' �.'.'�vi` '; •t�.+.. :�: �tt+.• :qt?: Q W a. O Z y. z �' 'S ¢ � \V� \v� \tn � \N \in 3 \N 3 N y W 3 1- t- �- !- tn F- Z i- z i- Z I- !- E � tn s fn S N S Vl 2 O fn = � tn = � O S � O O O �� r c� F- c� F- c� c:� �- co r- � a E- cv a z co z m v� Z Z�^.+ .Z Z.-. ZZ «+ W�L' N Z.-. Z.2 � W O W J O W J O W-7 C' W_i W J \ O W�.i � �-� � � � � fn > >- N � ?- [n > >- � � !- W > >- J fn ln > >- J fR _! �- J W _t W ¢� �4 �¢ �et � �¢ ��¢ 4r- �¢ ¢�- ¢¢ 6r ¢F- ��-- c.)�-3 caE--3 c7r3 i-3 0.�--3 �x c.�r3 �x �3 �x �x (n W N 2 W Vl 2 W tn 2 Z lQ .Z Z N.'� fn C7 W tR Z tn U' V) Z t/7 C7 tn C7 az �z� �z� �z� oz� oz� .» �z� -� � ... a�,� a-»a o.�..� z...� z..a » n.�.,� » >� » » c� uz:; t� J z �� �y � pi � \ 0 C�J [.1 t� ~,Oi�-� . �� jf � � E S f t�i7 N N K c.� _� _�-� �= S :lik:' U � C.�� z z z Q �t j �p � q- .p .p � :O: z z z N G.t � t� C� H' �� � > > 3 3 3 O 0 O 0 p O Q q� W � = N � � � � � M � i � � F- ~ d � �. \ i � ' � � � � 'Q' C7 � \ \::::. a- U <l:i r J 0' N M N C2;: � 4 � � � �. � �: J 3 V Z 4 = ti � - � a o o �n o 0 0 �n � ¢ c� ti �' � 0�0 � o u~i � � � � � a- � �D � �Y' N �Y' �t N � t � � � � � a a vi � _ � � � � � �. � � � � J W N p M N \�O M M N M M e,d'- O � Q. . M N c(.,- � � � �' � a � K1 � v' W o n, �. o o c :C.i:: w�'" > > > �i" o 0 o c � c � � a a a �; F > > > > � r-W- > z� � � � ?*i;i W a n¢. ad'. a � 3 oQ. J d w W W �k1t; p \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 3 Z �; O O W W O O Q p� = x x �:: 3 3 z z 3 3 \ r- �- r- t- #�:: �- �- o o r r x � ti O O O O O :�: �O C O` � a W fR � Il�'1 U�1 ��1' O� :�: l!'1 N N � ++ Op.N � � a- � �N � (n � O Q v C W K � o-'� � �; ?;:fS: ;�7; 1-- � � W Z G. ::4l; � �; : GR: .y., ..9 � Z :;l�: :ii�!; :;la: N tq t- W� �.c N l4 ��''�;tiY R' d.' _ � ''•�d; i�': '�i d a� '"<'::;:; •i a c. � � Z� o ::a�' i''d3; c o w c :�iti.>:��i; �,'.�r.p n_ ::,.,�'..,t :;!?.`.. �: :;ra;>:sz; •�> � � � � o �� � . � � �:a+< o ::ik: ita'EE ��: o. a t::s�: • td::<.rii� �o :C: o z U¢ {�. {��. o� :�p •. fT' t� :�p 4 ¢ � :p>.: �i :4+.� ►C. �.C.. a�-' ?L7< �;:iR' O. 'L7'r; � � ¢ ;�-q: ..r..,:: '�-: :!G:: �;:tY:: :!�:; Z Z � F �" w F-- � o v~i � o � . r � Y � O O J f- Z S U J V z J W � a � � 6 Q Z O� C 7 6 s,� W Y 1- J O Q .Z � W Z_7 � .•z+ f/1 Y J W J i-- J W 17.� "` Z • F- 3� ttt Y Y O a� X d' .>> K t� C1 _I � $ y.Z-. Ga ti IJ V +t � J Q Nd � �N S m � � � N m � � b .� L' O C m O b � G�, � C. � a � OA O U � I_. �V �"^ ( In addition to these three major system recommendations, the report identifies a number of specific development needs for each of the airports with a total 1990 cost of implementing the plan of $47 million through the year 2008. This figure does not include the full.cost that would be involved in acquiring the land and developing a new reliever airport of some 500 acres in the northwestern sector of � the area. The Regional System Reliever Airpart Study is not conducted at the master planning level of detail. Many of its recommendations reflect environmental, engineering and community acceptance issues that will require further study and development through the individual airport long-term comprehensive plans. . Long-Term Comprehensive Pians for RelieverAirports Long-term comprehensive plans for the reliever airports currently are prepared by the MAC or, in the case of South St. Paul Airport, by the City of South St. Paul. Content requirements for long-term comprehensive plans for the reliever airports are found in the system implementation section of th.is plan. The Co�uncil reviewed plans for Airlake Airport in 1989, � St . Paul Downtown Airport in 1992 ,��e�t��e�t ee�t��e�e�a3�e��a.� €e� Lake Tlmo Airport in 1994, Flying Cloud Airport (199�6) w�� ee���e�e� ���e �e-94. There z-��-is no current long-term comprehensive plan� for �te3�� Ee��� 8����e; �'�;n#�1---�- South St. Paul Municipal Airport�.;��_�, �Planning �ta-�-is ia progress �-��for Crystal and Anoka Airports =��4, Reviews are anticipated in early 1997 St. Paul Dowatown Airport (Holman Field) Long-Term Comprehensive Plan. �� In July 1992, the Council �e�ec�-a� reviewed the long-term comprehensive plan for , St. Paul Downtown Airport, and found the plan to be consistent with Council policy. This plan updates a 1977 master plan for the airport. The key improvements in the 1992 long-term comprehensive plan are: 1. Runway 32 will be provided with a lead-in lighting facility (LDIN). 2. A precision instrument landing system will be established for runway 14. This will alleviate most of the airspace problems with MSP. 3. Designated helicopter landing and takeoff areas will be established in two different sect�i.ons of the airport and will be separated from conventional aircraft facilities. A facility for military helicopters consisting of a paved pad will be located near the National Guard hangar on the northwest side of the airport. A separate landing and takeoff pad for civilian helicopters is to be located adjacent to a space sufficient for the construction of hangar and support iacilities. 4. There will be taxiway modifications to improve on-airport circulation, a new air traffic control tower site, a new compass calibration pad, and an airport vehicle-only service road. 5. There will be continued development of the elevated building area, with additional hangar development proposed on the east side of the airport to complete a proposal first made in the 1977 master plan. ( � ION METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 Airlake Airport Long-Term Comprehensive Plan In 1989 the Council a}��� reviewed the Airlake Airport long-term comprehensive development plan. The plan recommended extension of one runway to 5,000 ft. and the construction of a new 3,500 ft. long crosswind runway and �1 additional building areas to be located south of the longest runway. =n �?-?_� _ __ �- ` --� � � � - _ � uy, it � s review the Council recommended the following: 1. That the Township of Eureka in consultation with the MAC prepare a comprehensive plan amendment reflecting the proposed expansion area. 2. That the Cities of Lakeville, Farmington and Eureka Twp. amend their comprehensive plans to reflect aircraft noise areas and the Council's land-use compatibility guidelines. 3. That a joint airport zoning board be established by the MAC and local communities to implement ordinances and controls to reflect appropriately the Airlake Airport comprehensive plan requirements for airspace and land-use safety. 4. That the Council request an FAA airspace review of the Airlake Airport long-term comprehensive plan proposal. 5. That the Aviation Guide Chapter be amended to include updated aircraft noise contours and other changes resulting from the Airlake Airport comprehensive plan. A 3S84—a��a�e—e��The Airlake Airport long-term comprehensive plan �date is expected to be completed in ea�'l� late 199�6. It is anticipated that new systems statements will be sent to affected local governmental units concerning future airport � ) development. Flyiag Cloud Airport Long-Term Comprehensive Plan . � 3— ' � �� i., ... ,-, a � � . /�1�1i11A METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 1996 AVIATION GUIDE AMENDMENT REPLACEMENT TEXT ON PAGE 54 UNDER FOLLOWING HEADING: Flying Cloud Airport Long-Term Comprehensive Plan Ia April 1996 the Metropolitan Council took the following actioa concerning � the Long-Term Coa►psehensive Plan (LTCP) for the Flying Cloud airport• 1. That the Metropolitan Council adopt the findings and conclusions included in the Repart o£ the Trans�nortation Committee - Exhibit S- . 2. That the Metropolitan Couneil approve the Flying Cloud Airport Long Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP) contisigent upon items a through e as listed l�elow being provided to the Council prior to final EIS and/or CIP reviews by the Couneil on proj ects to iat,plement the LTCP : a. a deseription map of the qroundwater well sites and any iaformation on any qroundwater contamination problems and moaitoring pragrams to be ixieluded as an addeadum to the LTCP - b. a locatioa mag and a deseriptioa of the cu=rent sewer system to be included as an addendum to the current LTCP. This should also include infora►ation on the maintenan.ce and iaspection schedule for the on-site septie systems and identify any potential problem at the airport; e. a plan and implementation proc.7ram, developed and aareed to joixit� by the MAC and the City of Eden Prairie for submittal to the Council bv September 30. 1996, for the provision of potable water and sanitary sewer service to Flyiag Cloud teaants, iacluding conneetian to the metropolitan � disposa7. system. The MAC should modify its capital improvement program to implemeat the items sgecified in the plan and program by December 31. 1998. subjeet to coaditions not under the control of either party. The Council will closely review future matters �elated to the Flyixig Claud Airport, including the Capital =mprovement Program, to ensure MAC's timelX fulfillment of this coa�itment• d. an evaluation af the existing and future impacts oa Stariaa Lake, Purgatory Creek and the Minaesota River from rvnoff at the airport facility: ar�.d e. evidence - that deatoastrates a sign.ificant effort to develop a comman vnderstanding betweea the MA.0 and the city of Eden Prairie of the role af Flying Cloud as a minor airport ia the region. In order to facilitate the developmeat o£ that common understaadiag, the Covacil shall convene a meetiag between the parties, the results of which shall be reported to the Cowa.cil at its May 23rd. 1996, meeting by represeatatives from the Co�u.n.ci1, the MAC, and the city and communicated to the citizens of Eden Prairie. 3. That, within 120 days after the MAC obtains all federal and state exivironmeatal approvals aad CIP approval by the Covncil for the expansion of the airpart, the MAC commence to appraise property and extend offers for Flying Cloud Airport land acquisition option number 2 adopted by the.MAC on January 6, 1996: � A/l�'1AIA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE -�AAc�ekr499rs- 4. That the MAC without degradation of safety x�.eeds make the safetv zone area available for �ublie use bv residents of the citv of Eden Prairie asid surrounding areas; 5. That the MAC provide public rights-of-way £or road access to vroverties south of the�rovosed new hangar area; 6. That the Metroaolitan Council encourase the MAC to include close involvement of all interested nar- ties and an extensive communications/coordination effort durin� the Environmental Imaact Statement (EISI process to be conducted for the proposed aroiects at the Flvin� Cloud Airaori; 7. That, after the exnansion, the Flvin� Cloud Airport continue to function as a minor airport, with a maximum runwav len�th of 5,000 feet pursuant to the current 1995 Metropolitan Develonment Guide Aviation Chapter, which nlavs a role as a secondarv reliever airport to M S P International and primarilv accommo- dates �eneral aviation business, nersonal and recreational uses; 8. That the MAC and the citv of Eden Prairie enter into an a�reement re�ardin� the imulementation of � the above recommendations, inclading ne�otiation of reasonable suecial assessments levied bv the crtv a�amst property owned bv the MAC; and 9. The MAC and the citv of Eden Prairie should also a�ree that disa�reements re�ardin� imalementation of the above recommendations includin� obtainin� the necessarv environmental annrovals, should be re- solved throu�h a process other than liti�ation such as mediation, or another alternative disnute resolution nrocess iointiv a�reed to bv the MAC and the citv." A/If�'1�Ili METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE �'tard'r'199`.�- - - -_ - =- - ::--- _ - - -- -- - -- -� - - �5-: �'�_����•e—�e ���e�—t���e�te�ts��e-��� ��e�t�te�� �— A i v-nn ri- c i.�- ^ '---r--- ---..�. -' -' - - - ' - --' ' ' " - " - Crystal Airport Loag-Term Comprehensive Plan In a 1992 amendment to Crystal's long-term comprehensive plan, the city indicated a preference to put the airport land into non-airport use. This is not consistent with the Aviation Guide, and the Council required the city to make a plan modification. The MAC ���� has no plans to abandon Crystal Airport. Such a move would exert strong pressure on future development at Flying Cloud and .Anoka County-Blaine Airports and increase the need to locate a new northwest metropolitan reliever airport. Development of a long-term comprehensive plan was recommended in 1993 to � address the city's concerns with airport safety and land-use compatibility.. Preparation of a plan, as �� �s �e �coordinated with the Tri-City Airport Commission (Crystal, Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center). and a. � public hearing was held in �t�—�e�e�--�e�r�e�a }� e�ee�e���1996. Coun.eil review is anticipated ixi early 1997 Anoka County-Blaixie Airport Long-Term Comprehensive Plaa In the 1990 Aviation Development Guide Chapter revision �.he Council requested MAC to complete a long-term comprehensive plan for Anoka County- Blaine Airport. Preparation of a plan �a�s ��=�=��e��� ��94.is in progress. A_7�ublic hearincr is anticipated in early 199� with Council review also oecur-inc.7 in 1997. South St. Paul Airport Long-Term Comprehensive Plan A master plan for South St. Paul Airport was prepared in 1973 and approved by the Council. Ownership and operation of the facility by MAC was evaluated in 1992 and dropped from further consideration. A long-term development plan for the airport is anticipated to be developed in 1996. It would be prepared by the City of South St. Paul. Lake E1mo Airport Long-Term Comprehensive Plan A long-term comprehensive plan for Lake Elmo Airport was prepared by the MAC, reviewed and found consistesit ��a�e� by the Council in 1994. The -plan envisions a new mainwind runway and a new east side building area. �' i�/9A'19!! METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 � Planning Context System Implementation it and Preparation of a Long-Term Comprehensive Airport Plan The long-term comprehensive airport plan (LTCP) is intended to integrate information pertinent to planning, developing and operating an airport in manner compatible with its surrounding environs. This document is to be prepared according to the procedure and priority schedule described below reassessed every five years thereafter. all a and The plan content guidelines apply to major, intermediate and minor airports. Therefore, some flexibility for differences in emphasis or level of detail on certain plan elements will be necessary. Plans should be reassessed periodically and updated when necessary. The reassessment involves reviewing the prior forecasts against actual airport activity, checking the progress of implementation efforts (e.g. r�individual project planning, EIS's and capital program), and identifying any other -' issues or changes that may warrant continued monitoring, interim action or establish a need for a plan update. ( ) The LTCP does not replace any other planning or reporting requirements of another governmental unit. The scope and emphasis of a long-term comprehensive airport plan should reflect the airport's system role and the objectives for each plan content category as described below. Table 3 Schedule for Preparing/Updating Long-Term Comprehensive Airport Plans Airport - St. Paul International St. Paul Do wn Airlake Anoka County - B e Crystal Flying Cloud Lake Elmo South St. Paul Municipal 'Assumes Plan Approval in 1995 zAssumes Plan Approval in 1995 'Assumes Plan Approval in 1995 Concept Plan A ted - 1991 Plan Approved - 1 Plan Approved - 1989, Plan Development in Pr an Development in Pr P Review in Progress Plan roved - 1994 Pronos 1996 5-Year Update 1996 1997 19993 1999 AYIAT60N METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE ' ,9g5 a� � � -o Z � �� � a � o rn o 0 0 o rn o � � N *-y N N N N � N a N 0 � � Z � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � o � Q, �t.�., � • j •�j •V O� .�., � � � „C3 � � W v� rn rn 3 3 3�� � �H �, rn� .� .y .� � o� � a� a� a� � o � 3 � � � � 3 � LU °' '� � va � "� 'S � � � � � � � � H � � � �, �, � � � q a.� a., ��� a a� � C5 � � .� o a �" ai �.P� a o .� W�s�-. a�,�i .-. � � � � � � .� �� � � � � a � � � � � � � � a � � � •� o a Q., A V V � � � � � � � � W � ccs o � � N +'�.� � ris ¢� � U w -�l r° C. � _ _ ,�t i .. Pian Content Airport Development Objective: To portray the type and location of airport physical and operational development in a systematic fashion, reflecting both the historical and forecast levels of unconstrained aviation demand. The plan hould include: • Background data including a description of previous planning studies and development efforts. Each item described should contain a synopsis of pertinent dates, funding source(s), objectives and results. It should also include an overview of historical and forecast aviation activity (number of based aircraft, aircraft mix, number of annual aircraft operations) and the demand compared to the capacity of existing and proposed facilities. • An airport map showing land use areas, by type, within the airport property boundary or under airport control. Map(s) showing airport development phasing based upon key demand and capacity levels. A description of facilities staging, by phase, for specific land-use areas. A copy of the current FAA- approved airport layout plan map with associated data tables as described in FAA AC150/5070-6. Airport and Airspace Safety Objective: To identify planning�and operating practices required to ensure the safety of aircraft operations and protect the regional airspace resource. The plan should include:, • An airport map depicting the airport zoning district, land-use safety zones and a description of the associated airport zoning ordinance as required under Minn. Stat. 360.061-360.074 and defined in Minn Rules, Sec. 88-.2400. This map should contain appropriate topographical reference and depict those areas under aviation easements. • An airport area map showing the FAA FAR Part 77 airspace surfaces, including an approach and clear zone i, � plan as described in FAA AC150/5070-6. --• A map of aircraft flight tracks depicting the local aircraft traffic pattern and general description of operating parameters in relation to the physical and operational development phase of the airport. Aixport aud Aircraft Eavironmental Capability Objective: To define aviation impacts and measures needed to meet both social and natural environmental needs of the region. The plan should include: • Aircraft on-ground and overflight activities described within an historical and forecast context, including seasonal and daily traffic. Maps of aircraft noise impact areas depicted by contours of noise levels for annualized and single-event aircraft activity. Description of noise abatement operations measures, identifying those evaluated and those adopted. • Description of abatement measures and proposed strategy for off-airport land uses affected by aircraft noise, including recommended priorities and identification of parties responsible for implementation. • Description of aircraft, ground vehicle and point-source air pollution emissions within a historical and forecast context, including definition of the seasonal and daily operating environment. Identify existing and potential air-quality problem area(s). S Description and map of existing drainage system including natural drainageways and wetlands by type. Provide map and description of proposed surface water management plan for water quantity and quality including proposed facilities, storage volumes, rates and volumes of runoff Erom the site, and pollutant loadings associated with planned airport site facilities that could affect surface water quality. Proposed mitigation measures and facilities (during construction and long term} to avoid off-site � j flooding and minimize polluting of surface waters. A description of ineasures to mitigate the potential _ impact or compensate for the loss or alteration of wetlands. A/I�IAN METROPO�ITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 � • Description of the types of potential groundwater contaminants present on the site and proposed measures for the safe handling, storage