The URL can be used to link to this page

1987-04-22� - 1. Call to order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Agenda Adoption. 4. 5. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AGENDA APRIL 22, 1987 - 7:30 P.M. Approval of Minutes, April 7. �� Consent Calendar: � a. b. c. d. e. f. g- Acknowledgement of April 6 Park & Rec. Minutes. Acknowledgement of March Fire Department Report. Acknowledgement of the Revised March Treasurer's Report. Approval of the List of Claims. Approval of List of Contractor Licenses. Approval of Cigarette Licenses. _�v- "I Approval of Rubbish Haulers Licenses. End of Consent Calendar. 6. Introduc�ions. y 7. 8. 9. � �. Public Comments. � �,. � � Bid Awards and Hearings. a. Alley �ca,tip n H ARING, 7•45 P M. (Resolution No. 87- 3 4 ) . . J.�-�4� ��b,�,;.�,�„,� � � . 1/ • °%° .'ti! b. I.O.S. Assessment Roll HEARING - 8 00 P�M eso ution ``' No. 87-35) . �--� c. Marriott/�'�-� or L'xen�e HEARING - 8:15 P.M. '�'°1/ ��:�,r, o'...��i��,�1. _ d. Aircraft Noise rdinance HEARING - 8:30 P.M. (Ordinance N9;��G�r� .,Co t�d�ro April 7%�a..�,y-.�in �- �� i�' ,E'� P��` �- - "" Unfinished and New Business: C„• ��. �� a. Resolution of Support for FAA Part 150� oise �t Program� (Reso ution No. 87-36) . -- � , ,a.�� %��y� b. Cit_y,, Position o}� Aircraft Flight Corridor. -�(,f - ft a.e. �-�� c. Plans an Specs for Park Place. (Resolution No. 87-37).-�-f,�( � �� G�� S(�q - lD'Dou.M. y!: f d. Warrior Pond Final Plat Approval. (Resolution No. 87- 3 8 ) • �' � .c�..� �'4 � � - �.,,,� C��.�..� � /� 0 �, c. Street Lights in Industria Pa (Resolu ion.�[oy�87-39 and 8 7 4 0 .�, �� ,� . s�/� � (� �,,,�� /� �� r // . CDBG u�o� f I� rth En S eet .I pr v ents . �.�-c��a'• d '�� _n,, ,� � - � . e. Target Is ues, ��87-1989. -� r ��'� f . Appointment of Receptionist. - a,1�i. �� ,u-� a� � �� .��'f • --� � , � �� 10. Response to Council Comment : a. North End Paving. - • �-rJL�' b. Callahan Lot Filling.- ��-� !�� 11. 12. Comments. Adj ourn . - �: � S 1Y1�� F � s.� . ��i1 �r.+�u . � � . �.�. �, -� .�;� � — �°�w �.�- � -�� ..�� a � f/ .�4-z ,. �. - � � . � � � . � � � �.-� q - ��"-� . '�S� /� � �� . ..�-� Cg�. %i��-`"'` - — � - — C� ,� /�� ,,,�� —� ��1'1 � _ . ! ��, .N ��✓/'� .-✓�1 -� -'@.d . '��,��d�✓ i � � � �— �, ��. ` -- �/� S� — 7. � 5 a. �, • � .� � �.,�a �,�.� � � — � � - -�,� � _ �:v� G�`�v � . �� .w�-� �-�--�z,-• �� i� �L�,/ -1`'- �-a� . ; CITY OF MENDOTA HETGHTS MEMO APRIL 17, 1987 To: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D. F City Adm' i r r� SUBJECT: Aircraft Noise Issues in Agenda Packet Enclosed in �raur agenda materials is a substantial amount af materi.al �or items 8d, 9a, and 9b, ail cancerning aircraft noise issues. Item 9b is a�roposed joint position paper with the City of Eagan on the a�rcraft �light corridor issue, which will serve as the basis for our presentation at the MASAC meeting on April 28. The City of Eagan hopes to get the position paper out to MASAC members early next weekr and would prefer nat to have to wait until after forrnal Mendota Heights City Counaa.l approval on Wednesday evening. Therefora, I would ask that v you take a few moments to read this pasiti.on paper over the weekend, and if you see any prablern areas, let me know first thing Manday marninc� so that we can advise Eagan before they �end it out as a joa.nt paper. Larry Shaughnessy, Bernie Friel and I attended a meeting with Eagan �taf� representatives on Thursday afternoan, and were all in agreement that this pa�ition could be jointly supported by the two cities. KDF:madlr � Page Na. 2412 Apri2 T, 1987 CITY OF MENDOTA HETGHTS - DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNES�TA Minutes oi' the Regular Meeting ' Iield Tuesday, April 7, 1987 Pursuant to due call and notice therea�', the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendo�a Heights, was held at 7:30 o'clock P.M. at City Hall, 750 South Plaza Drive, Mendata Heights, Minnesota. Mayor Mertensotta called the meeting ta order at 7:30 a'clock P.M. The follQwing ntembers were present: Mayar Mertensotto, Councilmembers Blesener, Cummins, Hartmann. Cauncilmember Wi�t had noti�ied the Council that she would be late. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Cummins moved adaption o� the agenda for the meeting, including items containad in the add-on agenda. . Councilmember Fiartmann saconded the motion, Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF Councilmember Hartmann moved approval of the MINU�'ES y mintztes af the March 1'7th meeting. Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Cummins moved approval of the consent calendar as submitted and recommended far approval as part of•the regular agenda, as modified to place item 8,a.Zj2 of the add-on agenda {Spring Creek Acres/Valley Curve bid consi.deration) on the consent calendar, a2ong with authorization for executian o�' a1Z necessary documents contained ' therein. a. Acknowledgment of the minutes af the March 24th Pl.anning Comntission meeting. b. Acknowledgment of the Code Enforcement monthly repart �or March. c. Acknawledgment of the Treasurer's report for March. � with the Fark Commissian proceed and whether it is an athletic complex. Page No. 2414 April 7, 1987 ta determina how ta �'easible to proceed with �After discussion, Councilmember Cummins maved adoption of Resolution No. 87-31, "RESaLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 87-23," the resalution calling for election on general obligation bonds. Councilmember Hartmann secanded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Councilmember Council/Park April 22st. Councilmember Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Hartmann moved to conduct a joint Commission meeting at 7:30 P.M. an Blesener �ecc►nded the mation. DUMP TRUCK BIDS Public Works Director Danielson reviewed his memo regarding ba.ds received for the purchase of a dump truck cab and chassis and �or a dump bady, plaw and wing. Councilmember Blesener moved ta accept the bids and " authorize purchase of a plow, wing, sander and dump body from Boyum Equipment for $26,637.00 and the purchase of a cab and chassis from North 5tar Internatianal far their $34,550.00 trade-in alternate. Cauncilmember Cummins seconcied the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays; Q HEARING: STRATFORD Mayor Mertensatto apened the meeting for �he WOODS IMFROVEMENTS purpose of a public hearing on prapasad sanitary sewer, water, street and storm sewer improvements ..to serve the Stratford Waods Addition and adjacent ' areas. The Council acknowledged a le�.ter from Mrs. Angeline McDonald abjecting to assessments projected ta be assessed against her property. , Mayar Mertensotto asked for questions and camments from the audience. In respanse to a question from Mrs. McDonald's legal caunsel, Public Work� Director Danielsan stated that the McDonald property is a Iong parcel Page No. 2413 April 7, 1987 d. Acknowledgment of a letter from Mn/DOT regarding installation and maintenance of traffic signals at the I-494 north and south - ramps at Pilot Knob Road. ' e. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated-April 7th and attached hereto. f. Approval of the list of Rubbish Hauler licenses dated April 7th and attached hereto. g. Approval of the list of cigarette licenses dated April 7th and attached hereto. h. Approval of the List of Claims dated April 7, 1987 and totalling $181,465.52. i. Acknowledgment of a letter from City Planner Howard Dahlgren and a proposed timeline for preparation of the Highway 55 Corridor Study. j. Adoption of Resolution No. 87-29, "RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE SPRING CREEK ACRES (IMPROVEMENT NO. 87, PROJECT NO. 1) AND VALLEY CURVE ESTATES (iMPROVEMENT NO. 86, PROJECT NO. 5)." k. Adoption of Resolution No. 87-30, "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING READVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE SPRING CREEK ACRES (IMPROVEMENT NO. 87, PROJECT NO. 1)." 1. Adoption of Resolution No. 87-31, "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING READVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE VALLEY CURVE ESTATES (IMPROVEMENT NO. 86, PROJECT NO. 5)." Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 , PARK BOND Park Commission Chair Jim Stein and Vice Chair Bob REFERENDUM Doffing were present to discuss the status of the proposed park referendum in light of the School Board's March 31st rejection of the proposal. They recommended that the Council rescind its action calling the referendum and hold a joint meeting Page No. 2425 April 7, 1987 fronting an Victaria and can be divided to create one or two new lots. He explained the method used --- - in calculating the praposed McDanald assessment. Mrs. McDonald's legal counsel stated that she objects to the project. He stated that sh� had not objected to the plat becau�e she understood fram conversations with the develaper, Terry Dobie, that she would have no assessments, but now there are considerable assessments propased for her. He sta�ed that the lot is 350 by 150 feet. He stated that in conversatians with Mr. Danielson he understands that the amount has been reduced to one assessment which could be deferred. He stated that Mrs. McDanaSd has agreed ta his suggestion to divide the westerly 110 feet of the property to create a new lot to be platted in the Dabie �ubdivision so that she doesn't have to worry about assessments. He asked tha� the plat be amended ta include the proposed Iot. Mr. Dobie informed the Caunail on baundary prablems discovered as the result of the survey of his property. He stated that the corners are faur feet from where Mrs. McDonald feels her praperty corners - " are, He stated that he intends to resolve the boundary dispute with the owners af the property to the south o� his plat. Mrs. Christensen, 1945 South Victaria, stated that faur feet of her property is alsa in dispute and she abjects to the project on that basis. After discussion, Councilmember Blesener moved to continue the hearing on the Stratford Woods proposed improvements ta May 5th and to direct Mr. Dobie ta resolve the problems over boundary lines pr.iar ta that meeting. Councilmember Hartmann secanded the mation. A�es: 4 Nays: 0 HEARiNG: PARK Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for the PLACE EASEMENT purpose of a public hearing on an application VACATIQN far the vacation of a watermain easement in the Park Place plat. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questians and comments-� Page No. 2416 April 7, 1987 from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Blesener moved that the hearing be closed at 8:10 � P.M. - . Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. � Ayes : 4 �- Nays: 0 - Councilmember Cummins moved adoption of Resolution No. 87-32,� "RESOLUTION APPROVING VACATION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT." Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 BOND EXEMPTION, Mr. & Mrs.�Gene Winge were present to request an WINGE exemption from the provision of the house moving ordinance which requires submission of a performance bond. Mrs. Winge stated that they have purchased a new home constructed by the Hennepin County Vo-Tech which they plan to have moved onto a lot they own on Knob Road. She stated that the house is completely finished outside and inside and that they will have to put in a foundation and install plumbing and heating. She stated that the performance bond requi�ed by t�e ordinance would cost $10,000 and that they could not afford to proceed with their plans if they have to provide the bond. The Council acknowledged a letter from the Winges' and a report and recommendation from the Code Enforcement Officer. Mayor Mertensotto cautioned them to be sure that their mover provides them with a copy of his insurance policy which should hold them harmless and to be sure that the City is insured under the policy. Councilmember Hartmann stated that there have been at least two occasions where houses have been moved and have been left in an unfinished state for over 1 1/2 years He pointed out that City ordinances require that a garage be constructed and expressed concern that there be some agreement between the applicants and the City which spells out a timetable for finishing the home and garage. Page No. 2417 April 7, 1987 Councilmember Witt arrived at 8:12 P.M. Councilmember Cummins moved to waive the � requirement for a performance bond on t.,�e conditiori that the applicants comply with all conditions required by staff and execute an agreement, to be prepared by staff, stipulating the conditions and a timetable for completion. _ Councilmember Witt seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 HEARING: ZONING Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for the ORDINANCE purpose of a public hearing on a proposed amendment AMENDMENT to Section 13.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow kenneling at animal hospitals. The Council acknowledged a report and recommendation from the Public Works Director. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Cummins moved that the hearing be closed at 8:17 P.M. - - " Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Cummins moved adoption of Ordinance No. 231, "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS ZONING ORDINANCE." Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 HEARING: AIRCRAFT Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for the NOISE ORDINANCE purpose of a public hearing on adoption_of the ' proposed aircraft noise ordinance. He informed the audience that Councilmember Cummins will not be � able to be present for the entire discussion and has asked that the hearing be continued. Councilmember Cummins moved to continue the hearing on the proposed aircraft noise ordinance to April 22nd at 8:30 P.M. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Page No. 2418 April 7, 1987 Nays: 0 CASE No. 87-01, On the reeommendation of the Planning Commission, SCHWEIGER Councilmember Hartmann moved to grant a 2.7 foot rear yard setback v�ariance at 2291 Ocala Court to allow the addition of a screen porch 27.3 feet from " the northwesterly property line. ' Councilmember Witt seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 . Councilmember Cummins was excused from the meeting at 8:27 P.M. CASE NO. 87-06, Mr. Ed Adrian was present to request approval of ADRIAN his application for 30 foot front yard setback variance at 1549 Dodd Road to allow the reconstruction of an existing breezeway. After discussion, Councilmember Witt moved approval of a 30 foot front yard setback at 1549 Dodd to provide a zero foot setback to allow reconstruction of an existing breezeway, subject to any conditions imposed by staff. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 87-07, Mr. James Kilburg was present to request approval KILBURG of a 32 foot front yard setback variance at 819 Cheri Lane to allow construction of a new home 40 feet from the front property line. Mr. Kilburg stated that there is a large black walnut tree at the back of the lot and that he had designed his plans to build around the tree. He informed the Council that although the Planning Commission has recommended only a 12 foot variance, (a 60 foot setback) he would still like the 32 foot variance for which he applied. He stated that there are 300 ' feet between his proposed•home and the next home, and he informed Council on existing setbacks in the neighborhood. He stated that a fifty foot setback would keep the home away from the root structure of the tree, and that at the 60 foot setback, the structure would be 15 feet from the tree. Mayor Mertensotto felt that if Mr. Kilburg disagrees with the Planning Commission recommendation he should go before the Commission again to ask that he would -cannot delay meeting. Page No. 2419 April 7, 1987 for reconsideration. He indicated like to begin construction soon and until after the next Commission After discussion, Councilmember Blesener moved to grant a variance to the front yard setback at 819 Cheri Lane on the condition that the house and garage are no more than 20 feet in front of the black walnut tree and that the house is no closer than 50 feet from the front property line. Councilmember Witt seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 MARRIOT LIQUOR The Council acknowledged receipt of a preliminary LICENSE report from the City Clerk on an application for APPLICATION on-sale limited service hotel liquor license from the Marriott Corporation. The Council discussed a recommendation from the Clerk to authorize Police Chief Delmont to conduct an out-of-state investigation by visiting a similar Marriott facility to determine that the limited service hotel license is appropriate. , u Councilmember Hartmann moved to establish a public hearing on Marriott's application for liquor license for April 22nd and to authorize Police Chief Delmont to conduct an out-of-state investigation. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 RATCHYE PROPERTY The Council acknowledged and discussed a memo from DEFERMENT REQUEST Public Works Director Danielson relative to a request from Mr. & Mrs. Boyd Ratchye for deferment of a portion..of the assessments which will be proposed,in the assessment roll for the Rolling Woods Subdivision in 1988. Mr. Danielson explained that the.Ratchyes have a prospective buyer for their large parcel of property and a concensus of the Council that the assessments in excess of the amount attributable to a single lot will be deferred will resolve some difficulties the owners have had in marketing the property. It was the concensus of the Council to direct staff Page No. 2420 April 7, 1987 to write a letter to the Ratchyes indicating that it would take no action to commit a future Council to a decision but that it has been past practice . that property owners may reque�t deferments at the ,� ' time of assessment hearing� and that it is Council's practice to consider and take action on the requests at the hearings. COUNCIL CONIl�IENTS Councilmember Witt informed the Council that she would be late to the April 21st joint meetiag with the Park Commission. Public Works Director Danielson responded to questions from Councilmember Blesener about upgrading o� Wagan Wheel Trail. Pnblic Warks Director Danielson respanded to ques�tions from Councilmember Wi.tt about fil.ling being done an the former Callahan property on Mara.e at Dodd. ADJOURN There being no �urther busa.ness ta come befare the Council, CounciZmember Hartmann moved that the meeting be adjourned. Councilmember B1.esener seconded the motion, Ayes: 4 ' Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 9:13 P.M. ATTEST: Gharl.es E . n Mertensc�tto Mayor � Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk , LIST OF CONTRA.CTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 7, 1987 Excavating License: �ir��wT��r��r��r�� JMS Gontracting, Inc. � Glenri Rehbein Excavating, Inc, - Roseville Plumbing and Heating Ryan Plumbing and Heating Sauve and Parenteau 5ewer and Water Valley-Rich Company, Inc. � General Contractor�s License: _----------------------------- Boschee Homes, Inc. Craw£ord-Merz Construction Company Ctzstom Poals, Inc. Hayes Contractors, Inc. Industrial Sprinkler Corparation Mi.dwestern Mechanical Minar Construction North Star Services Nu-Hame Construction Providence Builders Corporation Jim Stevens Construction, Snc. Twin City Fireplace Company Masonry Licenses ---------------- E.M. Kjeseth Masanry Sta-Lor Masonry Twin Cities Concrete . I987 Rubbish xaular Licenses; . . +----------------------------- jAction Dispasal System, Inc. � Mendota Hts, Rubbish Service� ( Poor Richard's, �nc. I Tom Thumb Food Markets Construction, Inc. Systems 1987 Cigarette Licenses to be Appraved by Council -------------------------------------------------- Country Club Market, Inc. Fischer'� Tawing _ " Par 3 Galf, Inc. SQS Convenient Mart Tempca Manufacturing Texaco Tom Thumb Faod Markets , - s � T� � i� , s � �_is :_� � i.._ i .' + * �� MINUTES - APRIL 6, 1987 The regular meeting af the Mendata Heights Park and Recreation Commission was held on Manday, April 6, I987, in the City Council Chambers. Members �,resent were: Chair Jin� Stein, Bev Lachenmayer, Marcia Knittzg, Garol Damberg, Bab Leffert, Bob Doffirzg and Vicki Katz. Also present were City Administrator Kevin Frazell and Barry Warner from Barton Aschman. Chair Stein called th� meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. APPROVAL OF Minutes of the February 10 meeting were MINUTES approved as subrnitted. SCH�OL BOARD Chairman Stein introduced discussion of the VETO OF JOiNT recent School Board veto of the joint �owers POWERS AGMT. agreement regarding the Henry Sibley High Schoal Athletic complex, which virtually killed the bond referendum as it �tands. The Commission discussed optians and alternate sites and recoinmended the April 22 referendum be cancelled. The concensus af the Cammissian is to..continue to try to work =toward agreement with the Schoo2 Board on the Sibley site. Two Schaol Board pasitions are up for election in May, it might lead to a more favorable disposition of the mat�er for a future bond issue. LIQUOR Parks Commi�sianers agreed unanimously to a CON5UMPTION resolutian cansistent with Schaol property ISSUE restriction��on consumptian of alcohol on Sibley complex premises. Such a resolution could be included in future bond issue negatiations. _ MEEZING WITH The Commissioners recommended a meeting with CITY COUNCIL the Mendota Height� City Council and Mayor ta ciarify issues for continued discussian of a park bond i�sue. Gity Administrator Frazell will arrange and advise, COPPERFIELD/ Dick Putnam of Tandem Corporation, presented H�AMPSHIRE maps and diagrams of proposed par1� space in ESTATES PARK the development. High water marks and 10°s LAND DEDIC- reguirement have led ta some changes. He ATION discussed grading and seeding the site and perhaps the necessity to farega some improvements as of expense of additional 1and, -.,.. acquisition. The Commission members recommended the 10% minimum park land dedication be maintained. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Vicki L. Katz Secretary .� ::�iRE DEDi�ilTtiEi#T MOMIi�LY WORit �ERFORM�iNCE �OR Miii2CN 1�A9?: :Al.LS FOR MONi'li :: flRf : f1RE : PfR�ElriT =: GLEAN �'lONTHLY: 6EH �fFICEt� RE�CUf:�PfC1AL :SPECI�tL: 28 =€ CALLS : C�'I�LS wATTEqDED = UP = DRILL : MTG � MTG : DRILL : ACT. : ACT. : YF¢4 TO DATE ATT'D ATT'D TN#S 2 5 2 5 ` � AflM �„ �9 €� MONTH € YEAR : Y�R :; NQURS : NOURS € HRS. € H4UR'� ; HOURS ; HDURS : HOUR� ;HRS * :z = ; : :Nt EF John Mac2ko : i 3 21 ' 36� 2 ; 5 2 5 ?3 �SST. Bill Lerbs 6 14 24'4& _'_. Z 7 2 44 :, :APT. Keith S#ein 18 41 69� 2 4 2 3 � �su3 Dreeiatt =€ 8 �3 39� := Z = 2 2 = _ _ Jamie Lerbs 11 22 3?'� 2 5 2 �likeCoonan 10 20 34� 2 5 2 }ord Sk'erven 8 20 3�9� 2 2 2 :d �d�ian =' 9 2Q z 34'� `` 2 j 2 2 s ` : : �a# Kni ht 13 25 42'� 2 5 2 2 �eter �ilT�rd 13 26 �4'9� 2 5 2 )ani�el Barrett 8 24 41'� 2 5 2 = z = �APT. John Neska 23 43 73� 2 5 2 5 3i11 Chisi�r 23 41 b9'�b 2 2 2 Harc ConnoTT f i " 27 46'� 2 fi 2 2 itev� Carlsoa 10 i 7 29'� 2 2 2 3ick ��rirn 1 i ��D ��t'� 2 2 � �eor Lo�e 11 26 44'� := 2 7 2 5 � 1i m Per�ron 12 30 51 '� 2 S 2 :�PT �eff �fenfts i 3 �0 3�'� 2 5 2 1 _et oack 25 35 59'� _; 2 5 � 2 z�ur e No�ck Sr. 1�3 �3 39�;� � 3 2 _ _ _amber# Derks 12 27 46'� 2 5 2 r�r Pk�k Jr. �� 43 �3� 2 3 2 fed Husnik 8 17 299� � 5 Z '�i ke Mac� tc� � 2 42 � fi'� 4 5 2 Ceain Perron 9 15 25� 4 S 2 :APT. Ken P(oack i� �8 4?'9� � 5 2 5 �o m 1+�ei nzettel # 7 2 fi 44:� 2 fom Olund 13 �Q 3�'� John !s kko := 22 4S 7C�9� _: 4 2 2= = 2 lim Kilbur � 11 24 �#1'� Z 5 2 S tand Mctdamara 10 17 29'� 2 5 2 :rick Schmidt �4 �t8 81'� � 5 2 4aron Coa#es i' 19 40 = 68'� 2 2 ` 2 ' � __ _ TOTAL �ATTEhIDED 34 3Q 3U 5 5 0 0 TQiA� MAN H011RS fr8 124 50 t� ' 2 0 0 Q _ __ _ _ � = x � THIS MONTH �.AST 1"t0#�iTH: =.I�ST YEAR: ; ; ; aVE. RUNSIMAN 14.09 :��X}�GXXXXX?�: ��{XX� �l+E. MEtd�"Rtit� 17.11 15.59 1 b.95 • � . . �• _ 3V'' � FQR YEAR 46.36 42,79 49.�3 � MENDOT� HEl6HTS FIRE DERARTMENT - „_,_ MAitCN 198? MQNTHLY REPORT F' �L1,S 1�. 87-Q33 THRE! 87-OS9 NllMBER OF C�4l.LS 28 � �ii�E AE.�Rt•!S DISP�TCHED_ NUNBER STRU�TURE CONTEtiTS MISC_ TOTdCS TO DATE CQME"iEiZCf�L 2 _ ��OI1 $ZOQ RESiUEN3'i�L �FENECLE FiRfS CAPlTl�ACT FIRES {AL�.} REa�UE MEt�(CAL �tSSI�TS GR�S,BRUSH � NO Vr�LUE Hr��1RD0�JS SITUATION FALSE AI.�RM GRIMIh1t�l FALSE AL�RM - COMMERCIAL Fl AL.�RM - RESIpENCE (�OD iNTENT QTNER - TO�T�L CALlS LO�C�TIiiN OF' fIRE �I.�RMS: I"IE�IBOTA� HEIGHTS Z5 ME�IDOTA SUMFISM Lr�KE LI l'f D�LE 0 3 �1 1 � �5Q0 �� V � - $1,OOII 1 " S2�5Q0 �7,5�0 �� $Q $7Q0 $2,5£10 10 M[�NTNLY LUSS TOT�lLS MEN�OT� NEI6NTS 7 #LL FIRES, ALL ARE�S $3,200 �$,700 t MEND. WTS. ONLY �TRUCTlGOPJTENTS $t ,Z00 MEND. HiS.Of�L't MI^aCELL.�NEOU� �7,SQ0 1 MEND. HTS. TOT�L Lt1SS TO DATE � $8,700� 5 - - BILLIa6 F01� SER�'ICES - . 1 ~ -�EHCi� THIS MONTH " TO D�TE 28 M{VlB07 $0 MiL�. RR � $0 TO DATE LA�T YE�R CNR RR � 1,055 $1,055 tiTEiER�: 52 46 $0 Q 4 TOTaLS. $1,055 $1,055 � 4 5 FIRE M�RSHA�L`S TIME ��OR MONTH • 2 5 INSPECTIONS � : • -, 8.� OTHER 1 � 2 ` INYESTIGATtONS � � • TOTAL 28 59 62 RE-iNSPECTiON 3M'CIRK PERFO�tMED HOURS Ta QATE LAST YEAR MEET€ NGS FIRE CAI.LS S51 10�07 1047 ME�lt�S �9 16�# 81 �DM1Nl�TRATIO� D' i 134 284 214 44�Ec�cl� CLfAN-UR 68 t 94 166 SPEC(#�C PROJECT� 5PECIALTRAINING 0 14 0 ADMINIaTAT1�E :,. 11 � 348 ' 106 TdTAL FI RE MARSIIAL 55.5 131 15'9 Tt#T��S � o4h.5 214� t t 7?3 REM�RK�: I _._ _.-�� . . 33 55.5 SEE OTHEi2 Slt}E FOR �YE�IF3€S SYNOPSIS OF MONTHLY CALLS - _� The department-responded to 28 fire calls-during the month of March. ' Three of these calls resulted in damage due to fire. The first f ire involved a f ire loss, was on Sunday, March 1, at 7:07 A.M. at GNB, 1110 Hwy. 110. _ When the first apparatus arrived, firefighters found heavy smoke in the first floor of the bldg. Upon further investigation by firef ighters with breathing , apparatus, it was determined that `the source�of the fire was due to a heater ` malfunction. The heater was used to regulate water temperature for the testing --- of batteries.