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
.�. �� � ( �
. :..