and disposal of these substances to protect ground water, including a description of the Metropolitan Airports Commission's and private operators' roles tor managing these materials. ' C« • Projection of the average annual volume of wastewater to be generated for the next 2o years by iive year increments from terminals and operators and the proposed facilities (description and map) for handling and treating wastewater including public sewer service, private treatment plants and individual on-site sewage disposal systems. Include a description of the proposed management program for private facilities and the roles oi the Metropolitan Airports Commission and private• operators in implementing this program. �i Description of recommended air, water and noise control plans, including monitoring programs. Compati.bility with Metropolitan and Local 5ystems Objective: To identify demand and capacity relationships between airport and community systems and define a management plan for maintaining compatibility. The plan should include: • Description of historical and forecast ground vehicle traffic activities, including average and peak- flow characteristics on a seasonal, daily and peak hour bases_ Map showing location of ground access points, parking areas and associated traffic counts. Definition of potential problem areas and plan for traffic management. • Description of water supply, sanitary and storm sewer and solid waste systems. Definition of historical and forecast use levels and capacities. Depiction of locations where airport systems interface with local or regional systems. Identification of potential problem areas and the plan(s) for waste management. • Description of other airport service needs (for example, police and fire) that may require changes in , agreements or type/levels of governmental and/or general public support. C,. Implementation Strategy Objectives: To establish the type, scope and economic feasibility of airport development and recommended actions to implement a compatible airport and community plan. The plan should include: • Description of the overall physical and operational development phasing needed over the [next] ten years. • A capital improvement plan to cover a ten-year prospective period: The first five years of the development plan should be project-specific, much like the present MAC plan, and the second five years of the plan, including projects of more than five years duration and new projects, may be limited to aggregate projections. Estimates of federal, state and local funding shares should be included for all projects included in the plans. • Identification of the planning activities needed for implementation of the comprehensive airport plan. Aviation System Content Requirements for Local Comprehensive Plans Under the 1995 Metropolitan Land Planning Act, local governments are to prepare comprehensive plans and submit them to the Council to determine their consistency with metropolitan system plans. Each mvnicipality in the metro area will review and if necessarv, u�odate its' compreheasive plan fiscal devices and offieial coatrols b�r December 31. 1998, aad at least every 10 years thereafter Local comprehensive plans are to include land use and public facilities plans with sufficient informatian to � /�/1�'IOM METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 determine the effects on departures from metropolitan systems plans. The public _ facilities plan should include an aviation element describing, designating and scheduling the location, extent, function, servicing and protection. requirements of �xisting and proposed regional and local public and private aviation facilities. , The Council is required to regularly re-evaluate regional system plans. In turn, the Council is to notify local governmental units of system changes, and indicate appropriate modifications to local comprehensive plans. To reduce confusion about what change in regional aviation plans directly affect individual local governments, metropolitan systems statements will clearly indicate which geographic areas and/or population groups will be most affected by the changes. In addition, the Council will transmit all system changes that occur in a calendar year as a single system statement. This means local governmental units can consider concurrently all system plan changes made �during a 12-month period.=n updating their �lans by the 1998 deadline local governments are recruired to cansider the metr�olitan policy vlans that are in effect on December 31, 1996. Described below are specific local plan content requirements that in many cases will be needed to demonstrate consistency with the revised aviation system plan. Also noted below are recommended, but nonmandatory, plan elements. Mandatory Elements • Adopted land-use compatibility guidelines for aircraft noise (note: the guidelines to be used are de'scribed ia the next section of this document). - Map depicting aircraft noise zones of any adjacent airport(s) impacting the community. - Identification oP incompatible land use activities, recommended plan and strategy to remove incompatibility. - Description of overlay zoning ordinance to be adopted for attenuation of aircraft noise. - Description of looal building codes as part of a strategy to implement noise attenuation overlay ordinance. • Maps depicting airport airspace zones and land use safety zones based upon federal and state criteria. - Preparation of airport land-use safety ordinance (implies formation of, and participation on, joint zoning boards in the case of MAC airports). • For communities sponsoring the development of an intermediate or major heliport, a heliport development plan-must be prepared that evaluates alternative sites, land use impacts, access, safety zones, noise and other environmental concerns. The development plan is submitted for review to the Council along with notifications to the FAA and Mn/DOT. The Council's review of the development pl.an provides the basis for the community's comprehensive plan amendment. • Identi£ication of permanent private, and emergency-use airports and heliports allowed under local zoning and/or permit. • Map depicting permitted seaplane surface water use areas under Mn/DOT rules and regulations. - Zoning ordinance for protection of special aviation facilities/functions in off-airport areas (including easement): for example, navigation or landing aids such as a vOR, ILS-Marker, enroute radar, approach lighting and beacons. �' )� Identification of all man-made structures 500 ieet above ground level (or office or residential `____ buildings more then 10 stories high requiring emergency evacuation plan by helicopter). 10N METROPOLITAN DEVE�OPMENT GUIDE March 1995 - Local ordinance controlling height of structures allowed under conditional or special use permit within areas of the communities' general-airspace area and not included within an airport zoning district. - Incorporation of Mn/DOT notification and reporting procedure for structures 250 or more feet above ground level at the site. O Integration of airport infrastructure and service.requirement needs with local plans and facilities. - Identification of effects on special services. Non-Mandatory Elements sensitive land uses and activities, easements and districts. Also local financial and capital plans/ 1 Identification of local participation process for input to aviation planning, development and promotion activities to be coordinated with affected agencies. 1 Aixport-related economic development plan, including cost-sharing or other development tools and proposals for relating community to airport services in cooperation with airport owner, users and other afPected governmental units. Land-IIse Compatibility Guidelines Process In 19'76, the legislature enacted the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. This act required that all local governmental units prepare a comprehensive land-use plan and submit it for review by the Metropolitan Council. The aviation system content requirements for local comprehensive plans are described earlier in this document. In addition, land- use compatibility guidelines for aircraft noise have been adopted by the Council. These guidelines are to be used in local comprehensive plans/plan amendments. The following overall process and schedule should be used: • The Metropolitari Council will transmit the adopted revised aviation chapter to local governments affected by the metropolitan airports system as part of its next annual systems information statement. i Each community, within nine months after receipt of the systems statements, must review its comprehensive plan and determine if a plan amendment is needed to ensure consistency with the aviation chapter. If an amendment is needed, the community must prepare an amendment and submit it to the Metropolitan Council as required under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. s The Metropolitan Council reviews each local comprehensive plan amendment, and approves or requires a plan modification. The Council also reviews and comments on any proposed variance request or other interim measures, to address inconsistent land uses. • Each community and airport/heliport owner prepares a detailed implementation program to reduce, prevent or mitigate aircraft noise impacts on land uses that are inconsistent with the guidelines. The detailed program is prepared in conjunction with development of each long-term comprehensive airport/heliport plan. • The airport operator submits long-term camprehensive airport/heliport plans (including a strategy for implementing compatible land uses) to the Metropolitan Council for review and approval. • The Metropolitan Council prepares a final report on a long-term program for implementing noise-control strategies on a system wide basis (1995). • The third set of guidelines pertain to heliport planning and development. •� A/1/�'IOIi METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 C i" � Compatibility Guidelines _ A significant airport environmental issue of public concern in the Twin Cities .Area is the noise generated by aircraft takeoffs and landings. This element of the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide includes guidelines communities around the airports should use to discourage incornpatible land uses and encourage compatible ones. Three sets of guidelines aze included in this section: • The first set guides land uses in communities around Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP), and St. Paul Downtown Airport. MSP International and St. Paul Downtown are currently operating as the major and intermediate airports, respectively, in the metropolitan airports system. Compatible land uses for these airports are summarized in Table 4. The land use guidelines apply to noise exposure zones 1 through 4 as described in the next section. . Table 4 Major & Intermediate Airports Land-Use Types / Noise Exposure Zones Land-Use New Development Infill - Reconstruction or Comparibility Major Redevelopment Addirions to Existang Structures Guidelines 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Residential Single / Multiplex with INCO' INCO INCO COND COND COND COND COND Inclividual Entrance Multiplex / Apartment with INCO INCO INCO COND COND PROV PROV PROV Shared Entrance Mobile Home INCO INCO INCO COND COND COND COND COND Educational and Medical Schools, Churches, Hospitals, INCO INCO INCO PROV COND COND COND PROV Nursing Homes Culnzral, Entertainment, Recreational �dapr COND2 COND COND PROV COND PROV PROV PROV Outdoor COND COND COND CNST COND COND COND CNST Office, Commercial, Retail COND PROV PROV CNST PROV PROV PROV CNST Services Tiansportation-Passenger COND PROV PROV CNST COND PROV PROV CNST Faciliaes � Transient Lodging INCO PROV PROV PROV COND PROV PROV PROV � Other Medical, Health and COND PROV PROV CNST COND PROV PROV CNST Educational Services Qther Services COND PROV PROV CNST COND PROV PROV CNST Industrial, Communication, PROV' CNST CNST CNST PROV CNST CNST CNST Ualiry Agricultural Land, Water CNST" CNST CNST CNST CNST CNST CNST CNST Areas, Resource Extraction �� ' INCO means Inconsistent _ 2 COND means Conditional 'PROV means Provisional 4 CNST means Consistent AVIATION METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 �� • The second set of guidelines is for land uses around six minor airports in suburban and rural parts of the Twin Cities Area. Compatible land uses for these airports are summarized in Table 5. The guidelines apply to noise exposure zones A through D as described in the next section. Definition of Compatible Land Uses �, An explanation of the four land use ratings of land used in Tables 3 and 4 (consistent, provisional, conditional and inconsistent land uses) follows: • Coasisteat: Land uses that are acceptable. • Provisional: Land uses must camply with certain structured performance standards to be acceptable according to MS 473.192 (Metropolitan Area Aircraft Noise Attenuation Act). Tabie 5 Minor Airports Land-Use Types / Noise Exposure Zones Land-Use New Development Infill - Reconstxucrion or Compatibility Guidelines Major Redevelopment Additions to Existing Structures A B C D A B C D Residential Single / Multiplex with INCO' INCO INCO COND COND COND COND COND Individual Enuance Multiplex / Apartment with INCO PROV PROV PROV COND PROV PROV ' PROV Shared Entrance Mobile Home INCO INCO INCO COND COND COND COND COND Educational and Medical Schools, Churches, Hospitals, INCO INCO INCO PROV COND COND COND PROV Nursing Homes Cultural, Entertainment, Recreational Indoor COND' PROV PROV PROV COND PROV PROV PROV Outdoor COND COND COND CNST COND COND COND CNST Office, Commercial, Retail COND PROV PROV CNST PROV PROV PROV CNST Services Transportation-Passenger COND PROV PROV CNST COND PROV PROV CNST Facilities Iransient Lodging INCO PROV PROV PROV COND PROV PROV PROV Other Medical, Health and COND PROV PROV CNST COND PROV PROV CNST Educarional5ervices Other Services COND PROV PROV CNST COND PROV PROV CNST Industrial, Communication, PROV' CNST CNST CNST PROV CNST CNST CNST Utility Agricultural Land, Water CNSTi CNST CNST CNST CNST CNST CNST CNST Areas, Resource Extraction No[e: For inlitt, reconstructions and addicions, even [hough certain land uses are generally inconsis[en[ in a given zone, excenua[ing circums[ances could jus�ify che projec[, and the community should address this in its plan amendmenc, as appropriate. ' INCO means Inconsistent ' COND means Conditional ' PROV means Provisional i CNST means Consistent � AVIATION METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 C Structures built after December 1983 shall be acoustically constructed so as to achieve the interior sound levels described in Table 6 below. • Conditional: Land uses that may be identified as conditionally acceptable in local comprehensive plans. The Metropolitan Council will review and authorize conditional uses incorporated in local comprehensive plan amendments for compliance with the factors set forth in Table 7. Following the approval and adoption of local comprehensive plan amendments, individual conditional use proposals will not be reviewed by the Metropolitan Council unless indicated in the plan amendment. Table 6 Structure Performance Standards' Land Use Interior Sound Level2 Residential 45dBA EducationaUMedical 45dBA CulturaUEntertainment/Recreational 50dBA3 Office/Commercial/Retail Services SOdBA IndustriaUCommunication/Utility 60dBA Agricultural L.andlWater/Area/Resource Extraction 65dBA ' These performance standards do not apply to buildings, accessory buildings, or portions of buildings that are not normally occupied by people (See Appendix A). ' The federal DNL descriptor is used to delineate all the system airport noise policy zones. ' Special attention is required for certain noise sensitive uses, for e�mple, concert halls. Table 7 Conditional Land-Use Review Factors __ __ l. Specific nature of the proposed use, including e�ent of associated outdoor activities. 2. Relaaonship of proposed use to other planning considerarions, including adjacent land use activities, consistency with overall comprehensive planning and relaaon to other metropolitan systems. 3. Frequency of exposure of proposed uses to aircraft overflight. 4. Locarion of proposed use relative to aircraft flight tracks and aircraft on-ground operating and maintenance areas. 5. Location, site clesign and construction restrictions to be imposed on the proposed use by the community with respect to reduction of exterior to interior noise transmissions, and shielding of outdoor activities. 6. Method communiry will use to in£orm future occupants of proposed potential noise from aircraft operations. 7. Extent to which community restricts the building from having facilities for outdoor activities associated with the use. 8. Distance of proposed use from existing or proposed runways, parallel taxiways, or engine run-up areas. AVIATION METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 �63 , When a local government submits a land use plan amendment proposing the potential authorization of uses identified as conditional in these guidelines, the Metropolitan Council will use the following factors in determining whether or not to approve the provisions relating to proposed conditional uses: • xnconsistent: Land uses that are not acceptable even if acoustical treatment were incorporated in the structure and outside uses were restricted. \. Each local unit of government with land within the airport noise zones will be responsible for implementing and enforcing the structure performance standards in its jurisdiction. The Metropolitan Council will review the adequacy of these standards as part of its review of amendments to each community�s comprehensive plan_ Land uses identified in Tables 3 and 4 are categorized into two groups; those dealing with new development/major redevelopment, or infill development and reconstruction or additions to existing structures. "New Development and Major Redevelopment.'� ��New development" means a relatively large, undeveloped tract oi land proposed for development (for example, a residential subdivision, industrial park or shopping center). ��Major redevelopment" means a relatively large parcel of land with old structures proposed for extensive rehabilitation or demolition and different uses (for example, demolition of a square block of old office and hotel buildings for new housing, office, commercial uses; conversion of warehouse to office and commercial uses). Iafill Development and Reconstruction or Additions to Existing Structures The term "Infill development" pertains to an undeveloped parcel or parcels of land proposed Por development similar to or less noise-sensitive than the developed parcels surrounding the undeveloped parcel (for example, a new house on a vacant lot in a residential neighborhood, or a new industry on a vacant parcel in an established industrial area). . "Reconstruction or additions to existing structures" pertains to replacing a structure destroyed by fire, age, etc., to accommodate the same use that existed before destruction, or expanding a structure to accommodate increased demand for existing use (for example, rebuilding and modernizing an old hote�• or adding a room to a house). Decks, patios and swimming pools are considered allowable uses in all cases. It is recognized that certain e.xisting land uses, reconstruction projects and infill development are not consistent with the guidelines for new development and major redevelopment, and achievement of consistency between such uses and the noise exposure zones may remain difficult or impossible in the short term. Where such consistency is impractical in the short term, interim measures will be necessary_ Such interim measures may include application to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for a variance from state noise standards. The long-range achievement of compatibility should be addressed through strategies that eventually will reduce or eliminate inconsistencies. This program may include acquisition, insulation, long-range planning and development, modification of airport operations and ground noise attenuation. Program costs, financing methods, prioritization and an implementation schedule should be identiiied as part o£ the process and included in the strategies. Noise Exposure Zones for Major and Intermediate Airports Both the existing and expected noise intensity in the area are severe and permanent. No new development other than that dedicated to nonnoise-sensitive land uses should be considered. In addition to preventing future noise problems, the severely noise-impacted areas surrounding MSP should be fully evaluated to determine alternative land-use strategies including eventual changes in existing land uses . Iasert Page 64a ' ' , °' /�'AON METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 f ) A new noise policy area has been developed for use by affected communities in defming preventive noise mitigation measures. This includes an amendment of local comprehensive plans and designations of compatible land uses and zoning of undeveloped properties according to the land-use compatibility guidelines defined in this Aviation Chapter. 