--When the heater malfunctioned, it burned through and fell on � top of the batteries, creating an acidic smoke. The fire was finally contained with a f ire extinguisher, and damage due to fire control was held to a minimum. Estimated damage was set at $200. The second callthat involved+f ire loss was to a residence at 1464 Cherry Hill Road. When the.department arrived,._there.was smoke in the house. However, the f ire had been extinguished and all that was needed was ventilation. The fire started when a chair.that was moved from the dining room into the kitchen apparently bumped the stove and turned on a burner. The occupants of the home had left to go out for lunch. When they returned, the house was full of smoke and _ " the smoke alarms were operating. It was apparent that thelt�ai� from the burner had melted a plastic utensil server and started a fire on the stovetop. Damage to the �� -�cabinets and overhead fan was estimated at $500. ' ' ---- Due to the very dry weather,-the department responded-to seven grass fires, two of these grass fires were major fires, the first of which was started by a. . train along Hwy. 55.' This train caused fires that burned an area from the old '- Country Club Warehouse all the way through MendQta Heights.Road and �Iwy. 55. The _second fire was also started�by�a'train down in the river bottoms area and Hwy. 13 and 494. Firefighters from Eagan helped us fight this grass f ire as they were also out on a grass fire started in their City just south of 494. The fire was controlled and more or less left to burn so that incidents of another grass fire -'- would not occur: `� �� ` " �` - _ -- _ __ _ . __. .._ .._ Y .. . . --- • ""' �"SYNOPSIS OF MONTHLY TRAINING _ -'- - '-�" ' "` ' ` -' ' -- �' " ' ' -- --- The monthly drill was used to recertify-the firefighters in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This was a five hour course that was taught by paramedics --from DR Ambulance. 24 firefighters were recertified. — SETTING SPECIAL DRILLS '" � '-= � ' ' �__.___�__ __. _�:__ �, r._____ ' ' � .___. � The new rookie f iref ighters, Jim Perron, Kevin Perron, and Aaron .Coates, continued with Firef ighter I training through the Dakota County Vo-tec system. also took part in our monthly rookie drill at the fire station. " .f; :< " ' - . ,� ' They . •_:- 0 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS TRESURER'S REPORT, MARCH, 1987 BALANCE DAK�TA CC}UNTY STATE BANK - Checking Account $1i6,090.41 Savings Account 428.42 Savings Cert. 9-24-87 @ 5.55� 25,000.00 $191,518.43 Collateral - Bonds 20d,00d.00 Gov't. Guar. 125,000.00 CHEROKEE STATE $ANK C.D. due 5-4-87 @ 5.750 $425,000.00 Savings Cert. 8-87 @ 5.414 13,952.59 $438,952.59 Collateral. - Bands 1,300,000.00 Gov't. Guar. 100,000.00 U.S. TREASURY BILLS Due 5-24-8'7 800,000 7-30-8'7 700,000 GOV'T, SECURITIES FUND� I0.7% 775,59&.44 �f�5�,640:83= �� $1,46I,237.27 1, 200, 0{)0. 00 TOTAL FUND� AVAILABLE: $3,291,708.29 COLLATERAL 325,000.00 1,400,000.00 , pept 10-a�dmin Dept 50-RdsBridge -- ----- --- -- - - -- - ----- -•-- - ----- - -15-En4r •- -- ---, - -60=Utilities -------- - ---- ----- 4/21/87 CL7�IJ1S ISST 20-Polic.v 70-Pazks ` __ Unpaid D�tailed Check Register Page 1 _ � City of Mendota Heights �'{�]� 30-Fire ------•--80-Plannim� --------- - - --•'..- ---- -- --- -•- /��JT 40-C�0-- -�-- - - --- 90=Ani.mal Control - --- -/� _. _ �Invoice P.O. Check Invoice �r Number Number Final Dat� Aecount Code Amaunt l pir Comm Inc 55073 E 0140:045030 21.00� Invoice Total 21.�0 __ _____, _V� ` ChQck Total __ 21_00 ? Albinson 379995 E 05430510513 ' 17.40 ------ ---- --�-�----� -- ---- -------Invoice Total 17.40 _ _.__.-._.-. - ---- ----.._.__.-. ,_.__. _.-- --�--- ------ �•- Check �Total � 17.40 5 Earl F iinderaor� Fis�oc 686655 _ 6B8935 ,._ 691225 � _ 2B335 - a8 H&J Auto Supply_� . 62156 __ 62627 —•--- 62854 09 Board of Witer Comm ! E 01430503030 79.40 Invoice Total 79.40 _,^ �,__ __ _ _..___ � E 01442005050 119. 00 - Invoice Total 19B.40 � E 01442005050� 43.05 Invoica Total 241.45 Check Total 241.45 E 01421007070 6.75 �' ` Invoice Total 6.75 � E 01421'002020 27.84 __� __, Invoice Total `_ 34.59 Ch�ck Total 34.59 _ _.___ __ _ _ _ ___ E 01433044020 __ __ _ _ S. 63 - ----- � Invoice Total ^ 5.63 E 01433049050 6.06 Invoice Total 11.69 E 01433044020 34,30 - -•-•-•--- — -- -----�nGoic� �TotaI---- 65.99 � Check Total 65.99 �� E 01442331530 77.40 E 01442531050 17.63 E 01442331070 - - 17.63 � E 15442531060 • 17.63 � � . ��Invoiee Totial 130.29 - ---•--26472- ------------�- -- - - •----- -- 'E 01442547070 -- ----- ---�-•�500.00 v-- � Invoice Total 630.29 264B5 __ ____ __E 95446082200 540.63 _ Invoice Total 1,170.98 — -•- --- ----------•----- --•-- -------- Ch�ck�Tofal -----i,-170. 98 --- - g . �.-. .!r C ♦ .. � ' ' S..•,a�� . � z � .�a. � rr� r-. o�i _.-�, - a �'�'� �S �rF� [..,e�-�1. .A'!aL' ' ' � ... � . . . _ � ..'.� .� ' � ...�.. � F.: Unpaid Detailed Check R�gister _ _ pa9� �_ � �J � � City of Mcndota Haight� � - � - ' "'- ~ - '� � . � ' InvoicE�._.,_-P.�.-�.-------Gheck -.___ __. _.- --- - -_._._.. __ _ _ _. ,,. lnvoice � _ � �� Number `_ Num4ar Final_ _Datr _ _Account Gnd� _�_ _ _ . _ Amounb �� City Motor SupP1Y - -- --191282 -- - - ... _ _. _ __ _._.. _ . g 014s3044020 - - � 46. 35 -- - 6 01k33049050 31.49 - ----------------- -- -••------- ----- - -•- - _�' Invoice Total � � 71.$5 " 191336 E 0143304905Q " 18.06 E 01433fd4907Q! 8• 85 '- _ �" E 1s433049060 _.. ___»-.l---------�-8.25_.� E 0 E 4s'a04402Q1 f 7. 01 - --"-"---"- --��'� .--- Invoice �7ota1 �--- � ---123.42 _ MT � J � 292362 -�. - - - -- ' E 0143a0J44020 -- - . 22. 9's -- - E 0143050.:i050 • 9.26 ' � E 01430507070 . - --� -•--9. 26 E 1543QJ50fa060 _ 9.I5 _ - - Invaice Total 173.82' 9f473� E OI433Q46tD30 �� 87.87 Invoice Total 201.09 � Check Total 201.09 Dahlgren Shardlow Ltban E 0242�223580 _1,242.00 "� E 0142801358QJ 1'00.00 E 16422Qt1350W __�I!_i2S.14 ` "-'""�" '� ' Invoice Tot�l 2�467.14 ' Ch�eck Tqtal 2,467.14 y s xc era aa � �' �M� ^��0�3304k020 � 12. 00 Invoice Tota2 32.00 Check Total 12.00 6aR Corp 54401 f3 011210 i98•�=� � ._ _ .� .�.�.�_______...- ---- ------- Invaic'e Totai' 198. 75 Ch'eck Total' 148:75 i IDS Life Insurance 13678� �� G 012072 ^� �Se•�� Invoice Total 250.00 Chtck Total 250.00 i Tom Knuth E 9g441�822�e f8'4$ —""' —`"-' `_��26441563700 "'- 18.90 E 29441583800 18.6� -"'�----- --------- S 31441563900- _ �- 37:"80 ti 6 324415BA000 Z•`�4 � I»vo i ce�'fot a 1 96. 81 �_ __-------_ �_...� _..- --------Ch�ek Tcta2-- -- --.._�__96.81�-- :�Mq'iassocla �s 2804 �� a' �� E 02430505050 ��+ � T � 255, S5' y�y E 01430:+07070 165.55 ,s�i'ilf'�'�''"°"""�'i�'�""ar�w�X;alridSi'1i��q'-�+.wrt�,c..ai..v..::y�f=i,�N _.,c�:.'if''x, v.....:;i.�-{�`�I �,f,}:�"�=- � �,a..(Ya" �._- • �x:.;••. __r.-•.,..: e _ .,.. 4" ,(��1y� �' }(,��. �,ycw� f4'rh�'Qi$3�"�-^LS2:n.. ��fY i/��1�1� W��WOY�/'�ij.l� MI Y MI�OiI"� YIY��I��i1��•a3�4':. 0 0 Unpaid Detailad Check Reegister ' W____��_ ,_ _ Pagv 3_ '- City of Mendota Heighta � � � '�� ' � ..-- �- Invoicr� � P.O. "-----Check �`" - -----,�-._�._._ _--___ -Invoics'-- - �r ' __ _ Number V� Number Final_ y Date __ __r_� Account Codm ry� M T Amount�i �_ ________..._.��---- -- •- �-- - - -- -�-" - E I543050606� -. �..___ _��------ --- -' 165.5s ^--- Invoice Total 496.65 8973 E 81433531+D50 27.50 _ " '-'- � � E 0143,3531070�~ �27. 50� E 15433531060 27-50 ., -- -��_�___ _.._...__.��. _� ---- Invoice Tot�al 57'3.15 �- --- '-'—' '---- -- -- -- --�---._.- ----'- ----- -' ---��.,.--'----- Check Total ` � � ��579. 15 4 Med Centers Hp'--- -- � -- ' - 277170 � � G 012074- - - -• 436. 10 -- -- ' E @141.3111�D10 841, 25 ... �- -----�'-- -- ------ E 05413120513 -. J� �-_� ..-_69 i. 45 E 014131@20^c.-0 1,689.25 --�---! � E 014131QIk040 � � � - I75. 00 E 01413105050 713.05 " E 154131fl6�D60 143..60 E 0141314707@ 231.45 " �� "- �� Invoice Total� 4� $19. I5 Check Tatal �4�829.15 6� 'ota Hghts Rubbish 23 1/2^ E 01428031530 l�4.50 Invoics Tota2 34.50 � '� 37U " E W142803i0"50 19.15 �- _. --.------�.� .�__.._.__�—. � m�42803i070�'"� —' 19: i5� E 15428031060 19.2Qf —"- -"—� Invo'ice Tota 92.00 _�� .._ -_-__---.�_--. .—_ __.. Check Totalu- 7 M�tro Wast� Cantrol � � E 15444&05050 � Invoicm Tatal .. Check Total e Midwest Siren Sarvice E�0I9 E 074330000Ql0 '- "—"'--'-J -- Snvoa�ce Tot�al 92. 00 �� I 1 * 954 � 2� � 11 � 95�r. 25 11,954.2� 6$. 41b .' __. 6'�'u. %+0 Ctieck�'o�i�-- 62:40 4 1�inn��o a enefii ssn -_� �G �I2074..-�"' i'""-,...-- 140.-4s__..,�.. - ' E Qi14132 S 14fi0 138. 00 - "-" `-��E-054I3110515�"'-" ""� �301':00 E 0141310202@ 362.4k .'