2000-04-12 Airport Relations Commission MinutesCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Airport Relations Commission Minutes
April 12, 2000
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Relations Commission was held on Wednesday,
April 12, 2000 in the City Hall Large Conference Room, 1101 Victoria Curve. Chair Beaty
called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. The following members were present: Commissioners
Beaty, Fitzer, Leuman, Roszak and Stein. Also present was Administrator Batchelder.
Commissioner May was excused and Commissioner Petschel was absent.
APPROVAL OF MARCH 15, 2000 MINUTES
Commissioner Roszak moved approval of the February 9, 2000 meeting minutes as submitted.
Commissioner Leuman seconded the motion.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
MINNEAPOLIS RESOLUTION ON PART 150 INSULATION
City Administrator Batchelder stated that the City of Minneapolis had submitted a resolution to
the Metropolitan Airports Commission that states Minneapolis' priorities for the Sound
Insulation Program, including the existing sound insulation program based on the 1996 contours.
The City of Minneapolis desires MAC to sound insulate multi-family residential structures
within the 1996 DNL65 and greater noise contour prior to completing any sound insulation for
single family homes in the new 2005 DNL65 and greater noise contours.
Administrator Batchelder stated that the Metropolitan Airports Commission had requested that
each community provide MAC with our city specific sound insulation priority recommendations.
According to the MAC's geographic information system database, the City of Mendota Heights
does not have any multi-family parcels in the 2005 DNL65 contour. The Commission discussed
the Minneapolis resolution 99R-406 that outlines their specific priority recommendations as
follows:
1. Complete the sound insulation of eligible single family and duplex homes that fall within
the 1996 DNL65 and greater DNL noise contours;
2. Complete the sound insulation of multi-family residential structures within the 1996
DNL65 and greater noise contours;
3. Complete the sound insulation of eligible single family and duplex homes that fall within
the 2005 DNL65 and greater DNL noise contours;
4. Complete the sound insulation of multi-family residential structures within the 2005
DNL65 and greater DNL noise contours;
5. Complete the sound insulation of eligible single family and duplex homes that fall within
the 2005 DNL60 — DNL64 noise contours;
6. Complete the sound insulation of multi- family residential structures within the 2005
DNL60 -DNL64 noise contours.
Administrator Batchelder stated that Minneapolis and Bloomington, and to some extent
Richfield, have a significant number of multi - family dwellings within the existing Sound
Insulation Program. Administrator Batchelder stated other communities such as Eagan,
may desire to have the Part 150 Program proceed directly to the 2005 single - family
homes at the same time the multi - family construction begins under the existing
program. The Commission discussed continuing with the single - family home insulation
at the same time the multi - family insulation occurs. The Commission wanted a
clarification from the Metropolitan Airports Commission on how the current Part 150
Sound Implementation strategy is different from the priorities proposed by the City of
Minneapolis.
The Commission directed Administrator Batchelder to write a letter requesting this clarification.
UPDATE ON THE PART 150 STUDY
Administrator Batchelder provided the Commission with an update of the runway use discussion
that had occurred at the March 24, 2000 meeting of the MASAC Operations Committee.
Administrator Batchelder reviewed the existing runway use system and the five alternatives that
HNTB had used in analyzing runway use alternatives that might provide noise abatement.
Administrator Batchelder stated each of these runway use alternatives was reviewed to create
noise contours that could then be examined on whether they add population and households to
the total noise contour when compared to the 2005 base case contour. Administrator Batchelder
stated that the recommendation made by MAC's consultant was that the analysis indicates that
the base case (the unmitigated 2005 contour), which is based on the assumptions of the Dual
Track FEIS, provides the most benefit to communities as a preferred runway system to any of the
alternatives that were analyzed.
In other words, the consultant is recommending that the best runway use system is that which is
based on the runway use percentages contained in the environmental impact statement for the
2010 NSP Comprehensive Plan.
The Commission discussed the different alternatives that had been analyzed by the Metropolitan
Airport Commission and their consultant. The Commission directed that alternatives No. 2, 4
and 5, in that order, are preferred by our Airport Relations Commission. Those alternatives are
as follows:
Alternative 2
• Maximize use of Runway 17 for departure and Runways 30L /30R for Arrivals
• Second priority — depart Runway 12L/12R, arrive Runway 35
• Head to head operations when needed and operationally feasible
• Third priority — balanced use of Runway 4/22
• Depart Runways 30L and 30R, and arrive Runways 12L and 12R, at all other times.
Alternative 4
• Maximize use of Runway 17 for departure, and Runway 35 for arrivals
• Second priority — depart Runways 12L/12R, arrive Runways 30L/30R
• Head to head operations when needed and operationally feasible
• Third priority — balanced use of Runway 4/22
• Depart Runways 30L and 30R, and arrive Runways 12L and 12R, at all other times
Alternative 5
• Maximize balance/equal priority use of Runways 12L/12R/17 for departure, and
Runways 30L/30R/35 for arrivals
• Head to head operations when needed and operationally feasible
• Second priority — balanced use of Runway 4/22
• Depart Runways 30L and 30R, and arrive Runways 12L and 12R, at all other times
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION BROCHURE
The Airport Relations reviewed the final draft of their brochure and provided staff with some
minor corrections on wording. The Commission felt that a cream or buffed colored paper stock
would work best. The Commission changed the brochure's title to "The Mendota Heights Air
Noise Flyer".
UPDATE ON NOISE ABATEMENT DEPARTURE PROFILES
Administrator Batchelder reviewed the Part 150's discussion on Noise Abatement Departure
Profiles and informed the Commission that Mr. Roy Fuhrman, Technical Advisor for MAC, had
visited with the Mayor and Administrator Batchelder to review in detail the information that had
been provided by MAC Consultants regarding Noise Abatement Departure Profiles.
Administrator Batchelder stated that the information provided by MAC demonstrated that while
Close-In departures were significant in getting airplanes at higher altitudes, under a Close-In
departure procedure an airplane such as a DC9 or 727 is moving at a much slower air speed and
therefore creating more noise on the ground below it. Administrator Batchelder stated that the
information provided by MAC demonstrated that the area of benefit for Close-In departure
procedures would essentially be over the river bottoms, in other words just on the other side of
the fence from the airport. Administrator Batchelder stated that the benefit area for the Distant
departure procedure began at about four miles from brake release and this is the area where you
start to get into Mendota Heights' residential neighborhoods.
The Airport Commission stated that their desire all along on Noise Abatement Departure Profiles
was to do a test of Close-In procedures for a six-month period in order to discover if it indeed is
quieter than the Distant departure procedures. The ANOMS noise measuring system would
provide actual data for this type of a six-month test, as opposed to modeled contours.
ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF VARIOUS REPORTS/CORRESPONDENCE
The Commission reviewed the Technical Advisors Report for the month of February. The
Commission discussed the ten loudest noise events and their desire to see a comparison of the ten
loudest noise events in the year 2000 to five years worth of data on the ten loudest noise events
from previous Technical Advisors Reports. The Commission felt that July of each year would be
the best month to look at this information.
Administrator Batchelder stated that he will be submitting a request form to MASAC regarding
several complaints he's received from people living North of the Eagan/Mendota Heights
corridor about a perceived increase in noise in their neighborhood. Administrator Batchelder
stated the MASAC request form was designed to allow communities to submit these types of
requests so that MAC staff can analyze the specific issue and respond with a report.
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kevin Batchelder
City Administrator