'This noise policy area is defined using the federal noise descriptor DLN which depicts noise on an annualized basis. The new noise policy areas, shown in Figure 17, consists of a combination of 1) the 1996 DNL 60 noise contour for the parallel runways, 2) the 2005 DNL 60 noise contour reflecting the projected operations on the proposed new North/South runway, and 3) addition of a one-mile area outside the DNL 60 contour as defined under the 1996 noise mitigation legislation. /�/I/�QION METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 ,...,.,..... �...,..,. i....,....a ......:.... ....... ....«...�...i:,.u.,.a i.,.. ..-,..t. .,oa..,..a-_a ,..,.....,....,:..... ;., ,... ____ �__ ___�___"__ _1 _�_" �_______ __......_"_�.1 _" � frc.-i. i�v�i�- ---- ---- -------- ------ ---r----- ------ --- ..._;-- _--_ ------...---__� _�-__--_ Four aircraft noise exposure zones are de£ined withia the aoise policy area. Those zones can be classified as severe, serious, significant and moderate, respectively. They are described below. Noise Exposure Zone 1 Zone 1 occurs on, and immediately adjacent to the airport property and can be generally described as having a severe noise problem. It is projected to be subjected to aircraft noise greater than 75 DNL. It is an area frequently affected by both takeoff and landing operations. In addition, the proximity of the airport operating area, particularly the runway thresholds, reduces the probability of relief resulting from future changes in the operating characteristics of either the aircraft or the airport. Noise Exposure Zone 2 �-. The noise impacts in zone 2 are generally sustained, espeaially close to the runway ends. Zone 2 is exposed to aircraft noise of 70 to 75 DNL for takeoifs and landings. Based on the proximity of the affected area to the airport, the seriousness of the noise exposure is such that sleep and speech interference can be routinely expacted. The noise intensity in this area is generally serious and oftentimes continuing. New development should be limited to uses that have been constructed to achieve certain interior-ta-exterior noise attenuation and that discourage certain outdoor uses. � � Noise Sxposure Zone 3 Aircraft noise impacts in zone 3 can also be categorized as sustaining. However, the intensity is such that it should be considered significant, or somewhat less than serious. Zone 3 is exposed to aircraft noise of 65 to 70 DNL for takeoffs and landings. In addition to the intensity of the noise, the location of buildings receiving the noise must also be fully considered. Operational changes can provide some relief for certain uses in this area. Residential development may be acceptable if it is located outside areas that are exposed to freguent arrivals and departures, is constructed to achieve certain interior to exterior noise attenuation, and is restrictive as to outdoor use. Certain medical and educational facilities that involve permanent lodging and outdoor use should be discouraged. Noise Exposure Zone 4 Zone 4 is best described as a transitional area where aircraft noise exposure might be considered moderate. It is exposed to aircraft noise 60 to 65 DNL. Noise exposure is predominantly related to takeoffs. Land uses are likely to receive the most benefit from changes in operations. The area is considered transitional because potential changes in airport and aircraft operating procedures could lower or raise noise levels. At t2SP. this aoise zone includes the DNL 60 plus one-mile buffer zone to address this variability in noise impact and also allow imnlementation of additional local aoise mitiaation efforts as discussed on nace 74 of this auide cha»tex or defined vnder state law. Development in this area may be generally free from land-use restrictions as such, but can benefit fr`om insulation levels above typical new construction standards in Minnesota. While such measures may abate the level of interior noise, insulation cannot eliminate outdoor noise�' problems. Building locations and site planning can help mitigate both interior and exterior . noise in some cases and must be encouraged. IOIi METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 t 1 Figure 17 sY:ows four r_oise exaosure zones �aased on tne palicy contours �o be used ir. determi:�ing compatible land uses .adj acen.4 to MSP T_n�er:�.ational .Ai.rport . � ir,ure 18 si�ows ��e roise exposure zones =or tne S�. Paul Dovrn4own Airport. _. _ .. _. ........._ . �_ ...... ....................._.. C �. NOTE: ihe Courcit proposes to change the noise policy contour for MSP ro rejtect receni ti1AC actoption pf tice MSP tong-term comprehensive ptar., and recommends further refinement and discwsion oj a revised poiicy contour u�ith the <'viSP Communities. Adopiior, oj a new poticy contaur would be com.pieted es part of the major airport duat-trach process. � d�►V9d1'SHON fVIETRC?POLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUlDE March t995 � r;_,, ,. � N V � R N - o`b � ,�^� �, a . � z z z � �, ca ca o � a � o � y � p o 0 0 vf O v� O � O v ..h.+ v v °� .- e� r, a � " C C C C � Z N N N N w � � y y y �� z z z z e b � � N ai C CL p m � N L� ; 0 e' O i c. � - o c °� � ' 'c O W � i � C a i L •L 4� W � � � 3 i .� � � �O � � 1� � � O � y i � � I � �� : � i z �� i �i QI Q a Aircraft Noise Exposure Zones for Minor Airports At minor airports, the frequency of operation, type of aircraft operation by time of day and pilot skill vary significantly. As a result, only general operating criteria can be used for minor airports. The noise exposure criteria for minor airports are based on an annualized Ldn noise exposure. Noise in the four zones can be described as serious, a nuisance, annoying and minimal, respectively. C� Noise Exposure Zone A Zone A is exposed to aircraft noise greater than '70 Ldn and is typically on airport property within the control of the airport operator_ The area adjacent to the airport property can generally be described as having a serious noise problem. In addition to the noise intensity, the noise exposure can also be considered permanent. It is an area frequently affected by both takeoff and landing operations. In addition, the proximity of the airport operating areas reduces the probability of relief resulting from future changes in the operating characteristics of either the aircraft or the airport. Given that both existing and expected noise intensity in this area is serious and permanent, no new development, other than that dedicated to non noise-sensitive land uses, should be considered. Noise Exposure Zone B Noise exposure from aircraft operations is between 65 and 70 Ldn and could be considered a nuisance in Zone B_ Residential development should be,discouraged. Based on the proximity oi the affected area to the airport, the seriousness of the noise exposure is such that speech interference can be routinely expected. In addition, given that aircraft operatians are still relatively close to the runway centerlines (extended), repeated and annoying noise exposure can be expected. The noise intensity in this area means new development should be limited to commercial and industrial uses that do not require large numbers of people. �� Noise Exposure Zone C Zone C is exposed to aircraft noise of 60 to 65 Ldn. Public sensitivity to aircraft in Zone C may be evident in locations affected by frequent operations. Aircraft noise impact can be categorized as annoying. However, the intensity is such that it should be considered somewhat less than a nuisance. The noise exposure is enough to be of some concern, but common building construction makes the indoor environment acceptable for sleeping. The outdoor environment should be reasonably pleasant for recreation and play. Multifamily dwelling units with little or no outdoor activity would be compatible. Noise Exposure Zone D Minimal noise exposure from aircraft operations (55 to 60 Ldn) is anticipated within Zone D. In the urban environment, aircraft noise tends to blend into the daytime noise environment where normal day-to-day activity involves greater than 60 dBA noise levels. In low-density or undeveloped areas, where outdoor quietude and activities are desired, this zone should be used as an initial threshold level for protecting very sensitive land uses. Figures 19 through 24 depict noise exposure zones at six minor airports in the system. 8eliport Planning and Development Guidelines for Land-IIse Compatibility � FAA advisory circular (AC IJO/5020-2) provides technical guidance for communities and heliport operators in calculating the acoustic environment near new heliports. The circular is intended to provide assistance in preliminary evaluation of the noise compatibility of sites for ( heliports where none exist. It is not intended for the evaluation of existing heliports. `` fi/II�lAAO METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 � NOTE: Noise poticy contour reflects Lang-Ternz Comprehensive Plan approved by Councii in 1992. The evaluation method described is a two-pliase process. The first phase uses est:mated naise levels and distances to determine whether a proposed facility would meet recommended acceptable noise criteria. A second phase is used if, based on earlier estima�es, the proposed facilit;% will clearly not meet the noise criteria. T�:is phase involves detailed on-sire measureznent of r.oise to determine whether the heliport could zneet the noise criteria. Heli�ort Model Ordinance A separate heliport mo,del ordinance has been prepared by the Council to assist those communities responding to � �iport proposals withi.n an adopted ordinance and establish.ed review procedures. The zxr.odel ordinance is intended �o provide the basis for a community �o establish appropriate land-use controLs and administrative procedures for sitng a freestanding heliport iacility. A�fiAT10Ed MEfROPOLITAN DEVEL�PMENT GUIDE March 1995 r�n'rz. �r..:... _..t<_. '-_'--.� __n_-'-' --- -.�... .- , . .., ., - - - - - - - AVIATION METROP�LITAN DEVE�OPMENT GUIDE March 1995 _ ���y��� � ___-ooaso. •R �IJ h 0 LV n ,. z �� d� �o �v d� �_ � ��, m� b �o GN i c � = m m k, t�O m v y a d � � e � '\e`-.,L— `-�j—�.� �.°��'� r N•,' a"� a'=-" � x a° � ^'-P� � � � � �-tr � J �� ' ,�'a>`� a c \ g 'aa .Ln �y.� y o �� �t" .• 4/ /r � � � .b •ni' g E o �� W.� � � C �� J � � 'M�. ' ,q�� - a �oaxvno� ..Nt+�p mc ' d� ���'.�`''r' I$ "��' Y � � • t` y ,�. ,,, �;�t . i ':.�� w�' --�, � �� (;� :.s C � j a �, -�. � ` +., �i-� `.. O � iy ������' ~ .,, �;��Y , ` y ,:.- ;,� � ¢ ,sx:_ ..,:: : �sb�� -�o�ea ,.� ':`:` � r 'yoe g m nV�o , ��'�. t 1 .� ti ri �. ;..s eoe ,y .:. a i.'i�t. _ s ''-;, � �...�,� ' ^ay +w �ie — . �p Z ✓'�.N� � :_�M14 +Y.�' � , . � il[ M. ., �' � �•� '� �y `.lt 3'rt': (t� "�i : � N ��/ %1 � O o l� � _ . a 5 o c r I � C � c 1 _ 6 u � � �° i �,+ °� ^I- b �� ' ��„ - � '° = °f o p,�ur � c ^c� i 'oti Q� m o �ry4 v` .— �� � b � � y \ z i��� �� � � 'i'UC ��//n�\ ". C y 1 t: P� 69a, NOIE: Noise policy contour based upon approved EA-EIS (1985) to be updated foitowing review/approvai of a Long-Term Comprehensive Plan by Council in 1995. Federal Funding for Land-Use Planning C -- •- - - =- _ - - -_-- _ -- _-_ -- : _-: -- :-- -- _---- -- --- �-- - - _-_�-- >._ - - -- -_.... _ _-_ :- --- - - -: -- -- .. - _ - -_ -:�,,� -:- - - -_--- _ -- -_ - - --_ --_ -- - --- - --- -- �=�- --=�=-�. � Al/�A011 METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 � FEDERAL FUNDING FOR LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ;' , Aviation Policv 8a savs airport operations and land uses surroundin� an airaort should be campatible with each other and the role and funcNons assi�ned to the airport. Where an incompatibilitv e�sts, affected agencies and local iurisdictions should develou a qro�ram to miti�ate the incompatibilitv in both operations and land use. Under the re�ional aviation system plan Land Use Comnatibilitv Guidelines forAircraft Noise, the MAC is egnected to participate in the ureparation and financin� of a prog�ram to address ezistin� incomnat�ble land uses at all airports under its operation. In the case of MSP, the MAC has adopted a 27-point noise abatement pro�ram, and installed a uermanent aircraft noise monitorin� svstem (ANOMS) to address ouerational measures. The noise abatement urogram includes land-use comnatibilitv measures. Under Federai Aviation Administration re�ulations (FAIt Part-150), federal aviation trust fund monevs can be used off airnort to imnlement "corrective" land-use mana�ement urosrams for noise abatement, includins land acauisition The FAA determines elisibilitv for Part-150 pro�rams bv usin� an approved "five-vear" DNL 65 (dav/ni�ht level) noise contour. The MAC is imulementins an FAA annroved Part-150 �rro�ram at IVISP and is coordinatin� with a Policv Advisorv Committee (PAG�, made un of a�encv and communitv representatives. . A land acpuisition program is in process for New Ford Town and Rich Acres neighborhoods an the Citv of Richfield. FiQure 25 denicts the five-vear (proiected to 1996) noise contour for MSP nreAared bv the MAC usin� the Integrated Noise Model The ori�inallv anproved Part-150 contour assumed the nhvsical egtension of runwav 4/22 includin� redistribution of aircraft from the Aarallel runwavs to more denartures on runwav 22, to the southwest-- the "lBuild" ontion. Due to liti�ation to stop the runwav eztension, the proiect was mediated and the phvsical eztension was aUAroved as Uart of the MAC caUital imUrovement Uro�ram; However, the aircraft noise redistribution element (and associated taziways to make this operation possible) is sL�Il in mediation. The obiective of not imulementin� the aircraft noise redistribution for runwav 4/22 is the desire of some communities to have the noise redistribution occur on the new "North/South" runwav, and the desire of some communities that FAA fundins for noise insulation in runwav 4/22 impact areas in southeast Richfield and northeast Bloomin�ton mav better be spent m noise impact areas in north Richfield and south Minneapolis This issue and others are bein� considered as gart of an overall noise mitisation plan which is reQuired to be urenared and submitted for le�islative review as nart of the 19961e�islative session that took achon on the dual-track nlannin� process. Fi�ure 25 comuares the runwav 4/22 "Build" option with the "No-Build" (ie. this is operationaliv the same as not implementinE the aircraft noise redistribuhon elementl. This �raphic shows areas which would egperience an increase or decrease_in aircraft noise de endin� on whether an aircraft noise redistribution operation were nut �nto effect on runwav 22 It is anticipated that future aircraft noise redistribution will occur on the new "North/South" runwav and the resultins new noise fmpact area is included in the proAosed MSP Noise Policv Area. Page 70a i� � � C �� 1 : Metropolitan Airpost C�ission (MAC) aad Other Airport Operators A Implement airport operational procedures for noise abatement. Airport operating procedures can reduce noise both on and off an airport, while the distribution of aircraft operations can reduce the number of people affected. The MAC and other aixporC operators should prepare operational plans for each system airport. 0 Participate in the preparation and financing of a program to address existing incompatibilities. MAC is expected to participate in the preparation and financing of a program to address existing incompatible land uses. In affected areas, the airport operator is expected to participate in a program to eliminate the incompatibility. This program should be reflected in the operator's capital improvement plan. Affected Local GOVO'^'mnnt8 0 Adopt land-use compatibility guidelines. Communities affected by airport operations should adopt land-use compatibility guidelines, make appropriate amendments to their comprehensive land-use plans and submit amendments to the Council for approval. • Develop and implement appropriate local ordinances and codes. The communities should encourage compatible land uses near the airport by implementing the appropriate building codes and zoning ordinances. • Implement land-use planning strategies to reduce prevent or mitigate aircraft noise impacts. In preparing or revising land use plans, each community should consider the following strategies, where appropriate, to reduce or prevent incompatible uses and to mitigate the impact of excess noise exposure: - Insulate structures located in noise-sensitive areas. - Adopt building noise attenuation standards for new construction, additions or substantial rehabilitation. - Disclose degree of noise exposure to prospective home buyers. - Develop policies on the location, relocation and closing of public structures in aircraft noise impact areas. - Develop policies on the extension of utilities into aircraft noise impact areas. - Zone or rezone property. - Redevelop appropriate areas. ) � Implementation Ac6ons for Heliport Pianning and Development The development of a heliport system within the region's aviation system will require the conduct of the following planning responsibilities: Metropolitan Council Heliport development plans for any proposed intermediate or major heliport are to be submitted to th,e Council by sponsoring communities for review prior to implementation. The Council will review development plans for consistency with the Metropolitan Development Guide. Upon approval by the FAA. and licensing by MN/DOT, a major or intermediate heliport will require amending the comprehensive plan of the sponsoring community. The development of a minor heliport will not require a Council review nor comprehensive plan amendment. Metropolitaa Aixporta Commissioa (MAC) The Commission is to include within the MSP master planning process plans for the development of a minor heliport. Also, proposed heliports must be reviewed by the MAC for impacts on existing MAC aixports and air traffic. Local Gove*TM++Ants Communities located within the heliport search areas are to prepare heliport development plans for any proposed intermediate or major public heliport not located at airports. However, the decision to proceed with a development plan remains a local prerogative. Development plans submitted to the Council for review must adequately address the following: �� � � �IiO�'vON METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 1. Participation in the planning by individuals and residents who may be afEected by the proposed facility. 2. Market analysis to identify potential users and the type and freguency of operations. 3. Evaluation of alternatives to the proposed facility. 4. Environmental assessment of land-use compatibility, including documentation of thresholds used in site selection; description of data sources; standardized procedures to measure noise; applicable federal and state rules and regulations; site, plan and vicinity map of surrounding land uses; noise contours of the helicopters expected to use the facility, and safety measures to be employed. . 