�""—�.".- -"'E-f54i3106060 __�_..-. ---._ ----- 16.49 __-_ E 014131Q17070 8$. btD - � 0 f4 i� f 05050 �99.-0QI - E 83413102323 60.00 _ ��-------•-------� @14131�32020 —•---�..._ ..____-525.00 _.�r. Invoice Total 1,521.48 Chsck Total 1,521.48 . . . `. . :. . �,..... ..,. . ,. . . . .. • , � .•�, n . , _. � r.: _�..._ :.� . �:...:..._�,.x. . .t n-,. ..er _ :., r-. .. �..,. '.. ::. <��.- :e _ c..�ve:;, ?'�u:o _-.=aS H,r,<� .. :*a' ' Unpaid Detailad Check Regist�r � Q�9� 4 __ _,__. __�.. _. �ity of Mandota Hcights - •- -�- - Y --� ---� -� --- ---- �- ---�-- -. '--�- ---Ir�voirsv � P.O. - - _^.- .Check -._-- ----. �___.� _Y. ._ _._ . � i»voic: - ---- ��» Number Number Final Date Account Code Amour�t �_ 3�linnesota Teamaters Loc �20 " � 01207� f44.rIl0 -�-� Invoice Total 144.00 1 Mn Dspt Publia Safety 870043 � Nelsan-Radio�aromunications 14294 Check Totai E 0142Qf062020 '--"-�-"-""' Invoice 7ota1 eck Total 144. 00 zso. mm "_'.____ 150.00 �� 150, a0 E �14330450^c0 23.25 �--- Invoice Total 23.25 Ch�ck Total � ` 23.25 9 NorthQrn Stat�as Power E 01421231530 292.38 - ---- --E 0 2 42 3 231 050 �383.9J4 E 15421231060 383.04 "" -' E-0142 f231070 - 383: 02 E 0142l232070 85.Sd ` 157i��S24006� 14. 72 ' E 01422131530 310.50 ." `-'"�-'� i - E 01421142050 �----l- �96. 90 E 0142223Q30�0 334.28 "' "- _ �- �E 0142113^cO70 33.19 E 1g421140060 - 247.52 ' E 014211310g0 J' 1 fi6. 46 E 01421131070 156,45 "`� -'-'--�-" -E 1''S421i31050 �i66.�6 . Invoice Total 3,063.44 0 Narthw�sterrt H�22 F�lephonQ 3 Oxyg�n 5ervics Co. 2230 �� ___ ChQck Total 3.063,44 E 03481010515 76.93 _ _ -__._� - E 03421002020 ---- --.-_._._-_�_2IZ:02 E 154210R160B0 317.21 -E�0142�iQ@50�0 -"-'__ "�"�_ aG:-57 E 0I4210Q17070 6y.87 - -'E-01421 01 1010-�-�--�-^ • '286� 9� Invoice Total 995.5� Check Total 9�:�. S� E 0143fl5050St3 - 12. bQf _�-'J_.��Trivoice �Total�- 12.6@ � 2831 J��..-�"--- -_- -------E 014305030�0u �-----�---`� ----- 8, 40 ti Invoice Total 21,_00 ti Check 7ota1 21.00 T Pine Send Paving 120 , � E_01442205050 �_ , 123.1'� �^_ _ _._..----_.�- ---------•----- ----_ �. �_`._ ._ -� -Fnvd3cr Tatai � 123. 18 _. � . .� �• .,.... � , . , _ . . ,. .�; s�,r.'. � ` �� ` � �^ �:k.� .....�: .oJ -•i`•• ..,, .a ,..,!`� ..�� ..:b� .�2. -;^ ,,.:•,_.,t� . a�� ;::, �rr.+•a;��_ .... ., -.• ..,.,...::. •<,. . ,_. , � . .,. �.c.+U '.. ...,......-.., � - � < � .�_� . .. .... . „. . �. _ . ._�.:, ,. ,,,--r.. . _ �. .. .. � �_ _Unpaid D�tailed Ch�ck Regi��r page g T. �. -'- City ofi Mendota Heaghts -�--�- -- — -". . _ . .- --.._.___.,...._.._. _ _._ __. . �_.. _ .-. .�-.-_�Invoic�+ P.O. �� Ch�ek-� _--- ----- ---- .-"' .-__ ___. - `Znvoica ------- '� Number Number Finai Dat�e Account Code � Amount -_�.,_. ._ __.___ -- -- - -• -- --• --- - - �----... -- ----- -- - -- Check 7ota1 � 123.15 Publ ic Empl Ret Assn "'�-,- _� ._ _-.._.--.-- ------�--- - - G �y12074 -- --- -' _.-__.. �� _ - - -� . _9. 00 -- -- E 05413210515 9.00 ---- •----• E 01413111010 _� � �--- --- 18. 00 � _� _ _ E 01413102020 _ � ___ 9.00 � ' 'Invaice Total 45.00 .__._.. -------- - - --_ ._---- - -�-------�-•-- --- ---------- -------- -- Ch¢ek Total- --- -- -- -. _ _. -45. �dQ! +_� S&T Office Products� � H55404 � T E 0543+D010515 9.71 _ ._T.._.�__..T_..------- -.` - Invoice_Total_____�__�_� 9.71 ----- 855568_ ,�__ _ _ E 02430003tD30 _� 9. 45 A, Invoicr Tota2 19.26 � Bs�841��i��+� � E 0S43id010�15 Y-'� 9.37 _ Invoice Total 28.53 H56034 E 054300I,05i� 3.9? i � Invoice Tata2 � 32.50 F44529 ~ � � E 0143@0iD3030 18.90 E 01430011010 0.86 - .. �'--- -�-- — -- Invoice Total'y`i! 52:�6�—` � �45711 �� E 05430020525 -' S. 96 Invoice 7ota1 59.22 F45713 E 01q31D002020 11.02 _ ,._ __,_� _.__.---_--_--- ---___,_. _..�--- --�.-•-� --- Invoice Totel 70.�24� � +� � CI'�sek T`ota�- ��'i0� 24 �Snyder Drug Stores f36553 �� --- -�-"- -'- E-01k30502020 � —� � - "-"-13.02 Invoic� Total 13.02 136555 E 01k30502020 7.47 __ --_— ----- I»voice 1"otai-"-'� -�- 20:49 �37984 -`- `—"� 'fb1430503050 ��2: 71 Invoice Total k3.20 ' ' Check TotaS �►3.20 Southview Ch�vrolet 6041 A E 0f433044020 12.60 �..__ _._�-----�__.�_._..__«_____�.��-_--- Invoi.ce Total�---- --- '_'12.60 .+ '+ Chick Total 1,2. b0 �Pau aok b �at aon�ry 051600-'-� � -"-' --E 01430021010� �— T112. 42 Znvoica� 7ota1 112.42 Check Total 112,42 r� :,;> r.+" " .�., �i.,,r_ �'�- - '-� :'a' �� _ _Y. �`�;•5�... �Y" .Y.U�...t% i:YK.. �4.`r_:,.T+ii+f�T.r.ii%1�. M' __ Unpaid Datail�d Check Registrr page � City of `Mendota Heights - - -- ---- - - - - - '- -- y - -• - �` -�-- --�_..�.._ �Znvoice ��P. O. __-- --- ' "Ch�ek -_ _-�- - - •- ---- - -- -- •--- -� --- � Invoice "- -- Ntumter t+tumCcr Final Dat� Account Code Amount St Pau1 Disoatch PP � 312�1ti ' � E a1424011020 �� 46.t�8 Fnvoice Total 46.08 Check Total 46.09 Sun IVewapap�rs 16154 E 01424011010 33.00 _T _- -•- ---------_._r__ _---,�_ �.--- -.-��.Invoice iotal ._ ..._' -".- 33.�b0 -� 74664 �-- ---- .-"-._M.._ .-_ ---. ____ �. . E 0I424008080 -- ----- - -- - 9. 12 Invaice Total 42.12 74565 E a14490$0a90 $.74 ' ------ � -- -- -- ------- -- ---� � _ �__ -_-_----- - - - --- �- - - --- --____.. _ InvoicQ Total 50.86 � 74666 ~ E 3$424084400 62.34 _,_ _ _ �� Znvoic¢ Tatal �_ 113._4a 74718 E 01424006080 23.97 � � '�Invoice TotaS i.'a7.37 483�t + E 01424008tb80 10.26 Invoic� Total 147.63 ?4835 E 82424a807041 68.93 - ` -..- ---�_._�. ------__.,_ -------Invoice Total ------2i6.56 �._.._»._- - --.^._.�.._ .—_..-- Chack Totai ��216. 36 �li i»T' g Indus rzal�ourt � 265182 --� -'- -- --"-'�' - E 014'�0303050' -�`65: 89 __, ` E 01430SiD7070 63.8$ i5k30506060 65.88 Invoice Tatal 197.6k Check Total 197.64 Adva»cQ Corp 2175 E 10k49000000 18.90 _._.._ �._.. . _�__ .---_--- I rivo i a� `Tot a 1�"- — 1 H. 90 �� Check 'Cotal �! ^-18. 40 American Business Forma 1i79 J^ �T� �� E 01430011010 T�� 39.47-��- E 0143ID0tb2020 3�» 4� u ' � E �01430003030 �------ 39. 47 -� - ' E 01430P10404t3 39.47 �— ------ -- -------- E 01430005050�� -�--l� 39.47 E 01k300Q}7Vi70 39, 49 - ---�---•----___-_-_------••.__----•--------E Q1430008080..__.__..------------39.46 E 0�430010515 39.49 � E 15430006060 39.46 � Znvoice 7ota1 3�5.2? __,-,,__,.___._ .__ ._,- -_.---- -- _ -- -.,,�... _._ Chack Tota2 355, 27 Hanyon I?nta SYatrms E 01422013310 4p0.00 . , � .«.,..,.y... „ _ �. ... .. :_ . :. .. �;,... .. -. � a. : .. s . �� _ � � .....«Y.<. :�. ... :�T - . .. . ,. . - . . .. , . _ ' � - f .✓i.�Y. ' ..i �W�:aa �.#w .+Y:� Y. � - 'lY'. _ ..._�.__ _..___ .Unpeid Detailetl Check Register _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ �Page ? _ __ City of M�rndota Heighta ,._ _. -•__._.- , -_ Invoice P.O. - -- f� '" Check -- - ___ .-_.._ -----__.__ _ ... .- - - ---�-- -Invoics -~ -- ar _,,,__,,,,_ _._Numbar Number Final _ Datar __ _ _ iiccount Code___ _� __ _ _�_ _ Amount _,__ � �� E 15421406060 440.00 Invoice Tata2 880.0fl Ch�ek Total 880.00 3 Haitery 3 Tire� Whse 91527 E 01433049050 ._ __ _ 149.62 .,M,_ --.-w- --- -_.- - -•-. --_ _. ..._._. _..._ Znvoice Total 149.62 ------ ------•-- ---. .._. .- • - - - _ _ _ . _ . . _. -. Check�Total - " • -�149.62 -- 4 Davis d Lagerman E i�4462�Ztat7f00 550.0fl Invoice Total 550.00 Check Total 550.00 '?i Fisco 00300 ____ _. V__ E 01430593@3fl 21, 4B ' -� ---� � .-l----- -.� �� Irivoic� Total -�� 21. 48'- . J 01400"-- --- ..�� -."'_.., _._____,...� T�—_ 6 01463003030 �. -- ---------�8, 771. 00+--- invaice Tatal 8,T92.48 01401 E 01463003030 231.32 !,- ---- �._.� _____-_,.---,— ------ Invoice Total � � � �9,023.80 --, - -�._.__�_.__..�_ _._„ -_-.—_.�__.._..-� C!'k�eSi Tota2.-�.�_— 9,023.80 6 First Tech 5687? �—�_ �-�^--�---- -+---M--~---- E 0I450002020 � � 7ff.70 Invoice Total 75.70 - -----.__._ ....-- -- -- -- - ----- ---- -- --••------ Check Total _ _... �------- 75.70 ?�ovarnm�nt Busin�ss Systsms 601'S32 � E 104490a0000 „_ 172.72 .. _--------------_...�_�_�_�,_.T---------.-- invoice Total - - 272.78 __— ----..�._____......,_... _ ---------_ -• •------- ------- ' ChQck Tatal' � I72.72 8 Narris Machinery Co � 7C323� � �� y� � E 014305070�0 � � �� ' � 34.00 � Znvoice Sotai 54.0@ __ _. --------_--�-..__�..__.�__..-_� _ ChQek Total_.._��__ S4.td0�_.. 9 Hudsan Map Co 6501 E 01430502020 35.17 .. .__r._��_._ _�__..—__ -._'-Ir�voice Total'---�---35. 1� -. -_ --__..�..-----�._�._.. ------� Check�Total �'----�6.�2? P P .....-..,�.�_ -•-------------__..___.__._�.--�-- ---------- --- � ---- 41 T'TI'ae Su�urba" n TJews a er E�01424+D11tDi0 641. 18 _ � _ _ _Invoice Total __ 60_16 �__ �_ ..�.�.-----. __.._.._.__�.w------- Check Total_.. --- -- -- 60.18---- 2 LMCST EHA E 01413311020 804J.34f .. _ � � -- •_...--_-...�_ - -_•--_.._ _------ - -E 01413302020 - -�------- - - - - • --13��279. 60 ` E 0142330323�Il 2� 074. 3S � i � ., . . y...y. ,x. ��. .=..�y. 1'..,�.,..�isu�iitci3r��ltx"ari'- -.:.:�ti.