5. Description of facility design and operations features or measures that will mitigate identified impacts_ 6. Estimated construction costs and facility completion schedule. '7. Description of the proposed heliport operations plan, including methods for monitoring compliance with any operator - FAA agreements and governmental regulations. If the heliport is a major or intermediate facility, then the community's comprehensive plan must be amended to include the heliport after FAA approvals and MN/DOT licensing have been obtained. A development plan for a minor public heliport facility is not required. However, the notification of the FAA to obtain site approval and MN/DOT licensing must be completed by the sponsoring community. A copy of the development plan should be sent to adjacent communities for review and comment concurrent with obtaining FAA approval and MN/DOT licensing. The Metropolitan Council reviews the Metropolitan Airports Commission's (MAC) annual capital improvement program under the following authorizations: � • Federal - Projects eligible for federal funding require review and comment by the Metropolitan Council on federal grant applications and development projects (Minn. Stat. 473.171). • State. Minn. Stat. - 473.611, subd. 5 reguires the long-range plans of the Metropolitan Airports Commission be consistent with the Metropolitan Development Guide. e Minn. Stat. - 4�3.161 directs the Council to review capital projects of the MAC pursuant to Minn. Stat. 473.621. This section requires projects of the MAC to be submitted to the Council if they reguire more than $5 million at MSP or more than $2 million at the other MAC operated airports. No project that has a significant effect on the orderly and economic development of the metropolitan area may be commenced without the approval of the Council. Capital projects "having a significant effect on the orderly and economic development of the metropolitan area" are defined by the legislation as follows: - the location of a new airport; , - a new runway at an existing airport; - a runway extension at an existing airport; - runway strengthening other than routine maintenanee; - new ar expanded passenger handling or parking facilities that would permit a 25 percent or greater increase in passenger enplanement levels; - land acquisition associated with any of the above, or that would cause relocation of residential or business activities. \ A/I/�'IAN METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 � The Metropolitan Council will use the following guidelines for reviewing proposed investments in the metropolitan airports system. The guidelines apply to MAC capital investment projects that meet the criteria defined under Minn. Stat. 473.621, subd. 6 and 7. - Project description, purpose, components and scope; - Service needs to be met, including service area or target population; - Regional system plan objective, including effect on airport's functional classification; - Previous planning, previous capital improvement program, changes in cost or scope; - Alternatives considered; - Recommended approach and reasons; - Evaluation/performance criteria, including environmental and economic impacts; - Capital and operating costs, funding sources, schedule of funding needs, relative priority, effect on operating and maintenance requirements; - Indirect or direct effects on other airport facilities; - Effects on other metro systems or local plans. ,` RelieverAirports The ability to more closely monitor based aircraft and activity trends at the region's reliever airports is especially important in today's changing general aviation environment. The methods of data collection/reporting should be reviewed, in order to improve the general aviation forecasts, and o�lier methods examined (such as acoustic counters). This action should occur in cooperation with affected agencies/airports, and reported to the TAC-Aviation Committee for its consideration in 1995. The Council will continue system planning efforts to assist affected communities in developing airport/community economic development and redevelopment and redesign elements in their comprehensive plans. MSP Long-Tertn Comprehensive Airport Plan Because of the high visibility of international connections, MAC's long-term comprehensive plan for the major airport should 1) quantify the region's torecast need for international connections (passenger and freight), and 2) plan £acilities that address the forecast need. , • Improve federal inspection facilities/customs services for international and charter air-traffic. • Provide improved facilities and services for scheduled and unscheduled international air-cargo. • Promote international air service/routes. � . � � Ai/A/�'0011 METROPOLITAN DEVE�OPMENT GUIDE March 1995 APPENDIXA: STATUTORYAUTHORITY ���,�_ � _ This is the Aviation Development Guide, a chapter of the Metropolitan Council�s Metropolitan Development Guide. The Aviation Deve2opment Guide was prepared pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 473.145 (1992). The law requires the Metropolitan Council to prepare and adopt a comprehensive development guide for the orderly and economic development, public and private, of the metropolitan area, including the necessity for and location of airports. The Aviation Development Guide is also "a metropolitan system plan�� as defined by Minnesota Statutes, section 473.852, subdivision 8, of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The Council is designated by state legislation as the Metropolitan Planning organization (MPO) for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (Minnesota Statutes, 473.146). This requires the Council to assure administration and coordination of transportation planning witli appropriate state, regional and other agencies, covnties and municipalities. The administration and coordination is carried out through the established transportation planning process_ ( The Council uses the Aviation Development Guide to meet its various statutory obligations to plan and � protect the aviation system in the metropolitan area. Many of these statutory obligations are highlighted below. Aviation System Planniag The Metropolitan Council is responsible for the aviation system planning of the metropolitan area. The Metropolitan Airports Commission is responsible for operating the metropolitan airports system. The Metropolitan Airports Commission is defined as a metropolitan agency under Minnesota Statutes, section 473.121, subdivision Sa (1992). The following statutes help establish the relationship between the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Metropolitan Council. - The Metropolitan Council must review all long-term plans of the Metropolitan Airports Commission which have an areawide effect, a multi-community effect, or have a substantial effect on metropolitan development. The Metropolitan Council may suspend operation of a plan if it is inconsistent with the Metropolitan Development Guide or if the plan is detrimental to the orderly and economic development of the metropoli�an area. Minnesota Statutes, section 4�3.165 (1992). - The plans of the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the development of the metropolitan airports system by the Commission must be consistent.with the Metropolitan Development Guide. Minnesota Statutes, sections 473.181, subdivision 5; 4�3.611, subdivision 5; 4�3.616, subdivision l; 473.655 (1992)_ - The Metropolitan Council must review and approve certain capital projects of the Metropolitan Airports Commission which have a significant effect on the orderly and economic development of the � metropolitan area. Minnesota Statues, section 473.621, subdivisions 6 and 7(1992). 1011 METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 -, - The Metropolitan Airports Commission may not expand or upgrade the use of an existing metropolitan airport from minor use to intermediate use status as defined by the Aviation Guide chapter. Minnesota Statutes, section 473.641, subdivision 4(1992). However, the Metropolitan Airports Commission shall not take any acCion with respect to its airports that would result in a permanent reduction in usable runway length at the airport. Retention of existing usable runway length shall not cause the airport to be reclassified from a minor use to an intermediate use airport. Minnesota Statutes 473.653. - The Metropolitan Council must review all applications by the Metropolitan Airports Commission for federal or state funding of proposed matters of inetropolitan significance or if review is required by federal or state law. Minnesota Statutes, section 473.171 (1992). - The Metropolitan Council must approve the Metropolitan Airports Commission's issuance of refunding bonds in years when there may be problems with the debt service fund balance or with making the payments due on certificates of indebtedness. Minnesota Statutes, section 473.667, subdivision 8(1992)• Airpart System Protection The Council also has certain responsibilities regarding the protection oE the metropolitan aviation system. These responsibilities primarily involve interacting with local communities as summarized below. ( �- The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires all local units of government to prepare comprehensive plans which "" include an airports element. The local airports element is based, in part, on information provided to the local units of government by the Metropolitan Council through metropolitan systems statements for aviation, wastewater Creatment, transportation, and parks and regional recreation open space. The Metropolitan Council reviews local comprehensive plans to determine their compatibility with each other and conformity with metropolitan system plans. The Metropolitan Council may require a local governmental unit to modify a comprehensive plan which may have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans. Minnesota Statutes, sections 473.175, 473.851 - 473.872 (1992). - The Metropolitan Area Aircraft Noise Attenuation Act provides the authority for municipalities in the metropolitan area to adopt and enforce ordinances and controls to implement the Metropolitan Council's guidelines for land use compatibility with aircraft noise. Minnesota Statutes, section 473.192 (1992). - The Council must review all matters of inetropolitan significance pursuant to rules and procedures established under Minnesota Statutes, section 4�3.173 (1992). � �I,O�'m6'AN METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 Year 1962 1972 1982 1992 2000 2010 2020 Year 1962 1972 1982 1992 2000 2010 2020 Year 1962 1972 1982 1992 2000 2010 2020 MSP International Airport Activity Data and Forecasts4 Air Passenger Enplanements Historic and Forecast RegionaU Scheduled Originations Conneciions Enplanements Commuter International NonScheduled 1,867,860 860,838 2,728,698 15,137 128 - 2,864,730 2,206,665 5,071,395 75,774 50,574 82,278 4,580,060 4,970,926 9,550,986 566,186 144,255 419,060 6,118,000 4,848,000 10,966,000 954,000 238,000 546,000 7,105,000 5,624,000 12,729,000 1,219,000 432,000 650,000 7,731,000 6,114,000 13,845,000 1,479,000 672,000 685,000 36,460 29,420 53,498 59,300 62,900 65,500 Enplaned Aiz Cargo (OOOs Tons) Other Cargo Small Total Freight Passenger Carriers Package and Express Carriers 0 0 36,460 16,971 10,071 4,937 44,428 24,767 3,498 62,903 119,899 51,350 4,600 100,400 164,300 63,900 6,300 171,600 240,800 78,500 8,700 278,900 353,100 96,000 Average Annual Aircraft Operations Historic and Forecast Domestic Scheduled Scheduled Regional Internationai Non-Scheduled All-Cargo 115,698 6,478 20 - p 150,450 22,838 390 2,478 2,556 242,878 85,926 1,222 5,824 18,692 267,200 111,600 2,200 7,000 24,000 282,000 115,000 4,000 7,600 31,800 291,800 116,000 6,200 7,600 41,000 Mail Carriers 2,188 0 4,629 7,400 12,800 20,900 General Aviation 92,687 82,303 60,929 58,900 56,400 54,600 Total Mail 19,159 24,767 SS,979 71,300 91300 116,900 Military 15,910 5,359 3,003 3,000 3,000 3,000 Total 1,046,000 2,743,963 5,280,021 10,680,487 12,704,000 15,030,000 16,681,000 Total 13,763 55,619 69,195 175,878 235,600 332,100� 470,000` Total 184,898 230, 793 266,374 418,474 473,900 499,800 520,200 " Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Long-Term Comprehensive Plan: Uolume 6- Revised Activity Forecasts, December, 1993. AVIAiiOt�i METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 0 , . . . . r.,.��, - -- - -- -- - --: - - -- --- - -_ _- _ - - -_- --- _ - - - - - -- - _ -- -_ --- :- _- : _ -:-- - -- _-- -- �- - -�•��- �- _ ' ' - , , •.� ,.. ..a.. �.,, • � r a � -. y Er- - i " ' � �— . � � l � -,�� �I1�'00@1 METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1895 .. U; N w-+ _ � � V L � ,� L � � � �a.; � .� � . � ...., �_ .� � � ��. � ,. � .a •a% �..i� Q �i �, � . , � ��,'. Q. . J � ��_ �. � �. � _ �. Z �, .� Q �U' 0 v a � �L17 .� ' , '� , U � � z Q �_ � � � ; � �u n. � o , o; � � � c, v� +-� � :� U � W � ' i � _ ai � ` '~ � i � s�. ' :�, ' • — — y �� ! �G) p � � � ... L . � � LL .Q. d � d � ` +�_.+ ' � � � p . .r ; � � V d V � � t�., � � ' d � ' ' fn � � I tn Q p) �, Q v - a a' a •- _ � ' d � � ; n. >_ a� a a� a � � � • -a � . ;� . � � � ' � ' L��: ` o ...�'.. � W � �.... L '. �. � � : ,Q 0 = 'I U _ � � ' Q ca q� , W � � aI _ G1 J` ' a � '<::'':`'::�:'`� '; >�:>:�::'��:�;�:�i:':�T�:.T�!;�..i'�..... ��:� .:::::.:::.::.:::.::: ::.:::: .::::.:::.::::.::.:::::.::..:: ::::.:::::. : . :�:':: �>: �::� e �:>: ( j :::::::::::::;:::::::;::::;:::::::� ::::::: :::::::::::::::: .::::::: :::: �:::::::::::. ::: � :;:::..:::::::::::::::::::::::::: �::::::::: ;:: �` :>�>:��<�':::::�� : > �r:��n.�tt��::::::>:�:f'::<::�h�:::::: �T���Q > a����:�t ..::::::::::::.;::�>:<:: �>::>::>:>::»»».:>:>:<:>:>::;::<:»»»>:>::>:» ::::>::>;::::: »�.:>;;;:::;:.;;»: :: <�:�`::::��� `::: <.;.,.��::az�:��..b. ... >:.>.:;;:.>>�:::�':l:�z��� �'::�:�:::�a�:�:b� .....::.............. ::::::::::. � ..:::::::::::. �::::::;::: �::.;::::.::........................,..............,.. � >,;>;..�{:� :>;� `>:�`' �... �, .:;<>:::>.>���.. �. �. .>:: . :.;;;>;>: >::.;>; � .: : .::.;»:.:; ::.: �.: : :;,::.: ;:.»>;::.:.:.:.;.: : : :. :;;;:.: :.;: 1"���r�ip��:�z��r�s';��r�r:iiz� s�.:> ::::::::::::::::::::::::: ;:::>:»; :.:;:: : . : .;: ;: : .;>:.>: � . : : . . ��������it:�;;�;��ziji�i%;; �:: Dp ::;::i::;::;::::+:i;:::::: �:: �::;::;'':::i:::::YS::r:::;': c<:.y<.:i:i::;:::s::::::::::::::?::':;::.::;:�.�:.':::::;:::`'::3::::::.�;:;::.'':3:::� ::::::....:... .:.� • .•.:::: :� '.'�.'- . �t!�Y?t�3;�.�.�.�. :: �I. �.�,.�..:�:.��.��'..;t;::::>�'.��:;:;�;?��..�.,.,���..,. �.,.�:���'.��.�,�,�:;;;��� . :::.;:.;:.;:�.:.;:.>:.::.;:.;:;.;:.:;:.;:.::.::.. �:>:.:::::. ::::.:::::::.::.::::;.::::.:::.::>�::::: .;.:. :.::: .:.:�:::: i1::><:.:::>:.:t:::::><��:>:::;::>:.:>•;;.::::.;.:>•>::::.>::::.:;,,:.<:::.;:.;.,: ::::�>:.:. :.:t ,:�>;:;:>::;::.,.: ;; ;�..::.;:. ���'u�::�:��1��::> �:t�v�d�:>m:�:�;�. �:����:��:<�t��:;;��� :i:::si^.;r::::::i ::::�.;:£i::: �;::::,::i>::;: :;::>:.;:; �: : �:>;;::::.:::;»:>:s:..: �:>;s>::.s:::.: �::.:•:::: ::;'•,:.::;•: :::i�.� i:::'���+.� :. ::<::;:. :°..>�::.>`�.c�`<::r���::::>:�'i::::::�������>'�:`�::`��i;�:::;;a�'.: � ::.........::: � � .1�? :............................... � � c:�..: .>:.> : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : . :.. ����`� P� 4'o b I�;t3<A�`:<::;> :'�;`.;;.,;:::::,'>::::.::';'<::."'.::;::';:::.':;;:..:"'`;:«..::<.,.:;`::'>:..;>;::.`::':,,.;` `°:,..< .......... �:::::::: fi�;:��;��C.Qf���:I7�.�:;T:I�i►�I,.�����.. ........ . ... .. .... . . ... . :�::: �>: ��`�'�":'>```::::::'::�::..."";:;'.:"_:';":..:,:.;,":''; :::...:..::.:. :::..:,...�,...,..:::: .:.:.:. . . :.:: . ::::::.:..:.:.L't�:?Q:I,,I'�'�;.::::��':(�.Z*'.s,'�;�.::�::4i��i,�a.,�..5,�;{:�k+� ��:'�;2f7i�'(:)��;�:i�,�:i�i��;i;; :FldO`���':<� ��'�..' ::":'>:;.::<.::,:.<::::;,;<:>:«:,,•...�.::.::.:>:::>�.::`.';.".'.'':;>'`.>>`:::?'>`:`>�''»:':'•<`::>:`''``'.;'` . .. l�, ..: ���. s;. � ......... �... .� .. .. ............. . �.�:��o � s ..........� ...........:::::::::::::.�...:.............................,.:t1..:: �::��tt��,.� ��::::;<.;; ..;:::»::::.:..;:..;.<.::::;:,,..:;.:::�:..>:::.«:>:,:<.>:>.<:::�':>::::::::::::.:.;:::::>�:::,.; � :.::::::::::::..>:.::«;�:>;:�:::.�:....... ...... �e.��1'�� �� . .� . .. .. ..I ..... ................. . . . ��� �' �P�� �;:::��e�s:�,; �:iii::: �:ii.::ii:::�:'. ::::'iiiii:.ii' :::?niivni:ii:.iii'r'i?ii:: ::v :: :::::::::: ::v:::::::: .... .�::iiii}'C4iii:•{.;".i}iiiii �>�°::�u�ef�o �:�1�:��:::.. ��:c� :...::.:.� ,,; ...: : :� �: � ;;> � : � � �:> ; : :..::. ::..:.: �.::::.;:.;.:.;.. :.�::::..� .................... ���.:�? t.:�.:��.c�. :.a�� : : . : : � : : : :.::.:.::.:;:::.:.;:.; : . . . . . . .. . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . : . �. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . ................ . ................. � �7�>.`::,>:»:>:.,;<.::>.>:«:<>.;A::;:::�`�:<"�:'<�..:`;::::::;.�: ;:>.:::.>::.<:;<.>;.<>::>:.::<,�:::::>;;:;�.;;::::>:::::>:::.�::<:;:«::::.::::: sz�ns ��ta� �.n #� �pcart fi� �e �,�,�z�lafia� o�:...�;�.°::::;;... :.;;<;:...:...�::.:<:::::>.:�::,;<,;::.,:»>::::;...;;,,<,;.:�....•::>;:,>.::::��:::;:::...�.:::,<:<::::>:::>:>�::>< ��;� ��aI..'��c� �,�r�ort.���€t�g �'x���s�<: :::>::>:«::;::>:::::>:::::�:: :::>:::::>:;:: ::«:. :,.:::>:�., ;<.>,::::.<...„ ,..:.:...;:::<>.<::,_:;;.:;:,>:, ::::.::.:::::.s;>•.:::>.:::>::>.::>..:;::•.`::::;:: ::>:�:: . . �'.�a �� .���op��� �o�n.��� ���:r.�:;;:.:�a:�:::>:� �.;.,:.;:.,>:..:;:>.::..;:.:.;>:., :::.,;:.;: ...:::'; ..:..:..::::::>:.:<:::..;�,..;:::<:>_:::<:>::'�: �>�.�::::::;.::::;<:::>::;:>::<::::::::::::`�:::>;:::>::: �ia��� u�� ca�' � '�'� ��e� ��c�rcal�a� �;�� aiaic�::�e::���:��':��so ���:��::::.„ ::>..:,:»::::;.,,::<:';::; :::::..<:,;:>;::.;.:>:.>,:.::;::::_: ..:. � : ::..: ........ . . .....::�...::.;�:I�e,z��:��:;�e::�€�t�:��I ;>:.:. �::::;:>:.;:.::.;:.>:::::>:<:::::;�:::::>::::::::<:>:::::::::::<::::;:::;:.:::::>::: :>:.:.: �::::.::.;:::::::..... .. . . ... .. d�:�:�1�rpm�t.:���t�i�;�;;i�l:ii�i�i�;: ��Y �:::::::>:>.�:>.;;,:>::.;.�:::.,:;�:�>::>:..:::::.:>;...::..:>�.;>:.;:>;:..;:,>:::::<;:;::<;.::;:::>>::.::::;>::::,.�..,,::•;;*:::>::::�>:::,. ... ���r�Z:... ��� � t.� r�c��� . . . . . . .... ........��:.::.�:::::.�:::.� :.::.....:...........................:�:��3::.:e� �i (�. •.•{:'iiii�•TiSi::i .�':��•�L�t�iS �i'•?::.''::j;`.::3:::.'::r::fi::: $::::%:::Y`i::ai::. `•:::::::::j�;,:x`.i:2�::::';::';�:::::;:;; �;i,•.;:::.: .•;:::;�.,': ::; ;c:::::;::::::;� ��:���a,pxnen,�: p� �'�r ��n�apa�i�. �t.. 7�y�y .. :.i. ..:...,, ��l?;L�sk � � � " �> � � i::'•: '• : •: • : ; '<: i; #��£OIJE��. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : : : : . � : : ; �:�?! �>.. :�� � '.;;; �: ::*:> :::>::>:.` �r�°»� �;::..:<:;:;.;:.:::,.:;:>:<:; .;:.:::>;>:;�.;::.:::�;,:: >;::::.;>:.::>::,;:>::»::>:;;><::>:::>.:: �:::<::: :.�: �. ��t�c.�r��. c��� ��vaa��r��� �€i:;�e�: �'�fJ2i�� ���.��a� far �S�n�x��pt����.��.. �:a� ::: :. �:: >:;::<::::<::: <:;:<s>�.;::::: �:::::;; �::>::::>::<: ;;: � ::;:::>;<:::: >�<;>:<:::>F::::>:.:;;<:::>::<:, �:€�z��:o��1:::�4��x�::�;�:::��:c�::�o�;: �:la�a� >:�;� .::::....�.� ...::..:....:..... . . .�?.....:::...:..�:....:.... �rtv.ir�ii�i�ri�t�;al�:re�i'��v::: �� `>':'>'>; �s��; .. . .:..:..:..:..:....:.�...::.:.:.::::::.�:.�:::::::.F�:.�:::::. �� � :�::: �Jiz��t�St�:�4si �``i: i:i.::;:>i::�:;ii;;:i;:;.:;i:.5;;i:;;: �`<.:;i:>:>;.:?:i: �,,,t,',i:i::ii;`<!!!•:!:::t::::'•:::?, i< �. .:.:;c�?r:�p��f�;�.:�pd�t�;�ri.fih�.�Ziau�, zg . . .. . ... . ..... ���:����:r �� . .. .. . �t�:�:�:: ;:;�.<«<.::::>:::<;::: �::;:<:::.>::::>,»,:>:<.::: :: .::::::::::::: �. �>::::.;::. ��::::::>:>:;:: �:::;::::::»>:<;:<:::<::,...:::;:.,>:::..«:: :. � �o�r��z�r� p�a�t .��r �vel��� �t� fih� .". '>'y�:;"::;::: ',:::;>:.�....:.:::>::<::::<:: ��zti�'<.>'<:`<� .. ...................... � ::............ ::.:::: .. ................ :.. �.�..�t:.:.�a�a�:.��:�ii��i'::.:;::� :.;;::.>�.:,:.>:::.<:.:<:.;.,.::.:.;:. ............� ... . ....................................� �. . o� . ��, ............................................... ............. ........Y......... ........� .................. �::::::::::::R:t:.::::;::�;:::::i:i ��.�:•:::>4:.;::<:»::::.:::.::�:.;.>:,;^:>:::<:>::'•`':':::;.'';.:`:`::'::>:::..>:,.?;�.`:.`>t:",.., . :>. . .. .::: .. �: �..: �;ce��l,:�?�� .�� .;k�.,use�k:.��:. �r��t�. a� �vi�oi�riei�ta��>�r�:ti�:��:: `'«:>:<::..::>::>;::::<;:::::.. :. . ........................................::::. �::..F:!�'..�:�s,: ....................................... � .:::.,.:; ::...:::...:.::.::..::. ..:.:. :..: ..::.:.:.:::::::::::.::,:_:::.:::::.: �.:.::,:::...:.;.;.:., .:::::..::::.::.:.::....:.,;.::::::.:;::,::::.:::, :. : :::::;:::::�:.: �axrz��n a d �� :�::�::>::<.:,;�:�:::>:>:�::::�:<>�»:::::::»:>:>�:::>>::::::::>:::�::�:>::»:::::<:::;::>�<::::>::::<:�::::::::>;:::;.:<,�.:::::::::::��::::::>:::<::<:>::: :::::. �::::. �::::::. � ::::::::::::. �::;::.:; re�a���>:::»>;�rt�:::»:::::...:.: . � ;�t::�::�r1:e�irv � :Qi��a�:>!�au�1::�n�c��s��::. ::: � . . . : � : :::: ::.:: :.::::.:::::.:::::::::.�:.::: ::.:::::::: :....::.....................:..............:.�...... ................................P::::::::::.�::::.�:::::::::::::::::::.�:::::::.�:::..�.�::.;....�"}...r�.:����:;s �,�:�:..:::::::..::::.�.�:::::::..�}::::::::. ::::� :.:.;�::.�..:::::::: .::::...:::::::.:: ::::::::::::: .:::::: ::.::::::::::.� :.::.�:::::: ::.::::::::::,..:.........................................:...::::..,,....,........... . . . . .. . . ::. .: ....:.. .:...i: {v: :...r... : .. ...... :i: v{: i': :.:.:.�::: •.i::.�.. .:i': •ry:v:: .. ..::{.i}i: : ,': .'.:: :iii:'iiiiii}4i.i:'.i}i':4iii:Jiii::.iii'i.ii::.iX::.'vi:i::: i:iiiiii: �:�� ;���t::z�:::s�ir��:::�€�>:�::�e ���:e:: :: . . . ..:::.:.... .:::: . :::: .:..�: . .:..:.:.. ..............i�...............:.::.:::::.�::::::::::::::::.�:::.:�:::.�::::.�.:::: :....:...:.. xe.. ���:::::::����:::::>:��::>::::�:�9�:::::::: <� � � ���:�:::>::a��:::::.: , <:»: �: ... ...... :.;:.:��.;:.>:.::.:::.::.:.;;:.;:<.;:.;:.:.:;;:.::;:::>:::::::::::. �:::::: � .::::::::::::::::::::::::::.;:;�?�:.;;:;�(z��e .::.;:::.::;;::.;:<.;:.::.::.;::.;:. ::.: � :<.::.;::.;:<.; ���rn��d�:fi��s.: : ;:.*::: ;<:::><:>:: �::.:;�::..: ::;:>�:::::>�»>:<:::::>::>:::;�.,.:;� ::::::::::: :>: �::>;::>�:::>::. ,:: ::>::»:<:::::::;:::::::>::;;>:>�::>::>:>: . . . .. .. ....:.... .. :�:; �7�r��::>�:�.�:'�o:::�e,�r�:::�e;;������;:::��p��?ea�;� '�:. <:.Q;#:i:i:?:;:;;`f::;;''I?;f5!`i:i::>;::::::;5?:::::?:::::::E:: "ti:;??,:::::::::E:::: E:::;i.?::i;::i2:;:::•?#+:t;;::i::::::�;:i:?::::,;;:;i:;: �'� gr.as� t� �rz�a?�r�ra�c.. aPP�c�p��ate� p�o��ctS �d'..:`>'�<,. :..'_ :�:::��::::;:>`�`�:'::;:>::::��`:`<.:;:::....;<.;,:.;;.>.::�<`:.'..:':?:;.�`.::.;:`;;:..�:<>�:<.;:::::.;.:;.�.;::::::::::<:: ..> :���.�.�.�d::::.�::u�:.:::::: �I?��.:;.;:,;;���.�1::>:>::::>�o��:::»;::;:.'�>� ::.: :.: :.>;::;:.;;:.: :.;;::, ::.::.:::>:: Y : <:::>:.;>:.;:.: � :.::.;:: . . . . . . . . . . . . ��i�ip��ie�i��:��:::��a�; �.:s �>,»:;<,.::,.;;:::<.;:s:;�.::.::.';:>:::.::,::_;<::::::::�;>:.;>.�<::> .::.::...::::;:::::<:.::,>:<:»>:::><::<:<:;.;:>::«><-::.:;:::;>;::>,: .; �r�c� �� tt� �n.cl�d� th� ��������a� a��� � ... •:»::>�:;;F:<:: ::<:>�::>::>::::::::::} »::;::: ::><�<:>::::� ��<:>:::::<:>::>:::>::: �<:;<• «:::: ;� .: : .. :.. y:::: ...... :v. �. � ..i;: ::.. �.�:S�;�l�:or�`:x�:`:t�e;::�:+e�;t���a�;.%:e� �:::�z�:;:�a:;:�+��c;'ut?�:�:>� :.:::;:;:<�:.;>:.::.;::.::.;;;:.::<.:.::.:.;:.:::;:::>:.>:.::.;:.;;:: �. do:�:<:.::<:::::::<::<<�'::�`::..::::�°. �>:;:::;;:'::"::`»;:.::<:>..:<:::...:..:.<;.;,.:::.. :>�: ;::<;::., :.;:.::;:.,>:.:, ;::.:.,?:<.".':: :. ���ccs;Ehe ��x?�ar a� fih�.�gts7a�< P���Oc �" C <.:.«.:..,:.::��;'�'.``�`�'���1j: � ���::>1�;���::�€����"�'1�' ..�i . ���:�:�::C��:;�:�������:�: :>:::::>:::>:+::::::>::>: •::>:.::::>: � i::i::ii:tiY<:iii::i..': �:::::::i::i:ti.::::>: :i:''::::i:::i:y:::::�i, * :'��:i::•.���•�.�.�•.��•�::.,'�..•�.��•�.•.� �:.: �: ' .:::: :::• r . �'.i :::i:: .'. ' i: : :.:': •: :: � i � . ;; �'��z!:�t��s;��r.� ::..:I��:z::���c�::���:.r�c����.�<�:o�a� . .....�.::.� ::::::.::::.:::::::::.�:::::.�.�::::::.�:::.::.:::::::::..::::::::::... ::;»:;;..�<.<.«><;:� <"`'.::`�`..`;:`: a �a�.. � >::;:><._..tiu3`�>:�`:"::;••:���5ei:x''r:'�:::a:..��. ...m :�:�:�:'e�ri'�n�::..... x.:.:. r� :. ........ :...: .... ::.:: .::: .:::::::::::::.:.� :.:::::::: �?�::::::. :::..:...........:. �........................... �?....... .. ..... . . �i��>: ::: . • �:: � ::: � :: :::>::>:<::a::;:::::;>:�:::::>�:::::::>::: :::>::<;:>;:::»:<:;::<:::>::>::>::»::>::>>;:;<::<::::>�:>:;:�:::>::::::: ... : .. : . .: : :::::. �.: �:. � �de:#�arz�s::::��.�a�zon<;>o-�::��t�:<a:��v�.�.�..��a..;:.::::u���::::�� :. :.>:.;:.:::.;:.:::.> :.::::.:::::::.: �::::.::.;:.;:.»:<.>:.:.:.:::;.;:.;:.:.:<.>:.>:.>:.>:.:.................�.....: .................. �;�rap��Z£a�?i:::�i�?art::�i�a��ii��.' i':.: �rr�: : �i���:"�::�':": `. `�:~i�:r�rie > �"'s ::: �.:::::::: �:::::::::: �:.�::::�;.�.:::,:::::::::::�..��.::. •:':: �:'':���: ��� ; `;,`<:>for«a>::rs��:..� ;.:::::<::a:�.';<:ua�::::�:c"»..� ��:::::::>'��:<.:»:� . . ... `� �;s�''�:.:�t.::�?.::.:::,:.�:::::::�.:::::::.�?.::::�� ::::::::::.:.�:::::::.�::::::.�::.1.::::: .. ............... . �.�'::���:�: ::: �::::;.... ;;.':' ..:.<<`..>...»::<;.;:.�:.: �::::;�.:;:>:�.:.,� :..;.:>�.:::.,><::,<:::,:<::,:>:.<>::>.:>�.;::.>.<...<::;.�>:::;.;>.::�>.::>.>.::::<;.: .�A;� p���b���d.�om.,c������.� .. �.....�. :« :.:.:�;>.;,�::.,.::::a:::>,:>.::.:>;;::.�>•z:,.:::,,,::�.:»,:::;:,::;;">:::.>::;;s.':<::<:,>.:::y;;;:?;.»::::::;;;:;`:::<,t:<:,::_:>:>::>•...,>::>•'. �.�:� �z���x�e� �t'cr�a. �cl�tg '��� �'��n�� �� .:::'.':`#�'iiu��::�e `�`�1afi:�u�::;;:;.::.>'ra:��:: '�SP;�v�.::::::::: �:.::::.� .::::::::::::::::�F::::::::::::. ���,°°:.:...:�� :;::: �>�:�::�c�::�� i�Tr�:��`���a��r���r .:: c�=.�' :.:.:.....:..:........:................................................. :� '' ��::::�'�� `'::::`�:''l�ri�>.'::::�.. ..'.>:::.>�>:::�ori� ��`���[ �>.� .. .: : .;;: : : :.::. � .. � : : : . � :: :: :: : :.:::.;:;.; = �:�:�:::::�a�:::::��1.� ... . .... . ...................... . .:::::::.��::;::::::�::;::p ::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::: :::>;:;>:::�«<:><::>::::>�:>:::::;::::>;::.;;:.: ;>:�<;.:�::;.:::>:.;;:«;.;:.:;: :;>: :..: >;;:.>:.;;:;.;>;:.:; <:::> < r::.� : .... : • >:«:::<:.;:::>::»:;>:::::::>::... . � o �v �¢o���ic������s:::::��:::::]e �.:. ��'�:::::r�i::>:���:: �.:: :.:x�..:.: .:::::::.�:::::::::.�:::: :.::.�:.�::::::::.�::::::....� ...................................................... �?�a' `��'::�ati;ilit�c�<: : :. � : : :: ::: : : : : : ::::: :: : : .,,',:::`•� :'':'::E>'`�i:s:"`023=:��` �... �� " >t�Ti f3 ...F! '�� �`��1�::`s47�:��i'��i. .. `: ?`.'?�:?:��:��t��:::EE? ��.i:43�i3. = ��.:::;:.;:.:::::.�:::::.:� .::::::::::::::::::.::P:::::::::::::::::::.:::::.�:::::::::::::::::�::::::::::: ::::>,::>::>:::;:>:;,{�.��:,:>::<:: �::>::�:::>�::��;:::>�:::>::::>+:���:�::�<:>;::g:,:::::::�;:; '�G�,�#`�Y,'�,:}ti::��i�;:;�:::::+i?:s�:r ii3:i��:Y :::::i::ii:+:i::i::'::'r::i:i:::i:<::::L::::i:i:C:::::'::i:i:': �::i::i::i::.,v::iT :::::::::::::i'::i::::i:::::i{:{i:; * :,`; :;,,<:::<:.:;:<::;`�»:"'<.;:`?':``: ;� .:. •: �::::::>��<::::::::�tt:����:::::>�:�'4�::::::::>� : �.�z:C „ ��:!�.;,:::�ot:::.;�:et�:��r�:�:.::::>::;::::;::;::.::.:�::.�::::::.�::.:.>�::::.:�:::::::::.�?:>::»�:; >�::;:: �a � >' >`: :is;::;�����:....�Z 1 ;�:'>"'��..� ..... : �;.:,>;�<>:.;:<:::;>::»:;ei����:<:::<:::�i;;:::::::tecii�iie�:i :::>:. � e�.. :�a�;mt.: ..:. � ::: ... .... ..:::::::::::::::::::::::: . � :::::::::::::: �:::::::::::. � ::::::. � :::::::::. ::�:>::.>�;::;:x:�.>:::<:>::.;: ��;. . �i��;�r�t��n;��l;�ii�a��:��;�ce�z�� �.'::S::iY::F::i:::::::: ii::::;'� '� �}:i?:::�:i,'i:`�ii: * +�i. �n}�i'��;�'::::.�::,:.:Y.i�:�Yi{..•.r�;::ii.,i:':.�.':2ii,��`�::� �.��.�.ry:�il>i.':...�.:::: i�.: ' : i: :Iti�A:� �o �e��iop �lan �� ��e� ����;.�'��s���� `:::``>`:��:�:�v <::;:;:.: ::>:: ::: �: . � : : : : : .: . . . . .:>::>:::: �. . . . : : : .. : : . :. . . ..>: . . .. � : : : : : : : : : .: .>.: : .;:: : : : : . :: : : : :.. : �i�ii�:er:;a��e��:�::�atii�::�p�ra�.i��i�;;�:�a�ri :�.. .;:::.:::::. ::..i ::.::.:::.::.::.:: .. . �:��I��SS;; * ::�:>:::::.,,.»:>:`':::::<::::::?>'•:::::::::';'>�.::::�:��''`'.":�:>::;:`>::<:,::;::::,».,;;<>.>;:>::>.,..;>::»,::..: ,:, ��::��:.:;<>::�:�::::�:,9��,:>�:�,.�:�:�;e���.:.����.:�.,���rt;r�ct ;>';`::� ..,"«`>�'�€i�ii�:.��. .>:>.<::. � �;:::�:�� ::<,:«;;r��r::��n :i��t�:::�a��:<1���:::�z';"»�?�. �.... �n . :.....:...............: .....: .: ..:: .: .::::::::. .....� ...:.................�....::..............; ..... . ;, . . >::: ;•; °°�t�����i ::r : ::»� �::::>;<::>�:::::�:;:� ::>;::<::><.::::::>:<><:<>::,>�<:»:::::::>::>::>::>::»»:::::::>:>:>::::.>�>:::>: :�:�;�:���t���:�;;:��L�;�:::e�:�?:::��:p��a�»:>::�:�;;a��;:: � :.: ;:: ;>::::�3.': :::::::>�::><:::::;::>::;: �> .::.::::::...:�:.:<:<�:<:::.:; ::>:.;::::::...........:.. :::,::>:<..��>: �s::�?�.e>:;�!��ze::�;d�i:::.,��,.�,fl:::�u�l�:<�n���.:::::. ;�,�i ::::::;,>:::::t9�:;�i !;;:E:i:<.iu�:<'::i;:>i'>:i�Ii�a�i:i'�'31��?:�i!(�`(£'.i3s . � �ii:�':�::<t�:::'`::F� :.:ue:.en..;. r��n........... :� ............::........................... :. .:::................1?....p...:.....:..:........:................................................................ t:;:»::::::::::>::>:::>:::<:::;:;:::>::::>:<:::;;: ::�:-��:::::� :::::::.:: �:::;:::<:: >:::::::>:::::>�::«:::;::::::;:<;;:•:>�: �::�:<::::::;:•.<: �� >.���.e��l�'<:::>�€��':::::�����:::>: • ��:::::�i:::::����{::<:�:�ia!�>::<�:�e�>< :�::.1?:.:.:.::.::.::.;:.;;:.;:.;:.::�:.>:.:.>:.;:.;::.;:.::.: �:.:.::.:.;:.::.: �:.;��::::. �:. � :::::::::::::::: �.::::::::: :,::::::::: :.� >:>:<.>..r��:� °;:<:,:s::;.. ��� �� � �t>:ari�i�;l;�� e : fi �n�. �S�? �. .. ...:::::� .::::::::::::::::::::::.�:.>�::::.�:::.�:::::::: "�r'::'��.:z�'. `:: .•.;::::.>'�,..,..,.:,,.,..>'''?:?:ii;:""'::ii � ...� -' ����`:t��<>:t��<:r�'>.��t:��;`>'::<:Fe�s:::<::l�a..� �i7..>:�..� � :::. �!%::::: ::::::::::::::.�:�.:::.�:::,�::::::::.�::::::::::::::::::::::::�!:::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::. >::.<;:«:�::;::<::: :':;. �r. .:.: �e:�o�t��:>.<°;. ,.;�'ri::s�c'�.. . ., ............::::: �.::::::::::::::: �:: :::>::>::>:::{:>:::j::::::> :::�;::>:>:::::,:r:::..;:..::..,...,.,:�:::: ::::>::>::>;::: :�;>�:��>;::;::<»: .:: ,> ::::....:..:....: ::.::::.:�:::. r �<�::?#�:�s �::":°`: `i��:�::���rn::��:��::�:�:,0��::�r:.��:::�:�9�:::� . ....�:::.� ::::::: ::.::::: :.:::::.�:::::.�:::::::::.�:::::::::::.�::::::::::::::::::::::::::.. ", .:..;.u�si� '�"`":::`.�� �'�si�i��:'a�. . :>;.<:.`>�tiii�::>:.».�<>:::>: . . .. ����::��:::�a�e�. :::::;::: �:: p�?;:::::: g::::: �:::::;:;:;:cr::::: r:��::::::::::. :i::: �::i:::::::i::::i::::: i::: i:::iiiii: ,i �rx�F ,v.,i�,�,w::�:::::::.;:.��:»:::::::t.:�::,•n:.:.:r :.:::::.::.::.:::.::r:.;;> �::,:,::r,1: �::>•::::t:�::;::;:.::: .y...G�,', ,lty�lY;fi�?;�;k,'�',F_::�iiJA?:E2iF�::;S�*::;FMx,',�,�..,���,v.:;��.,,�i'.,�'v,.�,�','+,.,1�4',,::� ,�„'',y,t�l�'?,',i. :::>:<:::>:+::::::::>::>::»::>:::>:::»»:<:::::::>::>: �:::;::<:>: >;: +; �:;::.,:....,..:..,>�,::;::;..�.>...<::;;::::,>;::>:::�:�.::>.::<>::«:::.;�:;.':`"°::'",.::;.... � �:: ::: �:�::�>t�e�e��.::.�.�.�;�;.:..5..�.>t���s�::��o:t�s:::o���:� . .:.;>::.:>�:.;:.::.;:.;:.>:.;;:.::>::.>:.>:.;.::.::::.;:>:.::.;:.;::.;:.:;::;:.>;:.::.:>�>:.>::.:;; ::.::::.:::.:.>�:::: .>"..;'.�t� ;><::<::;��t>::t�u� `"et�:::�i::::co�n, r�i�:>;>:>::>;::;:a��::::��e�e::�fi�i�e�:i� .:....::.............:........................... ::::.::.� :...::..:.....:..................:......:... �.................�......................P ........ �<.><>.��s�::���>::>::::��� ��;_ .:::::::::::::::. �::::::: +:"y,.:�"�>�;«<:�:�::<;;°..::.::::.::>�_>s>:<:.,:;>x::<:>:;,�::::..��;:�;:<;>.:::::>,>:<:::>;::::<..;<;<:;::;�<'':r>.:::.::>::>::::>:;:.: >: �:�.,..�� ta c�.�x�� x�z�la. �.1�I������' f��`��i��::���: � ::;::::::;�>.�::�::� �::;� � �'���t���: �"'::s�:. � .s . �`':ia�i'i�;::��irv��es:::a�. i'a :� .......: .::::: ...........:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. �:::::>::::::::.3'.:.:::::::;:.:::::::::.::::::::::::::. ����er�;:���?��<. � .:;,..;,........>,..::<`;:.,:;:�`° `�::::`: :;:>:.:»<:+::::»::>:::>��«:: :. �� ..�x��.��.�(�'�a:':��<��:e�`�'`�i�s::�€e�'o�e�i������ss:::� . .;:.;:;;:<:�;:::.:;:;;;>::;:.::>:.:�>;:.»;:.»>:�::.;r.:.:.:::.�?!.;:;<;::.;::;::>:::>:::»<;:;:»:::>::>::»::»::>::»:>:.;:»:.>:.> «,»..;:�'.<� :y °>'-�i a �i :::;:::.::>.�,::::::>`?>``;:::;:::: `'r� .,'i3S�:i:i:.TI� �»`:.'..�:,>.<;::::a�:�uis'�`>':'�;:<:::::�a:�n�� ....tsn,.:.. ,ta. �,.; :.....:..:.:::.!�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.�::.F:::::�.::::::::::::.::::::::::.�.::::::::::. �:<:>:::::: �:::»:<:>:>:<:: >::>::>::>: :::«<:::::;..::<::: :;:>< ����:::::::>�e� >;;;:.:.::;::.;>;:.::;:»:>::>:::>::>:<::. � : :::.: :.:: :::...:.;,;.:;:;<:>�;�:;;;:.;:.;:: a���t��i�::::::>::�i�i::::;::::':'� ` :�: �:';��:��:::::::::::�:d:.:' ::�:: �� ..:.................. .;:.:>;:.;>;:<:.>;::.::.:;;:;;;:;;:;:;::,>::�?.�: �:.:.�::::.�::::::.�::::::..,....�...�*...:.::;.;�.»:<,:.; :............... :<:»,:.>�,;, � ` ': ��u� ��>:`�: ��`:�':��xr.e . `'>'.>;,:;� <.� `::.:>fiies::fic�::�.1 . . 1.� .. ri��'>'ati�n... �. �:�i ........:....:.......................:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .. � .:..:..:.::.....:..:......................................... :_:``� "`.`iiie .» � ".�::;`. `>.ti�oiY::.. � >:.:::s<><a �'''`:`a �:i`�:`:`:'`�;�.: i�<:s:::��a,�a� �za � .»::':::u�"�1>;»><:>:::£ �2�. �1u� �. £�:.. . 6 .' . '.� ���.::.:::::::.::�i1.>;:.::�.:;::::::::::.� :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.�::::::.: .. ::;::.;.:.:{:.;::.:>: ;:.»:»::�>:_::.;:: ,;:.»::.;:.>:.::.>:.: ::.:<.::.;:,,:.;;:.;:.;� :�.::.:.:.::.:. :;.:,.: :. ::.:.,.:,..::::.;:.;:.;,:>:�.;>;<• >..... .. . . .:.. ... . :... .:.:...>...... ..:....;:...:::....<....:: �� :»:::: .: �::> ::;�. :��:: �:..�<>� :::. .. :...: es�����s��d:::t�:�ru�::::�:::z�:;:��:::�:;9.��.....�..�..:>�:,c�;::�5:::�Iz �.:.:�a.:�? ....; �.::::::::.; �: ���� •��'•';i�� �ii:i �•�����3C:�� . «':E::.''£`Ci ���<�li;ii:1T4..�I ... ::;<.:;:::>::>::::>:::::>::>::>::>::: •::.:>::;:>::;:;>;>::: � ::>::::::;:;;: �GI2?::t:�}T,�3i'i�3;:<�;1�3�L��2�.�•::��::.::;�:::. �:::::::::.: � :::::::::::::::::::: a.:::;:: :.»::z::z;:x>r ::::«:»»::: `:i.::i:•� ::•:. ti:{'� <i'::::::i'::::'::ii}i::::::::ti..: i'::ti::i .:i::i:::i'i:i:::: i:t::•: .:� :::;..ti.:: ii:::4i::{.:i::::i ::::::: :.. . . . . . l��d;:�o::p�?.,..�:;1a��:::�d:;��!�t�?��::�>�e��te��� izi:;t�<�cane:;���r:'�:im�>:�;:>�::::i:9��:;: . . . ::::::::::::.:..::.:.:::..:..:...:.:......::........�.....:........ �_1»��1�71:��7 Year 1978 1988 1998 2008 Year 1978 1988 1998 2008 # Based MSP STP ALK CRL ELM FCM SSP Others General Aviaiion Activity Data and Forecasts Total General Aviation Based Aircraft Metropolitan System MSP STP ALK ANK CRL ELM FCM 70 164 n/a-pvt. 284 301 170 528 53 181 153 384 325 149 492 50 264 157 425 347 188 53'1 50 286 179 464 379 213 570 Total General Aviation Operations Metropolitan Systemi MSP STP ALK ANK CRL ELM FCM 115,106 145,551 8,800 190,000 200,896 100,000 246,767 68,634 151,869 64,000 200,000 172,074 65,000 186,699 60,397' 194,225 72,549 251,904 211,300 88,106 229,776 57,200� 242,824 91,640 313,579 265,844 107,292 281,803 Total Generai Aviation Based Aircraft Fleet Mix 1988 SEPS MEP TP TJ Rotor SEP MEP 1 4 8 40 0 0 0 111 20 33 ll — 143 29 134 8 0 0 4 163 11 287 36 0 1 5 329 42 143 6 0 0 0 200 13 394 78 12 6 2 451 88 211 20 4 0 4 259 27 SSP Others2 Total 146 — 1663 235 — 1972 269 — 2231 297 — 2438 SSP n/a 37,830 51,041 66,788 2008 TP 8 37 0 2 0 16 5 ' Information from Regional Reliever Airport Study. z Does not include estimates of aircraf[ based at privately owned/public-use airfields and private airstrips. ' From MSP LTCP - Uol. No. 6, Forecasts. * Ibid. 5 SEP= Single-Engine piston, MEP = Multi-Engine piston, TP = I'urbo-prop, TJ = Turbo-jet, Rotor = Rotorcraft. 1081 METROPO�ITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE. March 1995 Others 2J 42 21 0 1 0 12 0 Total 1,007,120 946,106 1,159,298 1,426,975 Rotor 0 55 5 6 0 2 S 81 APPENDIX E TYPICAL �AND USE BY STANDARD LAND-USE CODING MANUAL. GODES TYPE OF LAND USE Residential: CODE NUMBERS AND SPECIFIC USES - Single/Multiplex with Ind. Entrance 11 11.11 ii.ia 11.13 11.21 11.22 - Multiplex/Apartment with Shared Entrance 11.31 11.32 12 13 14 - Educational and Medical Schools, Churches Nursing Homes 68 Educational Services 69.1 71 Cultural, Entertainment, Recreational - Indoor 7z 72.1 - Outdoor 74 courses, riding stables, water 75 76 Office, Commercial, Retail Services 52 and farm equipment i 53 � / 54 _- 5 5 aircraft and accessories 56 57 . and equipment 58 lishments 59 - Transportation-Passenger Facilities 40 utilities - Transient Lodging 15 - Other Medical, iiealth and Educational Services 61 - 62 63 64 xousehold units Single units - detached Single units - semidetached Single units - attached row Two units - side-by-side Two units - one above the other Apartments - walk up Apartments - elevator Group quarters Residential hotels Mobile home parks or courts 65.1 Hospital, nursing homes Religious activities Cultural activities (including churches) Public Assembly Auditoriums, concert halls Recreational activities (incl. golf recreation) Resorts and group camps Parks Retail trade - building materials, hardware Retail trade - general merchandise Retail trade - food Retail trade - automotive, marine craft, Retail trade - apparel and accessories Retail trade - furniture, home furnishings Retail trade - eating and drinking estab- Other retail trade Transportation, communication and Transient lodging 60 Services Finance, insurance and real estate services Personal services Business Services Repair services � �A'mOOI� METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 �1� �� • � � '��� C Air-camer. Scheduled, certificated airline aircraft operations that provide commercial passenger and cargo services. Air operation. Either a landing or takeoff movement. Airspace. Space in the air above the surface of the earth, or a particular portion of such space, usually defined by the boundaries of an area on the surface, projected upward. Airport capacity. The number of aircraft movements the runways of an airport can process within a specified period of time with the average delay to aircraft kept to an acceptable limit. � Airport environs. The land uses and people in the area sunounding an airport that can be directly affected by the operation of the airport. Airport influence area. The general geographic area around an airport that encompasses the major arena of interaction between an airport and its surrounding land uses. The area is defined as a radius in statute miles� from the airport reference point. Its size varies according to the airport's role and function. `_ Airports system plan. A plan, regional in scope, that identifies the functional roles of all existing and proposed aviation facilities through time. A system plan includes a policy package and a generalized development program. Detailed development studies of individual system elements are defined as part of the airport Long- Term Comprehensive Plan. Annual airport capacity. The theoretical nurnber of aircraft operations that can be handled by an airport in a year. This measurement depends upon runway layout (number, type, direction), instrument landing capability, average weather conditions, the presence of an air traffic control tower and related factors. Based aircraft. Aircraft that are stored, hangared or tied-down at one particular airport and use the airport as their primary base of operations. Code sharing. A practice whereby smaller regionaUcommuter airlines associate with major airlines by using the same computer reservation codes to provide "seamless" tickedprice services to take advantage of large hub airport connections. Commercial air carrier airport. Same as major airport. Corporate aircraft. Aircraft used for the transportation of corporate executives and general corporate needs. Often related to turboprop aircraft and turbofan/jet aircraft. Crosswind runways. Runways constructed to allow an airport to be used when the wind is blowing perpendicul! to the main runway. Usually the main runway is oriented in the direction from which the wind most commonly blows. A crosswind runway is built in the next most common wind direction at the airport site. AVIATION METR�P�LITarv nFVFi nPnnFN-r �i i�nG nn�.,.h 1 no� Enplanements. The total number of