�"�'+;�I��...�p_�� '�v;:. . M tlnpaid petail�ad Check Register Page 8 _ __._._._ _ ._. _. - City of M+andota Heights - ---- ---- ----- — - - ----- -- - - -� ` -... ' Invoice lP.O.--��--Ch�ck '----- ------" -_ . _.__. - ------ ---- -Invoias - ----- Num6�r Number Final Da#e Rceount Cods Amount __ _____ _, .- - - •- ---.- _ -� - - E 0141330k04a � 533.55 -- . .,�----------- -----. -- ._.�_. ____ E 01413.�0505fl --- -• - -. - - --- - - - 4� 920. 60 _._. -'E �01413367@70 2, 401. 00 E 0�41332+3535 3, 646. 00 -•-- �� -- E 15413306060 --Y `-`�`- - 1, 986. 00 .i� _ _ � G 011215 � 14�820.0m _ �� InvoiceJ'i'o£al 44, 462. 0@ _i----�--��__ __�.__.�._ -- Check 'fotal � 44,462.00 apple ComputQr Ittc s1796� � � E 0146a00202@ 5,44�.35 ' Invoice 7ota1 5,445.35 519101 ___� E 01460002020 � 4�253_14 Invoice Tota2 9.598.k9 ��^� �T� Check Total 9� S3B. 49 Srunson Instrument 067�56� � E 01430504040 73.50 . E 0543@510515 12_65 Invoice 7ata2 84.15 �� y� � Check Total 94.15 'F ara an 290 � -` `�— E 0143050,'s030 9:80 _��_ _ _�_ ' Invoic� Tatai 9.80 �_ � � ChQek Tatal 9. 80 �ake araa Util£ty Cant Z»c � 31446083900 i34,653.61 Invaice Total 13A,-653:61 Check Total 134�653.51 William Lerbx "' ----_._._,__�.___._,.�� _ E 0L4o0503030'��_ _.._ _�__�..-.-.-...91.�9� Invoice Total 91.29 • Check Total 92.29 Reddin� Marin. Inc _ 26529 _`___ _� � E 02433046030 109.35 -' ---- `-----Yrivaice TntaI----'----"-109.'35 '�� y � Check Total v 109.35 Michaal Maczko � �' � E�01449007@70 �� 48.95 ' invoice Total 48.95 � _ :_ Check Tcrtsl _ 4B.35 • ,� --. _._ Minn�sota C,lov+� Inc 11844 E 01430505050 16.00 — _---- ------._._ ��---- - ----E 01430507070 "_- __ ----�,_ , .. ---'16.00 -..-�-- E I543059J6064! 16.00 � _._._�-•- --_�__._�____�_._._ -------. --r _._.._�.__ ___ __ _ Invoice Total '-.__.__.._. ---4$.00 � - :L '".� ..' f • , � � . , . .� .r.=..... �..:....._�.. _� _... . .._ �. ,. : u, ��i,:.t.. .,. ..._�. •......:�,.. ;:l�.�...r,:��^` w __ �✓t . Y, .: l. 1 . ..� _ ti�iF_''�.7i�'� '8 �'i+r __ __ _ ^ _ _ Unpaid Detailed Check Register � ^ City of Mendota Heights - -_ -------- ---'--- -- -Invoice � P.O. - -- Check dor Number Number Final Date - -- - - Page 9- - - - - - • - -• - -Invoice Account Code __ __ _ _ Rmount __ Check Total 48.00 a0 MTI Distr Co 648656 E 0143:049a70 � 156.82 Invoice Total 156.82 Check Total 156.8^c �1 Minnesota Post Board E 0144ta40202�D 37.50 --- --- --- --- - - -- -- - •- - - - �- - - Invoice Total� 37.50 i ' Check Total :7.50 , -- -- ------'--- � - ---- - - -• - -- - -� ' ,' -- •--- --- - --- - • - --- ..2 Patterson 2..,4s'28 E 014a0502020 25.69 _,_._,_ __ __ __ __,__ Invoice Total 25. 69 _-• ----- -- •-• • ----- ----•------- ---- - Check Total ----- ---• 25. 69 33 State Treas R 013315 3 828.84 -- -� - • ------------ -- --- -.�.-- - ---- - - - -- - - ----- ' Invoice To£al 3�828.84 � � Check Total 3,b28.84 34 Lah Chem Corp 1362 � � E 15433049060 i� 168.38 - Invoice Total 168.38 v Check Total 168.38 35 Verta Corp 1674 _�_________ ___ E 1246�000000 __ `_ 1, 321.00 � � � �Invoice Total � 1, �21. 00 - - --- -- - - -- - -�-- - - - - - • - -- -- --- �� Check Total 1,?.21.00 • ---- ------ --• • -- - - --------- s6 R B Whitacre 3 Co ^105474 E 15430506060 � 43.39 Invoice Total 43.38 105719 E 01433049070 27.20 '- --•- --- ---- - --- - --- -- �--- - •• --• --- . _ �. Invoice Total 70.SB -- _ ' -------------- -- ---- --- -� - - -- - ---- ---Check Total ----- - --- --- 70. 58 37 'Gold Star Print ing 28897 � � � � � --E 014305�D2020 -�-� -� 155. 00 Invoice Total 155.00 _ ___ __�_ _ � _ - ' � Check Total ____^_155.00 3B John Lapakko E 014413030.'',0 131.12 __ . ----•-- ----- --- ----•-- -• --- --• --- ---- --------- E 01440003030 - - -- -'�- 60. 00 - Invoice Total 191.12 -- ---- - -•-• ------ - -------- ------- - - Check Total - ----�---- -- • 191. 12-- 39 Kenneth Noack E 01440003030 90.00 • �- --- ------ - - --._. . __.-- ---� --- - _ .�_. .---- vE 014110031�0 ------��-- �-� � "'S1.75 Invoice Total 131.75 ��- ' 1 :'�•A'.�"""'y':.'.:L ..SC•'w`:2iiX:�imw�itit:iYr.c-�.J's+w:intic::c�:..h7'+xT?r.:as"a�ita`ww.eCL:�..'��=-- ' x.aG ' '-is+c�r-.�=:6.. ' i. .z•,.:< 'Seai...an�1'si�a�:9+ '�J��%t:«� ; _ _ Unpaid Detailed Check Registcr .. � page 10 • � �� ' � ' � City of Mrndota Meights ' � ��-� - ' '- "" '- �� - - -- "Invo'sce . . P. O. . ! _ 'Chack - . . . ' - -. _ --_� .__ ._ -Invaice _ _. __._ ' Numticrr Numb�r Finai Dat� Account Code Amount M� � ^ Check Tatal Ss'i.7� �_� _ _�. _. . __ - - - - -- --- . - -- - - - - • -- - - -- -- -- - - � - _ . - Grand Total _ .. z3563T. 44 - - MAttUAL Cf�C1C 113'74 148.00 Ventuze Txavel Liquor Lic Inv tAizfare D. neimont) � ~u -12375_—.»5,852.06"'PERA---�.___ .`..-.-- —3j27 Payrall -�- ----�-.�_�_ � �--•----_ _. ------ 22376 3,571.77 SCCU• 4f20 Payro2l deductions '-""-""-" -`"-' "-' " 11377 325.00 pakota Cty St Hank " 11378 5,332.77 Co�issioner of RErenue 3/27 & 4/10 SIT 13i9 —"9',36I:57 --"-1�akota Cty St��Bank �� 4/10 FIT, FICA, MEAICARE � -' ---�.-v.__� . -" _�_. 113$0 104.40 D. De2mont Expense 7(cloance 2238ii-27;5I2:86 Gity"M.H': Papro2T Acct Net Payroll 4J10�� -" 51,2II2.97 G.T. 2fiG,920.41 ',� "�",- fit) wY:_:v�` �' "��',c:�z`s:'4ti{ta7iiti�sm 'r � �'' � i = -:}.-=;o;+�: - � - — - ""s:G' 'Y.a:�� :s-�r: �::i� .-r.�k�lY.R%1R'�'�i.rfsiLfW"`�'S� •`1'.�•r:•.4Y:i::.k'�,`w.�« LZST OF CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL 4N APRIL 22, 1987 Excavating License: _ . ------------------- - ��uehn Excavating Gas Piping License: ------------------- Palmer Service Elactric General Contractor License: --------------------------- John Beissel, Inc. Broberg-Ducharme Enterprises, inc. "A Home of Your Own", Inc. Landshapes, Inc. Ran's Carpentry Woods Construction Heating and Air Conditi.oning License: Palmer Service Electric Stein Air Sheet Metal, Inc. Masanry License: ---------------- M & R Masonry 1987 Cigarette License: ----------------------- Snyder'� Drug 5tare #42 Somerset Cauntry Club 0 s • r CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO April 14, 1987 T0: Mayor, City Council and City �d"�n��r � = FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Alley Vacation DISCUSSION: Cherokee Park Heights was platted in 1923 (see attached map). There was a 10 foot wide alley that was platted at the rear of lots 3 through 8 that was supposedly vacated many years ago, before Mendota Heights was incorporated. The County and City maps show the alley as being vacated but there is no official written documentation. Mr. William Neish, 572 Hiawatha has contacted the City and asked that the City take official action to vacate the alley. The City does not have any utilities in the alley however Northern States Power does. � RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that subject to the adjacent landowners signing a 10` - foot utility and draina.ge easement the alley be vacated. � f ACTION REQUIRED• . Conduct the required public hearing and then if Council desires to ' implement the staff recommendation they should pass a motion adopting ' Resolution No. 87- , RFSOLUTION APPROVING VACATION OF AN ALLEY. � , P � € t � „ t� � . . City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION N0. 86- � RESOLUTION APPROVING VACATION OF AN ALLEY WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Fieights is the current record owner af an alley adjacent ta Lots 3-$, Black 2, Cherokee Park Heights Addition, abutting the easterly side of Guadalupe Heights Addition, Dakota County, Minnesata; and WHEREAS, a notice of hearing an said vacation has been duly published and posted mare than twa weeks before the date scheduled for the hearing on said vacatian, all in accordance wi�.h the applicable Minnesota Statutes; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on said vaca�ion on April 22, I987, at 7z45 o`clock P.M., at the City Hall of the City of Mendota Heights; and WHEREAS, the Ci�y Council then proceeded to hear all persons interested in said vacation and all persons were afforded an opportunity to present their views and objections �.o the granting of said petition. NOW THEREFORE, TT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council af the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: l. That the vacatian of the alley described above, situated in the City of Mendota Iieights, is in the best intere�t of the public and the City, and is not detrimental to Ghe health, safety and welfare o� the community. 2. That the above described alley�be and the same is hereby vaca�.ed. 3. That the CiCy C1er3c be and is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and present to t.he proper Dakata County officials a notice of completion of these vacation proceeciings, a11.