passengers at a specific airport boarding an �aircraft. This includes passengers originating at that airport, and those making connections by changing planes at that airport; it does not include passengers that stay on their plane for through flights. Passengers that originate at a particular airport usually return to their starting point, thus appro�imately doubling the annual enplanements in the total number of passengers handled at the faciliry. -�deral a��iation regulations. Issued by the Federal Aviation Administration in implementation of its regulatory � functions, these regulations carry the force of law and are binding on all aviation activities within FAA preview. Federal Air Regulations Part 77. Establishes criteria and defines "objects affecting navigable airspace," serving as a means to protect airport area airspace needed for safe flights. Federal Air Regulations Part 150 Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports. Aircraft noise control and land-use compatibility planning conducted in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration criteria. FBO. A"Fixed Base Operator"; a permanent facility provided by or through the airport owner for provision of services (eg. fuel, maintenance, hangaring, etc.) for aircraft based at the airport and transient users. Floor elevation of termina] control area. Altitude at which positive air traffic control in a Terminal Control Area begins. (see definition of Terminal Control Area.) . Freestanding community. A city that provides a full complement of urban services but is geographically separated from the contiguous development representative of a major urban area. General aviation. All aviation activity other than that of the scheduled air carriers and the military. General aviation includes single- and twin-engine aircraft with gross weights ranging from 2,000 to 60,000 pounds. Helicopter. A heavier-than-air rotoreraft that depends principally for its support in flight on the lift generated by one or more rotors. ` �eliport. An identifiable area including facilities on land or on a structure used or intended for the exclusive use of � l helicopter landings or takeoffs. The facilities may be freestanding or located within an airport. Helistop. An identifiable area used or intended to be used for the landings or takeoffs of helicopters engaged only in dropping off or picking up passengers or cargo. Hub. A hub is a geographical area—Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA)—and may have more than one airport in it. (This definition of hub should not be confused with the definition being used by the airlines in describing their "hub and spoke" route structure.) The classification scheme for hubs is as follows: Hub Classification Large Medium Small Non-hub Percent of National Total Enplaned Passengers 1.00 or more 0.2� to 0.9999 0.05 to 0.249 Less than 0.05 Instrurnent approach.. A landing approach to a runway, usually used under bad weather conditions. The approach to an airport's runway is ilown primarily by reference to instruments to a prescribed "decision height." At this height, the pilot makes positi��e visual reterence to the airport, or its approach lights, or terminates the approach and begins climbing back to a higher altitude (missed approach). ( � � f AVIATION METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 I I Instrument flight rules (IFR). Rules as prescribed by Federal Air Reaulations Eor �lying by instruments. OEten used �vhen weather conditions, visibility or ceiling fall below those prescribed for Visual Ftight Ru1es. Aircraft cannot operate IFR if weather conditions are worse than the prescribed minimums. Instrument landing system (ILS). A nonvisual, precision approach to a runway utilizing electronic equiprnent at th� airport to provide lateral � idance to the runway centerline and to give positive vertical reference to the glid� path to the runway end. Intermediate airport. An airport whose system role is to provide facilities and services primary to corporate-business users. Intermediate heliport. A heliport equipped with such amenities as lighting and communications, limited navigational aids, fuel, maintenance and passenger-related facilities. Some hangar or tiedown space is available. This type of heliport is intended for corporate and charter helicopter services. Local flight operations. Refers to those activities by aircraft that: l. Operate in the local traffic pattem. or within sight of the airport; 2. Execute simulated instrument approaches or low passes at the airport (i.e., "touch and goes"); 3. Arrive from or depart to a local practice area located within a 20-mile radius of the airport. (Most instructionaUtraining operations are local.) Long-Term Comprehensive Plan. Overall plan for an individual airport. It inte;rates inEormation pertinent to planning, developing and operating an airport. Aviation demands, facility requirements, and general recommendations for development over a 10- to 20-year period are included. Major airport. An airport whose primary air service access area is international and national in scope. Its role in the airport system is to provide facilities and services primary to air canier and regional commuter users. , Major heliport. A full-service heliport with complete facilities, including navigational aids, refueling capabilities�u._a hangar, maintenance and passenger terminal facilities. This heliport is designed for all forms of helicopter services. Metropolitan airports system. All the air transportation facilities (air carrier, general aviation and military) wi�hin the Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan urban service area. The portion of the Metropolitan Area in which governmental agencies should plan to support urban development or redevelopment. The Regional Biueprint identifies system development strateb es for the urban and rural service area. Minor airport. An airport whose system role is to provide facilities and services primarily to personal, business and instructional users. Minor heliport. A small-scale facility with minimal amenities that do not include refueling capabilities, navigational aids or tiedown spaces. Noise abatement. The attempt to reduce the amount and level of noise on and around airpons, especially during takeoifs and landings, partly through special operational restrictions and proper land-use planning for areas affected by aircraft noise. L � Noise measurement descriptors. �. . � � dBA. A db is a unit of sound measurement (decibel) measured on the "A" scale. - � i L-10. Noise measurement used by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The L represents a noise level , and the 10 represents 10 percent of the time. In Minnesota, the noise level cannot exceed 67 dBA more than ;� � 10 percent of the time during any one hour: Ldn. Level-Day-Night. Method of ineasuring and plotting the amount of noise in a community with a severe penalty for nighttime noise. The Ldn is normally averaged over a one-year period. LEQ. Equivalent sound level in the energy summation of the a�;regate noise environment as measured in A- Weighted Sound Level. Private heliport. A heliport facility for the exclusive use by the owner or other persons having prior authorization to � use the facility. Privately owned, public-use airports. These airports are privately owned, but available for public use. No public acc{uisition of these facilities is emrisioned. Their continued existence and degree of development will depend on the oumer, land-use and development pressures, the proaimity of publicly owned airports and the applicable statutes or regulations. At a minimum, the owners of these facilities are urged to maintain these airports to the rnaximum extent feasible in accordance with federal and state standards. Public heliport. A heliport facility available for the takeoff or landing of helicopters with no prior authorization required to use the facility. Reliever airport. An airport whose primary purpose is to serve general aviation and at the same time relieve congestion at a major airport ha��ing a high density of scheduled certificated airline traffic. It performs this function by attracting and diverting general aviation activity away from the major airport. `�. ) P.unwa}�. Any prepared landing and takeoff surface of an airport. Runwa}� Protection Zone (RPZ) Federally Defined "Clear Zone." An area beyond the end of a runway, under control af the airport owner, in which the presence of structures or other obstructions are controlled to permit a minimum angle of flight for takeoff and landing operations. Special-purpose a��iation facility. A heliport, seaplane base or ultralight landing area v�Those primary geographic and sen7ice focus is normally state and metropolitan in scope. Personal, business and military instruction uses are accommodated at these facilities. Gliders have been accommodated at private airports in the Metropolitan Area. Terminal control area (TCA). The aircraft traffic control area surrounding a major air carrier airport in which all aircraft are under radar control. Tilt-Rotor. Aircraft under development that v��ill operate at higher speed using rotors to make vertical takeoffs and landings and propel horizontal flight. Visual flight rules (VFR). "See-and-be-seen" flight rules. Used during good weather conditions under which an aircraft can be operated by visual reference to the ground and to other aircraft. Very high frequency omnidirectional radio range (VOR). A ground radio station that provides a pilot of a properly equipped aircraft with his or her location in reference to that station. Better known as "Om.ni." VOR approaeh: A landing approach to a runway using the VOR as a reference point and directional b idance to the i � runwa��. �.� AVIATION METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE March 1995 �, — I C �� l U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Adminisiration OCT 2 4_ 1996,� Great Lakes Region Illinois, indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin Mr. Kevin Batchelder City of Rdministrator City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mr. Batchelder: 2300 East Devon Avenue Des Plaines, tliinois 60018 .4j c ` ; �. : ... ;;.; u,M�_°-e „ _.. -- --- This letter is in response to your October 1, 1996, inquiry regarding the status of the Environmental Rssessment for Revised Air Traffic Control Procedures in the Mendota Heights/Eaqan Corridor. In accordance with Federal Aviation Rdministration (FAA) Order 5050.4A, Airport Environmental Handbook, the FAA is required to address public comments and recommendations in our environmental documentation. In our attempt to do so, the FAA has encountered discrepancies regarding the original magnetic headings of the runways at the Minneapolis-St. Pau1 International Airport and the amount of magnetic variation which has occurred within the past 20 years. Information from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration indieate that in 1974, the magnetic bearing of Runway 11R and Runway 11L was 116.20 degrees, and that there has been a magnetic shift of 3.1 degrees from 1974 to 1996. Comments received by the FAA allege that the original magnetic bearing of Runway 11R and 11L was 110 degrees and that there has been a five degree magnetic variation within the past 20 years. Until this matter has been resolved, the project has been placed on hold. We have enlisted the aid of the Metropolitan Airports Commission in this endeavor, requesting any records they may have regarding this matter. Our environmental specialist, Ms. Annette Davis, will contact you when this data has been reconciled. Please contact Ms. Davis at 847-294-7832 should you have additional questions. Sincerely, � Branch Mr. John Foggia Manager, Noise Abatement Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28th Avenue, South Minneapolis, MN 55450 C� �.. C ` October 1, 1996 Ms. Annette Davis DOT-FAA Great Lakes Region Chica.go Regional Office AGL-530E 2300 E. Devon Avenue Des Plaines, II. 6001 S Dear Ms. Davis: <. �' ► � � � ► • _ This letter is to.. inquire about the progress regarding the Metxopolitan AirPorts Cammission's (MAC) Corridor Refinement Proposal #1 for Non-Simultaneous Departure Conditions at the MSP International Airport. This proposal was presented by MAC in January of 1996 for review by your office. In June of 1996, in a telephone conversation with myself, you stated that your office would have finished its work on this proposal within two months. The Metropolitan Airports Commission's (MAC) Comdor Refinement Pmposal #1 is as follows: Whenever possible, under non simultarneous departure conditions: .�'� Aircraft departing Runway 11R will be assigned a heading to maintain an �appro�mate ground track of 105 degrees (1Vn. � Aircraft departing Runway 11L will be assigned a heading to maintain a ground track along the egtended ruaway centerline, appro�mately 118 degrces (M). As proposed and appmved by the MAC and FAA-MSP, Proposal #1 will allow departing aircraft from Runway 11L and Ruaway 11R to stay in the center of the Mendota. Heights/ Eaga.n Corridor to the greatest extent possible during non-simultaneous, or off-peak, departure periods. This refinement will allow the Comdor to fuaction as originally intended. The Mendota I3eights City Council unanimously endorsed the Metropolitan Airports Commission's (MAC) Comdor Refiaement P.roposal #1 at its 7anuary 2, 1996 meeting and believes that the FAA-Great Lakes Regioa should conclude that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSn is warranted, based on the analysis and environmental review by MAC and its consultant, HNTB, that has been performed to date. This anal�sis indicates that any defined impacts are de minimic and ate significantly below the FAA's standards for impacts that would warrant further environmental review. 1101 Victoria Curve • 1Viendota Heights, 1VIN • 55118 452 • 1850 j C C Ms. Annette Davis October l, 1996 , ^ � Page two The City Council continues to urge MAC and the FAA to move forward with Pioposal #1 for immediate implementatioa now that the necessary environmentai reviews have beea satisfied. The implementation of Pi+oposal �l represents a logical culmination to all the efforts by the various parti.es involved. Pr��osal #1 was originally suggested by the MAC ia 1992 as a solution to an issue considered by MAC's B1ue Ribboa Task Force that explored the issue of opera.tions in the Pagan Mendota. Heights corridor. The City of Mendota Heights has been patient during many years of study and review and looks forward to the immediate implementaiion of Proposal #1. The City of Mendota Heights is interested in the progress of the Federal Avia.tion Administration to this date and we are requesting an update on whether your office has issued a Finding on this pmposal. Sincerely, .1;�,�.�..� 3���� Kevin Batchelder City Administrator �I I: .�I, r cc: Ma.yor and City Council Congressman Bruce Vento Senator Paul Wellstone Senator Rod Grams Bruce Wagoner, FA.A Nigel Finney, MAC John Foggia, MAC ,Y t � � � � ������� � ���� �� ��� �`�.� ��PPt,S SQ,� q Minneapolis-Saint Paul International r'irp ��' ��� j F? t 9� 6040 - 28th Avenue South a Minneapolis, MN 55 • �% � Z Phone (612) 726-8100 � Fax (612) 726-529�'`" "� n, .it ° , �,s a l t N �y, •. * `� �'.... �.:...i p m �31- W q � . p q t GO ,�n4.. �'41RPORS� . October 30, 1996 Dear Homeowner, Your home is one of 600 that are currently partieipating in the Metropolitan Airports Cornmission (MAC) Part 150 Residential Sound Insulation Program. Since the 1992 "pilot" program, MAC has continually modified and improved the program based on advancements in technology and homeowner survey results. While we believe the program has been overwhelmingly successful, the StarTribune on Saturday, October 5, 1996, ran a story that was critical on two issues: 1) lack of program ventilation testing and remedial work, and 2) work not in compliance with city/state codes. The StarTribune's article implied that 3 out of the 5 homes tested were "unsafe" under certain test circumstances. These "unsafe" circumstances noted by the StarTribune aze common problems that are found in Minnesota. homes and not as a result of the Part 150 Sound Insulation Program. One of the StarTribune's experts reported in 1993 that approximately 52-55% of homes have pre-existing air quality and venting problems. All work performed in the Part 150 Program was completed by licensed contractors in compliance with city and state codes. City and state inspectors are responsible to insure tt��at program insulation modifications n�eet cod� compliance; a11 homes insulated under the Part 150 Program have been approved by inspectors. Regazding the StarTribune's report on lack of program ventilation measures, it is important to stress that house "tightness" and indoor air quality are relatively new technologies which have evolved considerably since the MAC Part 150 Program began in 1992.� Ventilation technology proposed by the StarTribune's expert is not currently reflected in city and sta.te codes and, to our knowledge, has not been adopted by either the construction industry or other U.S. airports implementing Part 150 programs. By their story, the StarTribune is attempting to apply a ventilation standard as a code that is not currently reflected in the construction industry. Despite this lack of code requirement, Staff has been conducting blower door and air quality testing since 1995 and has begun incorporating new program ventilation requirements. The Metropolitan Airports Commission is an affirmative action employer. Reliever Airports: Ami.AKF: . ANOKA COLTN'I'Y/BLAINE • CRYSTAL • FLYING CLOUD • LAKE ELMO • SAINT PAUL DOWNTOWN Starting in.1995, MAC performed ventilation diagnostic tests on 149 homes receiving Part 150 insulation modifications in an effort to learn more about the effects of program modifications on overall house "tightness" levels. Test results showed that only 4.7% (7 homes) did not meet ASHR.AE standards of .35 air changes per hour. In September, 1996, MAC conducted multiple day air quality testing in 12 homes and found no evidence of carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen and radon that exceeded Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. While MAC is not in agreement with the StarTribune's conclusions, the MAC believes that it is approp:iate to apply 4unent program ventilation measures to �11 honles insulated in the MAC Part 150 Program since 1992. On October 28, 1996, the MAC Commission " officially recommended that ventilation tests be performed on a112,410 previously insulated homes and that all current projects be deferred for a period of 2 months. This 2 month deferral will allow MAC to conduct additional ventilation research with national experts, as well as plan and facilitaxe �entilation testing on all past horp.es, As a result, all current projects have been revised to reflect a 2 month delay. The attached 1996/1997 Revised Project Schedule contains your assigned project number and the associated revised schedule. Please feel free to ca.11 CEE staff at 725-6255 with any additional you may have. We appreciate your patience and apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. Sincerely, r' Z��,� � '�r--G� ��3efirEy H. Hamiel Executive Director C C� � � � rn rn a� o�` �' .� . ... . � � � N � � � � ��-, � � rn rn � � � � � �, � � � � � � � � � � V'i N r: �t � � � � � � � � ti � � � � � � � � � � v, ^, ,� .� r. � � K; � ,� .-.� �D N ^�" N � � � � � ti � 'a�' � ti � � � � � � � � � �, � � �= � ~ ~ � M � � � � � � � � � � � w � � � � °� o`�, � rn rn �` a, � rn rn � "'' � �r�i �i M �j �+ ¢� +-+ Q, Q. ti C/] � i%� C% 00 O� �O �' � O O � ^' ''' � .-+ � ,� '"' � �p �p �O. �D � � � � � � Q O O O O ,_., ,-� .-i � � C C ,_ ( ��� . �. METROPOLITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT' COUNCIL General N9eetinc� October 22, 1996 7:30 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 1. Cail to Order� Rdl Call 2. Apprvval o# N9inutes af Meeting Septetnber 24, 199f , 3. Irttr+oduc�iort of Invited Guests � ' Receipt af Communicatials 4. T�i A�dvisor's Rur�way System Utilization Report and Complairrt Summary 5. MASAC Operations Committee Update . � 6. Report af th� MAC Commission Meeting 7. Persor�s Wishing to Address the Courxx;il 8. Ott�r Items td� on the �qenda . .. . 9. �jourt>m� � �. ��..- �� .., L C� 1. � MINUTES METROPO�ITAN AIRCRAFT SOUND ABATEMENT COUNCIL GENERAL MEETING September 24, 1996 7:30 p.m. 6040 28th Avettue South Minneapolis� Mlinnesota Cali to Order Roii Cafi The meeting was cailed to order by Chairman Bob Johnson at 7:40 p.m. and the secretary was asked.to cali the roll. The foilowing members were in attendance. Jennifer Sayre 8ob Johnson Dick Keinz John Richter Ca�oi McGuire Tom Hueg John Nelson Don Priebe Jamie Verbn�gge Jon Hohenstein Lance Staricha Manny Camilon Robert Andrews Jill Smith Ed Porter . Dale Haminons Alton Gasper Advisors Cindy Green� T�aci Erickson John Foggia Visitors Borys Polec Approval of Minutes Northwest MBAA •MAC Minneapolis St. Paul St. Paul Bloomington Rick�fieid Richfield . � Eagan Eagan St. L.ouis Park St. Louis Park Mendota. Heights Bumsviile inver Grove Heights Commissioner FAA MAC NiAC Aliinneapolis Resident The minutes of the August 27, 1996 meeting were approved as presented. 3. Introduction of invited quests Receipt of Communications There were no invited guests. There were no communications. 4. Technical Advisors Runwav Svstem Utilization Report and Complaint Summarv John Foggia, MAC Technical Advisor, presented the Technical Advisor's Reqort. Highliqhts of the Technical Advisor's Repo�t: 1. John Foggia briefed the Council on his memo regarding the problems the ANSP program is experiencing with the ANOMS equipment. John mentioned that there have been many requests for AN�MS related information. The ANOMS data is inconsistent each the tracks are imported. He said they believe it will take about 2 weeks to find the problem. He said, and verified with Traci Erickson, that the August data is not lost, but that the ANOMS equipment cannot read it consistently each time. When the problem is fixed, a full August 1996 report will be distributed. 2. The Stage III fleet mix is: 51.5% 3. Complaints were up �in August 1996 over August 1995 due to the unusual use of the runways - caused by construation. Although, we have moved into .a weather pattem that primarily dictates a northwest flow. 4. Operations are up from 1,345 operations per day in August, 1,995 to almost 1,400 operations per day in August, 1996. For the past few years there has been an increase of 3.5% to 4% in tra�c counts from year to year. John said this increase should drop off. John Richter � asked how the operations per day from 10 years ago compared with this year. John said that in August, 1986 there were 1200 operations per day compared with the 1,400 �today. This is a 17% increase over the last 10 years. 5. John Richter, Minneapolis, asked about the 12% �ighttime tra�c over Minneapolis and whether or not better use of the head-to-head operation would have helped that. John Foggia said it would probabty not help, but if R/W 0422 would have been available, the percentage � would have been lower. John Foggia said he would expect a lower percentage over . Minneapolis for next month now that R/W 0422 is operational. He also said that he would expect an inccreease in departures on R/W 22 and an increase in amvals on R/W 4, and a decrease ,over Minneapolis, and about the same percentage of use over EagaNMendota Height�. 6. John Richter, Minneapolis, asked John Foggia about a discussion Mr. Foggia had with Joe Lee and Jim Serrin regarding a proposal they want to bring to the MASAC Operations Committee. They requested the MASAC Operations Commiriee to investigate th�e straight-out departures currently ove� Minneapolis and whether they can shift the right tum from 340o to 3600, and the left tum from 240o to 2600, and eliminate some of the straight-out departures over IVlinneapolis because those individuals also get the straight-ins on amvals. John Foggia said that because of the ANOMS problems, this proposal and other items have not been 2 � � completed. An Operations Committee meeting will be set sometime this month. NDAPs wili be discussed, as well, at this meeting. 5. State of the Metrogolitan Airports Commission - Jeffrey Hamiel Jeffrey Hamiel, Executive Di�ector of the Metrapolitan Airports Commission� briefed the councii on the state of the Metropolitan Airports Commission. a. The MAC will be spending $1 -$1.2 billion over the next 15 years, which is more than what was spent ove� the last 25 years. Over the next 15 years the airpo�t will experience a very aggressive construction schedule. . b. The Commissioners are now engaged in a strategic planning process. They have hired a consultant (Patty Holmes from Cincinatti) to help put it together. The Commissioners and the senior staff recently met for a full day of brainstortning. They listed the top priorities for the next several years, and Environmental issues were on that list. The Commission is hoping to have a published repo�t of this strategic planning process in the spring of 1997. Between now and then they plan on having a numbe� of full-day sessions to do more strategic planning. c. The MSP Noise Mitigation Committee is continuing to meet. Commissioner Steve Crame� is doing an excellent job as ChaiRnan. The anticipation is that the new Part 150 contour will be the 2005 DNL. The extra cost of including these 4,000+ homes will be approximately $80 - $90 million. Although there is limited funding� the Committee is looking at it closefy. ' d. Runway 0422 was dedicated. It is now 11,000 feet long and opera#ional. e. The new Federal Inspection System (FIS) will be opening November 15th. The system will ( ! be the best, although not the largest, system in the country. It will be located near pod gate _ 1-5 on the Gold Concourse. The cost is $35 -$38 million. The average time to get through customs will be 30-35 minutes, which is considered very fast. f. The Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) ground station should be certified by the first of the year. He feels it has great potential. The MAC would like to plan a spring dedication. . . g. Mr. Hamiel also explained a letter that went out� to approximately 5,000 South Minneapolis residents, which was requested by Niinneapolis Council member pore Mead. She asked for an explanation�and rationale regarding the increase in aircraft noise over Minneapolis this past summer. He�said the letter went out without going through the proper staff and included some inaccuracies. The MAC received a number of phone calls from residents, who understand airport operations, rega�ding some of the statements contained in the lette�. He said staff is preparing a follow up letter with more detailed information about the time table and the specific impacts and actions taken by the airport, which will be mailed ta these residents. h. Mr. Hamiel said the planning of the North/South nanway points to growth at MSP. This year's growth rate will be approximately 9-10%, with an expected drop in this rate in the years to come. He reite�ated that by the year 2000, all aircraft will be Stage I11. ,� Mr. Hamiel refuted an article, expected to come out this Sunday in the StarTribune, regarding �—� 3 � the "cozy" relationship between MAC and Notthwest Airlines. He said the Commission has never denied access to any airline. He gave the example of Southwest Airiines. j. Mr. Hamiel also mentioned the issue of airpo�t security. He said they have hired David Schekar with the Isreali govemment who has been here on two occassions and has done a complete evaluation of the airport's security systems. He is� preparing a recommendation for �. Jim Welna and Jeff to bring to the Fuil Commission. Mr. Hamiei then entertained questions from the council members. Jamie Verbrugge, Richfield, asked Mr. Hamiel what wouid happen if the communities of the Metropolitan area decided they didn'4 want any more grov�th from the airport. Mr. Hamiel replied that if the legislature (voters) wanted it, that's what wouid hav� to be done. His personal opinion was�that it wouid be the beginning of the demise of the Metropolitan area. He said the airpc�t is the singie largest employer in the Twin Cities area. John Richter, Minneapolis, asked Mr. Hamiei if he wouid send th� revised letter, mentioned eariier, to the Council. Nlr. Hamiel said he would. . Joe Gasper, MAC Commissioner, asked Mr. Hamiel about a rumor about Southwest Ai�lines not wanting to come to this airpo�t because of concems with gate tumaround time. Mr. Hamiel said Southwest would need 2-3 gates to.be competitive at MSP. He said the Green Concourse, which is now leased by Northwest Airlines, is on a 30 day lease schedule, and those gates could be given to Southwest. He said there is nothing keeping them from being here, and they do operate in colder climates. � 6. MSP Capital Improvement Pro�ram Briefina - James Fo�tman, Director of Airport Development Jim Fo�tman outlined the planned construction projects for MSP through the year 2010, as was required by the State for the Dual Track 2010 Plan Development. Included in this presentation was landside� airside, terminal and paricing projects. John Richter, Minneapolis, asked about plans for Flying Cloud Airport. Jim said that the primary runway will be extended to the maximum allowable 5,000 feet from the existing 3,950 feet in order to accommodate more corporate traffic. � � Jim Fortman discussed some of the plans for the other reliever airports, as well. Carol McGuire, St. Paul, asked about school insulation. John Foggia said a prioritization map is being developed. Six schools will be done. John Richter, Minneapolis� asked Jim if this information would be available in written form. Jim said it could be distributed, although he reiterated changes occur everyday in the schedule. (This information will be distributed at the next meeting on October 22, 1996.) 7. Reaort of the MAC Commission meeting - Julv 1996 MAC Commissioner Joe Gasper briefed the council about the meeting saying that the issues Jeff Hamiel and Jim Fortman brought up are what the Commission has been discussing. 4 � 8. Persons Wishin4 to Address the Council 8orvs Polec, Minneapolis, complained about the "shoulder" hour flights. He said his family is having trouble sleeping. He also complained about the insulation of his home and the response ,- , to his previous complaints. � There was a general discussion about the "shoulder" hours. Jill Smith, Mendota Heights, told the council that she had been receiving a number of calls from constituents regarding early moming flights. She has spoken with Traci Erickson, MAC, regarding the number of flights over Mendota Heights during these hours. Traci said that because the ANOMS system is not wo�lcing prope�iy, she wouldn't be able to get that information until the problems are fixed. John Foggia, MAC, made the point that ope�ations during these hours are not prohibited. He said the MAC encourages passenger flights to schedule outside of "nighttime hours." He said weather and othe� conditions around the country can affect w�hethe� or not a scheduled operation goes out or comes in on time. He said the airport is not in a position to impose fines on airlines that land during the "off hours" because the�e is no other airport in the area to land �at, like there is in some places around the country that do impose fines. He said the operations taking place at these hours are �most likely carrieirs, such as Federal Exp�ess and UPS. He said the camers have been asked, to the greatest extent possible, to use an all Stage III fleet at night. Jill Smith asked if this was being monitored. John, Foggia said the carriers report quarte�ly. In the second quarter of 1993 during these hours, �the flights were at 67% Stage II. The last time this information was shared with the Council was for the fourth quarter of 1995, which indicated a 17% Stage I I fleet for those 6 carriers that have signed the voluntary nighttime agreement. The largest number of Stage II aircraft at this time comes from Sun Country. John said Sun Country hasn't had as high a compliance compared to the other ovemight carriers. John said they are wortcing on a study for the Noise Mitigation Committee on nighttime operations that will combine last summer's study for the MASAC Operations Committee and this years information. He said he will brief the results at a future MASAC meeting. John Nelson, Bloomington, expressed concem for Borys Polec's complaints about the Part 150 Sound Insulation Program. He felt the council needed to take Borys' concems more seriously and asked for a response from the Part 150 Staff about 8orys' insulation construction. Dick Keinz, MAC, said he didn't want those in attendance taking Mr. Nelson's criticisms of the program as the final word. He said there is a 95+% satisfaction rate among homeowners who have had the insulation done. Dick said he would talk with Nir. Vecchi and Mr. 8rown and get to the bottom of Borys' complaints. .� A woman from ANinneapolis comptained about th� lack of communication rega�ding the constructior� this past summer and the resulting increase in aircraft noise. Cindy Greene, FAA, explained some of the changes in the number and hours of operations. She also explained when R/W 04-22 can be used. � Jill Smith, Mendota Heights, said she was disturbed by what had been said at the meeting. She was concemed that aircraft noise has gotten to an intolerable level. She said maybe the Council should be concemed about health issues. Chairman Johnso� said that the Noise Mitigation Committee may be addressing some of these issues more in depth. � 5 A man from Edina disagreed with the FAA regarding the flight pattems and questioned why a community should be abie to stop the use of the Crosswind Runway to its fuilest extent. He also mentioned some personal heaith problems he feels are caused by aircraft noise. Cindy Green, FAA, said an in depth study is required to change any air traffic control procedure. , She said all studies require public comments. t, John Foggiat MAC Technical Advisor, reiterated that the problems these two residents were experiencing were not due to a change in procedures but the increase in air tra�c operations and the' fact that, due to summer runway constnaction and recent weather patterns, most traffic is departing to the north and west. He reiterated that next year we witl have even more operations. What will happen next summer is an increase in operatio�s over Mendota Heights and Eagan due to construction and people in South Minneapolis will think there has been a change in procedures. He said it was a good idea to make sure the people affected by runway � construction are sent notification. Jill Smith, Mendota Heights, wanted to reiterate that Environmental Impact Studies are not all created equal. She said the communities affected by a change should be included in any study. She also said she was concemced about the extra cost of air conditioning for homeowners with insulated homes. John Foggia said that because the insulation is simila� to thermal insulation techniques, the homeowners do get an offset in cost for heating in the winter. 9. Other Items Not on the Aqenda There were no other items on the agenda. 10. Adioumment Chairman Johnson adjoumed the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted. Melissa Scovronski, Acting Secretary � � C ��1 ��' ' i, l: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) John Foggia, Manager, Aviation Noise & Satellite Programs Airpart IrToise and Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS} 22 October 1996 Due to the series of �NOMS technical malfunctions plaguing the system, ANSP staff, HIVTNII-i, and TRACOR ar� executi�g a full ANOMS data acquisition system validation. To preclude potentially recalling published ANOMS results, absolute confidence in ANOMS data. must be restored. Therefore, an abbreviated September 1996 Technical Advisor's Report is being presented. ANUMS data for August and September, 1996, has been processed, and will be presented at the December 3, 1996, IVIASAC meeting, after all validation checks are accomplished. We appreciate your continuing patience, and apologize for any inconvenience these abbreviated reports generate. C' N ;:. � — �r lilinneapoTas / 5t. .P'aul In%r�ational Airport --�,, .._.. ....�... .-,:, � Ii�ONTI�LF 1t�EETING - Metropolitan Airport Sourzd Abatement Council c�t,�,��: Robert P.Ioimeoa �ce C/airnwn: 9cott Buuiv Teclmica( Advisor: John Fo�ie AclingSecretary: � Mdissa 3covconski Airbarne Expreas: Brinn Batev . AirTMmpoN Associalioa� PnW McGraw AGPA: C6arles W. Curry 7r. c�ry cfato�m�ngmR: Petrom Lce Vcm pPilcox City �7fBurnrville: Ld Porler City af Eagan: Tan Egnn City oflnver Grave Xeigh4r: Dsia u,��e City ofMendofa Heighfa: lill 9mith City ofMinneapotis: Inmes $. Serrin John Ric6tcr Ice Lce Jodilh Dodge City ofRichfield: �o ��� , City ofSt.Law.rPark: tcob��e na�e c;ty �sr. ra�t: c. s��e s�� �rh«nae s. sue� Cnrd Am McGuire Delfq Air Lines fnc.: � Rich Iudwd! Fedeml Er{�rexr: Dan DeBon! Fede,al Aviation Adminisfration: Druce Wagauer Ronnld Glaub MAC Stag:• Dick Keinz � M13M: R.obert P.7ohnson Meaaixi Northwest Airlink: Danid SherLnn � Metropo(ifan Airportr Commiuioa• Commiesioner rlllon Gn�er MNAirNational Guaid; � Mqjor Roy J. Shellw Norlhwcst Airtiner: � Mnrk s,ilm�o ,Tmnir�� snyre Sf. Paul ClnmberojComnte�ce: 78a� ttarkl�y Sun Counlry Airlines; DaleKariya . United Airlinea Inc.: Bi1l Yantiee � � Unifed Parrel Service: Sleve Wdker US. Air Force Rexerve: • Cnptnin Devid J. Gerken Metropolitan Airports Commission Declaration of Purposes 1.) Promote public welfare and national security; serve public interest, convenience, and necessity; promote air navigation and transportation, international, national, state, and local, in and through this state; promote the efficient, safe, and economical handling of air commerce; assure the inclusion of this state in. national and inf,ernational programs of air transportation; and to those ends to develop the fu11 potentialities of the metropolitan. area in tTus state as an aviafion center, and to correlate that area with all aviation facilities in the entire state so as to provide for the most economical and effective use of aeronautic facilities and services in that area; 2.) Assvre the residents of the metropolitan area of the �ninimum environmental impact from air navigation and transportadon, and to that•end provide for noise abatement, control of aupart area land use, and other protective measures; and 3.) Promote,.the overall goaLs of the state's em�ironmental policies and m;n,mi�e the public's exposure to noise and safety hazards around airports. .. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Sta.tement of Purpose This corporafion was formed in furtherance of the general welfare of the communities adjoining Minneapolis-S� Paul Internadonal Airport - Wold-Chamberlain Field, a public airport in the Counry of Hennepin, State of 1ltinnesota, ttt�rrough the alleviation of the problems created by the sound of aircraft using the airport; through study and evaluation on a continuing basis af the problem and af suggestion for the alleviation of the same; through initiation, coordination and promodon of reasonable and effective procedures, control and regulat'rons, consistent with the safe operation of the airport and of aircraft using the same; and through dissemination of information to the affected communit'res, their affected residents, and the users of the airport respecting the problem of aircraft noise nuisance and in respect to suggestions made and actions initiated and ta.ken to alleviate the problem. Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council Representafion The membership shall include representatives appointed by agencies,, corporations, associations and governmental bodies which by reason af their statutory authority and responsibility or control over the airport, or by reason of their status as airport users, have a clirect interest in. the operation of the airport. Such members will be called User Representatives and Public Representatives, pravided that the User Representatives and Public Representatives shall at all tinnes be equai in number. The Airport 24-hour Noise Hotline is 726-9411. Complaints to the hotline do not result in changes in Ai►port activity, but pravides a public sounding board and airport information outlek The hotline is staffeci 24-hours Monday - Friday This report is prepared und printed in house by Traci Ericksdn, ANOMS Speciatist Questions or comments may be directed to: MAC - Aviafion Noise & Satellits Program Minneapolis J St Paul Internaflonal Airport 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 Tel: (612) 725-6331, Fax: (612) 725-6310 ANSP Home Pa�e� httn�//www �„a�a��ar ��� lVletropolitan Airports Commission Aviation Noise £r Satellzte Programs — � � � �� j Metropolitan Airports Commission `� :1, � ,, �: ; , ; � � ; � . � . , �;,.., i• ' 1`1:1 Operations Summary - All Aircraf� MSP September Fleet Mix Percentage Airport September Complaint Summary September Operations Summary - Airport Directors Office A Metropolitan ���ports Commission . I�in��apol�s -�t. Pau� Iri�er�ational A.irpoa�t �o�mpla�nt Sum�.ary Se�tember 1996 Com�lagnt Sumrr�ary �y City Pa�;e 2 Time af I)ay Nature of Complaint t�v�aticm iVolse Xz tiatellite Frnsrramc � �4►.va�lable Tirne %r Run�vay �Jse Tower I1og ileports - September 1996 AIl Hours � :::Q:��::::: v �c d rs �' .; Nighttime Hours :�:;:;�;�::�<:::: �<::;::;:.::.;:;: Metropolitan Airports Commission t<;:>: Ei::: ;::::;:;�Q:�''�::>:.. �`,�>�'' ;�<:::��;:°�v::, 4 r;-:, ^ O O O O � M M N N � � ..�.o,.eoeovareo„ oreoa�a.rooeer�to��oet��It�r1111/4t111tA111Allillil���ia�l�'; OCTOBER 1996 � = � �1� a- � T i���, ISSUE 34 This Duplei recetved the hi�hest bid of S20,000 at ' the 7th aucHon. 5ee article below. IllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillOIIIII�IB111B11111611B111B111111111116lIIIIBI . � � ;1 ', 1 MAC, WDSCO, and Kloster Industrial Auctioneers conducted the seventh public auctian on Thursday, October 24, i996, at 1:30 p.m. Out of twenty-seven (2� houses available for auction, twenty-six (26) were sold The highest bid far a horne this auction was $20,000, the lowest bid was for $25. "Ihe average price calcularion for all homes purchasecl at the seventh aucticm is $3,228.85. The chart and graph below reflect the success of each auction, with fimds generated in excess of $1 Million froxn all seven auctions to go back into fimding far the Part 154 Land Acquisirion and Relocation Program ' . . � , �, � . . ,' 7-28-84 i 10-13-94 • 3-3-95 ; B-30�5 : 3-1496 j B-26-86 � 10-24-96 Auctlon #1 E Auation #2 ! Auctlon ff3 ! Auctlon #4 i Auctlon #5 ' Auctlon tJ8 : Auction #7 TOTAL AverageBalePrice 53,1T0.10 j$3,968.46 i S5,OA4.63 ; 56,82T.50 � 56,366.67 � 58,181.48 �;3,228.85 55,369.76 basM on buildin s sold � � � i � High PMce ` S11,000.00 � 518,OOO.tlO t S16,750.00 � 524,�00.00 � S14,250.00 � 530,500.00 1, 520,000.00 530,500.00 i ! LOW PnCe i S25.00 I 550.00 � S5.00 ; S25.00 � 5200.00 � S400.00 � 525.Otl 55.00 � � GrossTotalSales � S63,402.00 �S103,700.00 �S216,815.00 5204,825.00 �5191,OD0.00 '5220,900.00 � SB3,950.00 51,084,692A0 , i � � i Num6er of Homes Auctioned � 21 I 30 i 50 30 ! 30 I 27 I 27 215 Number of Homes Soid 20 26 � q3 i 30 30 Y7 i 2s 202 NUMber of HOmes Ciosed 7 ; 17 i 41 � 26 i 30 i 25 • � not yet 146 � � available W 10,000 ; U � 8,000 ' a W 6,000 a � 4,000 � 2,000 `� 0 A.TJC�I�DN I3IS'I'OI�Y A VERAGE SALES PRICE #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 AUCTIONS � � * ( � The Part 150 Buyout Update is a newsletter by the Metropolitan Airports Crnrnmssion and W.D. __ Schock Company, Inc., containing informaiion on the MSP Land Acquisition and Relocation Projects. ,; . , , � , . � � ' � ; . �. Offer Update: Offer mcetings for Phase N are nearing completion. As of Uctober 25, 1996, 56 offers have been presented to hocneowners, with 43 homeowners accepting their offers. The offer process is now 88% complete. To date, 6'7% of the Phase IV homeowners have accepted their written offers. Acquisition Closings: The acquisition closing process is continuing with 35 Phase N closings now completed As of October 25, 1996, the acquisition closing process is 55% complete for Phase IV. Relocation ClosinQs• As of October 25, � 1996, 20 homeowners have closed on their relocation homes, with 15 Phase IV homes now vacated As of the date of this newsletter, 2$7 ,homes have now been vacated for all four phases. w; ,, . If it is necessary to change your moving date once it has been scheduled with a moving coi�any, please notify the moving company at least 48 hours prior to the original scheduled ti�e. They nced a minimum of 48 hours to re-schedule their trucks and movers for that day. When using a moving company, you are eligible to ha.ve the reconnection fees reimbursed for your u6lities, (i.e. phone, eleclric). You must submit paid receipts for the utilities to your consultant at WDSCO, showing the charges for recornmection; this should be done withiu 30 days of your move. W.D. SCHOCK COMPANY; INC. , � 5844 28TH AVF.NUE SOUI�i MINI�JEAPOLIS, NIN 55417 (612)?248898 (800)260-7062 � ' ,: ; ' ;� � �' • Q. Do I have the oprion of unpacking myself if I have a moving company move me? A You can unpack your own boxes at the new hor� if you would prefer. At the tir� the moving cornpany cor�s to your ho� to do the bid, �you nced to let them lmow if you p(an to unpack yourself. You will also ne�d to let the mover lmow if you want them to retum after you have unpacked to pick up the boxes. If they retum to pick up the bo�ces, the $75.00 fee far this should be included on the bid Q. If I am taldng my existing appliances to my new home, can I have the moving company include the chazge to disconnect and reconnect them at the relocation home? A The cost of reconnecti�ig existing appliances is only paid if you have chosen to use a moving company and have purchased an existing home. If the reconnection of the appliances is to an existing gas or elech�ic line, the moving company may include the cost in their bid if it is necessary to run a gas line or hook up an electrical oudet to use the appliance, the moving coir�pany cannot do this work, a separate bid for ihis must be obtained if the bid is over �100, a second bid will be required A1so, if new lines are necessary, this will be a part'of the utility reimbursement. It is the homeowner's responsibility to pay for the service and then submit the paid re�eipt to WDSCO for reitnbursement. Q. How n�any people ha.ve relocated back into the City of Rictifield? A As of October 25, 1996, 67 hameowners from all four phases have relocated back to the ciiy of Richfield To date, a total of 341 homeowners have relocated from New Ford Town and Rich Acres; therefore, 20% have remained in Richfield � �E a ���k;`_.'�:;.-�;r ; :i`:=�: =- �' � � U :�• :.;,-���,. ap; i�ri,< t• _ .,r.,��..�. � .,� � t;ov-i's� �, �f' a`�I .� � `��i = ���- ;s���}s! --------•: Tom Lawell 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Hghts, !�T 55118 -",i'��a'ir.: 7: ,i„Lf,,,�li�„11�„I,J.,i,�,ll;ll,�l:,,ill,��,:,ll,�,ill C C� � � W G � O < J � � ,` ; C� �; 1 , • 1 ' � '� o � o '� N ~ O Q/ O b O q N O w O � N p O � O a N tl O � N O � N p O � O b N ~ O ~ O A N w � M � � w N O N O � e! ti P �', T N e m O m O T N w OD QI T T M m � � r r � n � p O � ��., r - Z g Q i � � O t Z � � _ � a e z o J H = _ � � � 6 � S W d W F OC Ci K � a � J =p � 1� J � � y � � .0 t W �' '� � U z � _ � O < ¢ = Z 1�- ~ � G1 � y�j J ae 3 O p F p IY _ �. 4 t 0 aA z G1 0. f- � _ = Z !� .1 � � OC tA W d �y �E p i O p < O K � � � � � F M � V p � m ~ W {�6 W C � W 'J z = V � � W W � Q � J = O W W t) F y'�j Z G1 Z � W p pr Z� r r T t^ � /�i \ \ ; ��� �av � 5 1g� � AGENDA � REGULAR MEETING Y-•�_.,, ti"�r�.�.r.r� EAGAN AIRPORT It�LATIONS COMMISSION "'-•--.... EAG�iN, MINNES(DTA EAGAN CITY CUUNCIL C�IAMBER5 November 12, 1996 7:00 P.M. f'�Z1� �'�K��!��1%�71 '' 1 ► 1 ► 'i c II. APPROVAL O� MINUTES ITI. V�S�7'C)]�.�+ T�i ?�l�+. ]FIFAl�2D IV. - CONSENT ITEMS A. Request for Report on Effects af Construction on Airport Operations B. Request %r Temporary Noise Monitor on Highview Avenue V. OLD BUSINESS A. Metropolitan Council tLviation Development Guide Amendment VI. NER' BUSINESS A. MAC 1997-2003 Capital Improvements Program B. 1997 Legislative Program VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. WORKSH[OP REPORT IX. S�'AFF REPORT A. Eagan/Mendota Heights Cora�idor � . B. MASAC Meeting of October 22 C. IlTa: �eeatia D��.mta C��a�ty �inrpo�t ��dsti��� ��a�::�a��:: � 1:�� �►�1� 7���� XI. FUTURE AGENDA XII. NEXT COMMISSION MEETING - 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, December 10 NEXT COMMISSIUN WORKSH4P - 7:00 p.m. Thursday, November 21 NEXT MASAC MEETING - 7:30 p.m. �'uesday, December 3 XIII. ADJOURNMENT Auxiliary aids for persons wrth disabilities will be provided upon advance notice of at Xeast 96 hours. If a notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City of Eagan will attempt to provide such aid. C �' . . , � - • . ,� � • • . The meeting was held at the Metropolitan Airports Commission West Terminal Building MAC ANSP Conference Room, and called to o�der at 1:35 a.m. The following members were in attendance: Ma�lc Salmen, NWA - Chairman Bob Johnson - MBAA John Nelson - Bloomington Kevin Batchelder - Niendota Heights Jon Hohenstein - Eagan ..----.,,, Mayor Mertensotto ���� Heights N'�-�-�`�' � Adviso : Cindy Greene - FAA John Foggia - MAC Traci Erickson - MAC Chad Leqve - MAC � INVER GROVE HEIGHTS MIOMS DATi� REQUEST A letter was received at the June 1996 MASAC meeting from Dale Hammons, Inver Grove Heights, �equesting the numbe� of jefidepartures and arrivals and the aircraft altitude over the city of IGH for the months of P1Aarch and May of 1996.. No specific reason was given in the letter for the request. There was a general discussion regarding requests from individuals o� groups fo� ANOMS data. John Foggia, MAC, said these requests are usually made because of a perceived change in operations over a particular area, and the request ususlly �equires further analysis than what is initially asked for. This in tum translates into more time and effort on the behalf of the staff. It was the consensus of the committee that data requests should be detailed and specific about the purpose for the request. • - •� :,�.�11 �l• Il� =• . � • � - - .�. -r• •-• . . -� • -• �- •• ��� a1� � �- -• � •o • • -� � � �- -• -• • • • • • � • -• The MAC ANSP staff will contact Dale Hammons regarding his request. '1 ) MINNEAPOLIS STRAlGHT-OUT DEPARTURES A request to the Operations Committee was received from Joe l.ee and Prof. James Serrin, both of Minneapolis, regarding a proposed procedure to reduce the st�aight-out (runway heading) � departures, off the north 29 parallel runway, over South Minneapolis. Mark Salmen, NWA, read the letter to the members of the committee. The letter noted that since South Minneapolis (west of Cedar Ave and east of Lake Harriet) receives straight-in arrivals, which cannot be changed, and straight-out departures, this area experiences an inordinate amount of aircraft noise. The procedure suggests aircraft that would normally take a straight-out (runway heading) departure take a more northem heading. Since Professor Serrin was not present, John Foggia, MAC, explained the suggested procedure in more detail. John handed out an ANOMS gate penetration map that showed the number of jet arrivals and departures through this area for a typical 10 days of operations in December 1995 off 29L � 29R. (Please see attachment.) John said the Operations Committee needed to decide if this was a noise abatement procedure MASAC should explore fu�ther. Mark Salmen, NWA, asked Cindy Greene, FAA, to advise the committee of the feasibility of the ` procedure. There was a general discussion about headings and air tra�c control operations pertaining to this requested procedure. It was the consensus of the group that an initial study of this procedu�e should be limited to deciding on its feasibility. . - . :.1. . . . -. . . .l . : ... - . .-. . . :. �� : . • • . � ' •. - • � • • -n � . r . • a� -_� � •s •� , a.� � i�� • -.• � • • _�. . � •• ' -� � • • - • • • • • '� I • John Foggia, MAC, told the committee that a runway survey for the GPS control points found runway headings for 11 L/R were approximately 121.20. The survey of runway 04 found it to be reasonably o.k. with a 45 degree heading. He said runways 29UR would be 180 degrees more than 11 UR at 301.2. John said this discussion item was brought up to the committee for a decision to bring the issue of runway redesignation to MASAC fo� recommendation to the P&E Committee and Full Commission. Cindy Greene, FAA, said the FAR for changing runway designatians is when the true magnetic heading is 5 degrees or more over the existing designation. She said MAC has been notified by the FAA in the past of their non-compliance with this rule. The ramifications of the redesignation were discussed briefly. For instance, Cindy Greene, FAA, said it would cost approximately $150,000 for runway pavement painting. Also, all runway signs, which are relati.vely new, would have to be changed. The noise abatement ramifications were also discussed. One example is the Mendota Heights/Eagan Corridor Procedure. Jon Hohenstein. Eagan. moved and Bob Johnson. MBAA. seconded the motion to recommend to MASAC to recommend that MAC investigate redesignating the existing runway headings to the true magnetic headings as re uired by FAR 139. And. that MASAC examine existing noise abatement �rocedures as they relate to maanetic headings and develo[� recommendations for modifications � hose nrocedures to minimize the effect of the �ssible designation change Chairman Mark �almen called far a vote. There was no dissention. Motion carried. NADP STATUS Traci Erickson, MAC, recapped some of the past problems with the initial NADP analysis. She said HNTB has run two new contours. One is for close-in depa�tures off all ends of the runways and the other is for distant departures off all ends of the runways. Those contours will be brought into GIS, which has the latest information for correct populatian counts. The results will then be brought back to the MASAC Operations Committee for discussion. Mark Salmen, NWA, asked what the time frame was for getting this done. John Foggia, MAC, said it should be complete by mid-November to allow his staff to do additional analysis. Mark Salmen, NWA, asked that it be given a high priority. Mark Salmen, NWA, said the MASAC Operations Committee should ta�get the December 3, 1996 MASAC mee:ing for a Eriefing, but not a vote. The MASAC Operations Committee will meet again in November to review the analysis and decide at that poi�t if MASAC can be briefed in Oecember. PRM BRIEFING - CINDY GREENE. FAA _ Cindy Greene, FAA, explained that PRM stands for Precision Runway Monitor. It allows for i l simuftaneous ILS approaches, which are side-by-side approaches, during IFR weather in - Minneapolis. (Presently the Tower runs a staggered approach.) It is a new radar system associated only.with simultaneous approaches. Instead of the current 4.8 second update, it gives controllers a one second update on aircraft. It also has a number of alarms to alert TRACON contrallers of any possible problems with approaching aircraft. Cindy said this new system should increase the number of arrivals by 6-7 aircraft pe� hour acceptance rate during IFR weather conditions. Essentially, there should not be a lot of decrease in the acceptance rate when the tower goes to IFR weather conditions. It will basically bri�g the IFR acceptance rate closer to the VFR acceptance rate. The system is planned to be commissianed on April 25, 1997. At this point, ALPA still needs to accept the system. ALPA would like to have mandatory simulator training for pilots by each airline. The FAA says it is just like any other ILS approach and would not require additional simulator training. NNMM UPDATE John Foggia, MAC, briefed the committee on which airlines had signed the New Noise Management Methodology egreement. Six ai�fines have sent it back signed: Casino Air � ' 1 Miami Air Exp�ess One USA Jet Airlines Ryan International US Air Fede�al Express sent a reply explaining that they feei the Nighttime Stage ii Voluntary Agreement they have already signed is good enough. America West asked, and was granted, an extension on the September 30, 1996 deadline. And Northwest Airlines says it has concerns regarding how the baseline numbers were calculated. On October 31, 1996, another letter, with a new deadline, will be sent out to encourage the airlines to sign the agreement. ,��1,��� John Foggia, MAC, briefed the committee that the August and September Technical Advisor's Reports are in the process of being finished, but they will not be published until the ANOiNS system is verified to be working properly. John explainecl that the ANOMS system can deteriorate over time and at this point, TRACOR has not found what the problem is with the dispack reader. He said his staff needs to do some independent checking of the system. To do this, he will be sending one of his staff out to a Remote Monitoring Tower to check the noise-to-track correlation. The committee discussed the importance of the ANOMS system, ANOMS data, and direct connect capabilities. John Nelson, Bloomington, asked Traci Erickson, MAC, if last quarter's Technical Advisor's Reports would be complete and verified by January 1997. Traci said they would be. OTHER ITEMS Mark Salmen, NWA, asked Cindy Greene to inquire with the air traffic control center in Farmington as to why Northwest is receiving phone calls with questions regarding how many hush-kitted planes they have. He is concerned that someone there is looking into noise abatement procedures or issues without input from MASAC. The meeting was adjoumed at 4:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Melissa Scovronski Acting Committee Secretary 4 � a C' f � O a` � � � a Y Z 0 .� e � � � ��/,• ��i��/% � ,. // i ' . .. .. ,� .//�t!i�. �•.�r.' � ■ I�I � 1' F ! � .1 : November 12, 1996 To: Airport Relations Commission -----�--�. From: Kevin Batchelder, City dr��i��o� Subject: Unf'urished and New Business Items DISCUS5ION The following items are on your agenda for discassion: l. MSP Noise 1Vlztigation Program : . On October 28, .1996, tlie MAC adopted the MSP. Noise Mitigation Program based upon the work of the Ma.yor's MSP Mitigation� Committee that was on-going over the.Summer. . Attached is a redlined copy of the recommenda.tion and a copy of the program; as adopted by MAC. � i ) The October 17, 1996 MSP Mitigation Com�i�tt�e made some fi,nal changes to �'���� -' their recommendation since the Airport Relations Commission last looked�at a draft in October. : In particular, IV. Runway �Use was red�.afted to address Bloomi.ngton's conce�ns about noise insulation for homes impacted by the expanded use of the Runway 4/22. ' . ' 2. The Commission should discuss the MSP Noise Mitigation Program and pmvide staff with any directions. The Commission should_con'sider commenting. to City .. ..- .. . Council on this pro�ram, � _ : � . � � . . � �Ton Simultaneous Denartu're�Procedures � The'Fedeial��Aviation Administration (FAA), Great Lakes Region finally �. responded�to our request in January of 1996 to implement Proposal #1 regazding non- simultaneous departures off of Runway 11L, (Please. see attached October 24, �1996 letter from Mr. John Cla.yborn; � FA�; )' It appears :tli�r.e will be� further dela.ys in implementing� this requestec� procedure. � � � � � � ' � � � . ' T$e City is attempting to d�scuss this delay with off'icials at the MAC, the local Tower and �lie.'FAA =�Great Lakes and it is hoped that�some explanation may be� . availa.ble`for the Commission on Wednesday evening. . ' , . . . . � :r, . . .� . �. . " .. , ' . . , ' ' ' • . . 3. Part 150. Sound Insulation Program The CiLy received a letter from Mr. 7effrey.�Iamiel, MAC, responding to a � recent article in the,Sta�Tribune about "unsafe" hom�s that were an outcome of work done by MAC contractors in their efforts to noise insulate homes. (Please see attached letter:) C .�. �� � ( � . :..