�in accordence with the agp2icable Minnesota Statutes. Adopted by �he City Council af the Citp of Mendota Iieigh�s th�.s 22nd day af April, 1987. AT'I'EST : Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL CITX OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By , Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayar . +<'� . � , •r ' ,�y}. .�::,: � `� . + , �y ' . .`;. ...' y _ , . ' � � • t� ",z,. • t � . � . 0 �,. ...� � };. t j j }�. �r •�� ..• : :�r 1 �v ' • . �i• �' .'_ • .: ; } . . • ' • ' �. �? i . y- � , o . • i . t �' /�' . � # � � ~'., ' � r r , `t . , ,i• ,.t�. �+ \' �� r�. ' • T�'4 ! '+ �' . ,• �l ' ' ' . •� . �r �/� w ' . y • . ' ,. . � - . Y • , ,,� .. . jl �n/ 7'+1� , M .` ' - ` �; � `" • ' 'r . + �•Y ;"•'t 4 ' � ' { ,.�s e . - • "'� r'' � . ` , : . , i w '6 ' 4 . ' ' "' `, • �• � � � . - �.. ti , c, _ � . yl`� "« . ., , . . . ,� � . o..{ � � . " . ��.� �'; �� .v. � N : ..� '�.:��.: ititt' � �� . � . . .� �a . � . . • ', � ,t.�. 1, ':f.•� ,;}j1:== � "'.,.- _ � ;. . n ?2rso ° � i t . :, . :. t .� :, ',� �. �. � ° •.. t,.• . ' •' • ' • l ; � Y..� � , ��t �0�, ' �t ` } . .i .'�,. .fJ: .i �, � , . �,1, .s ' .. '� : ., ' i r' ,. , . �' ��i., •�� , ��:. ,};y: J j , ?.,,i..,.�.y _ : :. , ` + . ` . .y,.. 51�. .. � . �o � .� . <' �• � •:�'��, �y. �+i: �' , ��" �}��f • ��- 1 ��.:' ' �. • •i �•• p • .��1' • � `,i�::�•. .., [ � t! W ,: i � i�• O 1 J �, �?'. ��?t r' � , a W.,� .j,i .� i P�,' t� r. N� �. p :.. � 'A ♦ �5 a n '�J� '' • . .. ' . W � '• w � rv� �:- e.iY�� F: '•,C": �►� . : ='" .. �" . :' ''4 t �' � � . �! l� "�; � `i.. :'':'" n : � j .: �::r,:'`./� � . � . ,�,.:. .. � ,. . . , , i �} r f ; � ..,. . .j� ��1 �� .,a� �, , - �� '�',`V : . , /�j � , �.,.•, �� p �n � ;:.,;,,,' ",::�f,;:. ,,l; < ,i '' I�:'t. 1, }.. . • ' ' ` /y, t rri ' y - .� r �..e tt N : r Y ' ^ ` Z ~' r t' � ,� ;i� � , ''M?t. �, . . : � n �J �'�; �9 > ,��,q • . . ; A � :r � . ��=: �' � {� ', � . � v , :,1�i ' 3: n c: V .i � �, , • �jt� ib �' • q, '.'' . .: • �.. ` D. ^ ;,��t ' � }r , t `�.: }. ti : ; /�, f ^ f,f . . t .� . . y r� �� : . r � , r n'' � , ' • ` ` � t: f �� 111 [` [/� ' - .� r .' . a' .. . �y"� ' : N' •' . . �•, ' _ ,f+�� 'f ' 'v -♦ : � � '' � r : :�. � . 1. . 4 • il `� � +y, N i �... ; y f t , R. � �' 'i . f .: ` :z,' ', • � 7 t. l :. . �t: f..' .-� :t '�ii,�. ,1yi,�.I! .'; �ii} ',..� ` . .r •�"-",w 5 � ` _/s ! �{ N� . �l . . � w ' 'Z�� • r�� I Q ," . � ^' . . •yt.� '`, '' � ..�� ' s �L' � t • !'��, i�• ' �f4w i�i` ...` ros o . +: ' ` . � , `' ; •`o t, `2�:' ��,�f�v: �� .n.��-^y � .; . ^ • . . .�Y ��4J � , ; t M �f N � AT}�+ � ��•! , � 'Ji� •i�" M � � • ♦ '' �• w ��.C' :;� �. ., . �' - °' ''�'�`ii ;`r ':4f; `'> ' . / �' lo+ o ` �� :,,. �� *it s �' +''�%•� '`�y'Y r�, �` � 7 y�. ,: e"•{ ,j 't � io .: ^� js�' • ' .; ., •�'r r i •,y� / `'�i"�'?�{:fF �'• . „ �. ;,: • . � ' . , ' '� � {� i �"'' %?, `"'o' o' • ti y , ` w .� ' � y M"" P�. � . ,•`�'` , • � ' • , t � X ° saqe � M � X �;" , F .. e � ,rj;'.: � « D,�'� � . O ., � `- • � N. ` • r +�� . .�. �� :� � � � . i'. t� 'II 1 z s. w .t; p�r� ,' �.' ,<. ,s i f ..,, +c. C1 �o. e ' �f�,. , `: ' .' � s . . 'r ,�� y � � �, f� � ��' ., `a 'a , �5 "y ; "9 « . � ., ♦ � -,r� % ,, .�• ,�? s� �t � ' A � : , ` � > r,.. ` � � , r N � �. ^.. ,.ri. , r t�R � ! �„ � C J � . �T • •� >o . / , , � , , �'+ . �- � � v ':N .. '�za� �s ° � �. � � ,.' '{;�.., o / 4 i. �': w : � . • � � r. �� a �y � � . 0 = . i~ � . N . r i o •. ; �.}►' •"i . ~�� a o �) �, 4Y • . � � � . 'I t � � `. ,,, o, . ' � � h � j " t O ! 9Q~%� + 'T , O f � . . a , �� •',,,:,,,,,_ •i � i ,� r• � ' �"' , • y r ~ , v . . r'' � , t. J / O '�,� ' � � . � �L ��. � : . � O +n • � :. � ;� i • ' � Y Y �� r V J � r •� 2 O /►, � � ( /' • . � ;: . �; .,, q3 Y �.�� oi :.� � . . .-.o . ,; � ;, '� �. a . �►: ;; � � �: . '.4 � ` �,�: �:� .,;. , , ., .; = a � .. � r : � • ° r.,�`3� � . .1 � :+ �,� � . .. � . • ; . " • _' y � _ + w i � + � � �' � . . � , �r r ` j► 0 ♦ ' '" t,�, i +':••• • - .:; `•.. J ,•, . ..'w•3y' t � • �i • ro � c�Ne � �; .�,, �. ; � , S.' �� • � •� � • - . � �_ ,,,. �+r �� t `` � � . : � . . �� ` t ��'.' ` � . ;. �, � • o;,;,^- .�' , •` �� I v�• � •b 'ti 4 Y � ° �" � � tl o �'; o M . . . 0 : : ` � �;' h �- . y ;;; : : ,� .: t:: ' � '1 - ti j � ♦ � �. . , . � �• = W !y ,� p � . �. �,,.. M j-. �� p � ti � r �.. _ ..• ., „ h..: � • k }`q �.` � , o . � D l -� ' . o �„ '► . t' � ,�. • ;;+.. 'r+ •. <:. �� •,? ; •` , • N , ' � : 4 , E r' 4 � r .'' ` "� ' w � ' � ' ° '�' . , � • ' M i:'�;y p � � ^ 'r ��{ V ' . ;'Y w '• ` :.: N • .�:. h v , ; '-: .� . .. • r� '.,' ...� . '` . t. ,h t .. <.A � .. ,:� 4 .. �_ .. � t" s.... w ♦. _ •� . , ' ' - , . r ' CZTY QF MEND�TA HEIGxTS NOTSCE OF HEARING FOR ALLEY VACATION MARCH 18, 1987 TO WHOM IT MAY CONGERN NOTICE is hereby given that the Mendota xeights City Council will meet at 7:45 o"clock P.M. on Wednesday, April 22, 1987, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 750 Sauth Plaza Drive, ta consider the vacation of a 10 foot wide alley described as follows: Adjacent to Lots 3-8, Block 2, Cherokee Park Heights Addition, abutting the easter].y side of Guadalupe Heights Addition. • • .. This natice is pursuant to City af Mendota Heights Ordinance No. �302. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed alley vacation will be heard at this mee�ing. , Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO April 1S, 19$7 T0: Mayor, City Council and City i��'ator FROM: James E.�Danielson - Public Works Director - • - SUBJECT: Assessment Roll - I,O.S. Plaza Additian Job No. 8233 Tmprovement No. $2, Project Na, 7 DISCUSSIQN: Attached is the assessment ro11 for the I.O.S. sewer and water project. The interest rate on the groject is nine percen�. Please notice that as we discussed earlier St. Thomas Academy is nat listed as being assessed and their proposed assessment costs have been spread over the remaining parcels. Should St. Thomas ever need to use the sewer, a hook up charge could be determined at that time. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approve the attached assessment roll as prepared. ACTION REQUIRED: Condtact the required public hearing and then if Council desires ta implement the staff recornmendation they shauld pass a mation adopting Reso- lution No. 87- , RESOLTJTION ADt}PTING ANT} CQNFIRMING ASSESSMF�tTS FOR SANITARY SEWERS, LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN TQ SERVE I.O.S. PLAZA ADDITION AND AI3JACENT AREAS {IMPROVEMENT N0. 82, PROJECT N4. 7} a 0 ASSESSMENT PERIOD Sanitary Sewers - 19 years Watermains - 19 years CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS ASSESShiENT RATE ASSESSMENT ROLL Sanitary -$39.�i0 frant ft I.p.S. PLAZA ADDITION Water -$28.Q0 front ft. � � N0. 8233, TMPROVEMENT N0. 82-7 ADUPTED: � PARCBL REPUTED OWNER AND STJBDIVISION LOT BLK SANITARY SANITARY WATER WATER STREETS N0. DESCRIPTION N0. N0. SEWERS SERVICES MAINS SERVICES � 27-34800- Dallas Development Ca. I.O.S. Plaza Addition 1 1$19,7Q0.00 $14,000.00 010-01 10359 70th St. W. Eden Prairie, MN 55344 27-34800- Dallas Development Co. I.O.S. Plaza Addition 2 1$11,820.00 020-01 10369 70th St. W, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 27-41300- Bisanz Rogers Lake Co. Ravanaugh & Dawsons Sub. 15 14 $14,972.00 015-14 1349 Robert St. S. Pt of Blks 1& 8& 9& 14 „ West St. Paul, MN 55i1$ {Vac 6-24-53} being pt of W 1/2 of SW 1/4 35-28-23 lying NE of ISH 494 & lying S of i�ndota Rd ex pt to City & ex pt of Parc�l 217A of STH R/W Plats 19-37 & 19-42 ' 27-03540- Victor & M. Tousignant SE 1/4 of SW 1/4 & W 1 Rd — $25,452.00 OIO-5? cIo Robert C. Tousignant af SW 2J4 of SE 1%4 Ex 1,27 2515 Northland Drive _ A to Vi11 Ex Pt taken for Mendata Heights, 2�Ild Highway 10 acres ex Parcel 223 5��-�� of STH RjW Piat 230. 19-42 cont, 7.83 acs � TOTAL $33,70Q.00 �aa,22o.00 $14,972.04 $25,452.Op e � , , r City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RFSOLUTION N0. 87- RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR SANITARY SEWERS, LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN TO SERVE I.O.S. PLAZA ADDITION AND ADJACENT AREAS (IMPROVEMENT N0. 82, PROJECT N0. 7) � BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights as follows: _ WHEREAS, the City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer, has calculated the proper amount to be specially assessed for the costs incurred to date with respect to Improvement No. 82, Project No. 7, construction of sanitary sewers, lift station and force main improve- ments to serve the following described property situated in the City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota, more particularly described as follows: That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 35, North of I-494, East of I-494, East of I-35E, and West of Lake Drive. WHEREAS, the proposed assessment roll has been on file with the Clerk and at all times since its filing has been open for public inspection; and notice thereof has been duly published and mailed as required by law. Said notice stated the date, time and place of such meeting; the general nature of the improvement; the area proposed to be assessed; that the proposed assessment roll has been on file with the C�erk; and that written or oral objections thereto by any property owner would be considered; and WHEREAS, said hearing was held at 8:00 o'clock P.M. on Wednesday, April 22, 1987, at the City Hal 1 in the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Mayor announced that the hearing was open for the consi- deration of objections, if any, to said proposed assessments; and WHEREAS, all persons present were then given an opportunity to present oral objections, and all written objections theretofore filed wit h the _ Clerk were presented and considered. - NOW THEREFORE, this Cot�ncil, having heard and considered all objections so presented, and being f ully advised in the premises, and having made all necessary adjustments and corrections, finds that each of the lots, piece s and parcels of land enumberated in the proposed assessment roll was and is specially benefited by the construction of said improvements in not less than the amount of the assessment, as corrected, set oppo- site the description of each such lot, piece and parcel of land, re- spectively, and that such amount so set out is hereby levied against each of the respective lots, pieces and parcels of land therein des- � cribed; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the propased assessment roll as so cor— rected is hereby adopted and confirmed as the proper.special assessment for each af said lats, pieces and parceis af land respectively, and t.he assesement against each parcel, toge�her with interest at the rate of nine percent (9�} per annum accruing an the full amaunt thereof from time to time unpaid, shall be a lien concurrent with general taxes upan such parcel and al1 thereof. The total amoun�.of each such assessment as ta sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and watermains shall �be payable in equal amounts extending over a period of nine�.een (19) years; the first af sai.d instal.lmen�s, together with interest an the entire assessmen� �° commencing thirty (30) days from the date he.reof to December 31, 1987, ta be payable with general �axes far the year 1987, callectible in 19$8 (�now designated as real es�ate taxes payable in 198$), and one of each of the remaining installments, together with one year's interest on that and all ather unpaid installments, to be payable with general taxes for each consecu�ive year thereafter un�il the entire assessment is paid; and BE IT FURTHER RESQLVEI}, thaC prior ta May 2i, 19$7, the owner of any 1ot, piece or parcel of land. assessed hereby may at any time pay the whale of such assessment, withaut interest to the City Treasurer; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerlc shall prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a certified duplicate af said assessment� roll with each then unpaid installmen�C and interest set for�h separa�ely, to be extended upon the proper tax Iists of the County, and �he Caunty Audi— tor shall thereaf�er collect said assessments in_the ma.nner provided by law. Adog�ed by the City Council of the-City of Mendota Heights �.his 22nd day of April 1987. CITY COUNCTL CITY OF NIEAIDOTA HEIGHTS By Charles E. Mertensotta, Mayar ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swansan, City C1erk , CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMORANDUM DATE: April 14, 1987 TO: Mayor and Ci Council City Adminis �� FROM: Chief of Police SUBJECT: Marriott Courtyard Liquor Lice�se Investigation `� INTRODUCTTON The Marriott Corporation has applied for a"limited service" liquor license for their property being built in Mendota Heights. The Police Department has substantially completed it's investibarion of the Corporation and the key people who will operate the Mendota Heights property. At this point in our invesrigation we have found nothing that would preclude the granting of the license. We have, in fact, found the Mazriott to be an excellent candidate for the City's first "On-Sale" license. HISTORY IlVDNIDUALS Our investigation was focused on the following people. These individuals will be responsible for the day-to-day operation of the property: _ Kevin James Beauvais. Pro�ertv Mana:er Mr. Beauvais will be responsible for the operation of the "Courtyard", and will also be the individual that we will hold responsible for any and all liquor law violations connected with the properry. Mr. Beauvais is 27 years old and has worked for Marriott for at least 10 years in 4 different cities in Illinois and New Jersey.There were 11 seperate contacts made in order to check on his background. These included law enforcement agencies, former employers and state and local regulatory agencies. All responses were favorable to Mr. Beauvais and/or the business he was associated with. Beauvais is married and living in Apple Valley, Minnesota. Donald Edward Plucker, Assistant Mana�er Mr. Plucker has worked. for Marriott for at least 10 yeazs, all of that time in Illinois. We made 5 contacts, and all were positive. He is 28 years old and has not, as yet, relocated to this area. Glenn Norman Sullivan, Food and BeveraQe Mana� Mr. Sullivan is 29 years old and presently lives in Schaumburg, Illinois. He has worked for Mamott for 7 years in Texas and Illinois. We made 9 contacts in our check of Mr. Sullivan and discovered nothing that would negatively impact his involvement with a liquor license. Corporate Officers Pursuant to our Ordinance, cursory checks are being completed on the President and officers of the Marriott Corporation as well. THE PROFERTY I visited with Tezxy Hedlund and Andrew Wardweli, Midwest Rebion Directors for "Courtyard by Marriott". They took me on a tour of the new building and showed me photo�aphs of what the finished property will Iook Iike. The lounge area is a smali, camfartable room that faces the open - courtyard on one side and the restaurant area on the other. It will be furnished with overstuffed sofas and chairs and will cantain only a television set and a fireplace for "entertainment". There is no "stand-up" or "sit-down" bar; the restaurant and lounge will be served by a small service bar that will not be manned by the traditional bartender. Liquor will be displayed anly until 11:04 p.m. The iounge is intended and designed to serve as a place for gue�ts to have a glass of wine or a cacktail before or after dinner. It does not appe� to be a very attracrive place to meet new people or to stop for a few dri.n�cs after work. There will be no advertising of the bar or the restaurant and no "specials" ar entertainm.ent to attract "non-guests". The exterior sibnage will not promote tlxe Iounge or restaurant. DISCUSSTON (Jur primary concern, other than the integrity of the carporation and the character af the principals, is that the " Courtyard" meets the intent af the "limited service" license category. That intent is that the liquor portion of the business is intended to serve their guests and not the general public. We have a lazge work force in the area and it would be very easy for them to adopt a local, business as an after wark gathering glace. Fram all of the checking that we have done, we feel that the " Courtyard" is designed to discourage any abuse of the I.icense. It seems to accomplish, in design and poliey, exactly what was intended by the "limated sezvice" classificatian. The corporate philosophy and management style used by Marriott will make their Mendota Heights property an ideal "first" liquor license far the Cit�. �tECOMMENDATIONS I will be ma.king an on-site visit of two seperate "Caurtyards" in Reston and Fairfa7c, Virginia an Apri124th and 25th. I will have an opportunity to see their lounge operations on Friday and Saturday ni�ghts and have also arranged personal visits with the Iocai Palice Departments to inquire as to the prablems that they have had with the properties. Based on the information that we have developed to this point, and barring any adverse infazmation fram the on-site visits, i am prepared to strongly recommend approval of a"Limited Service On-Sale" liquor license for the Mendota Heights Marriott Courtyard Hotel. ACfiION REQUIRED � Council shoul.d hold and close the public hearing. By 4rdinance, action to grant the license cannot be taken until �he next regular meeting, May 5, 1987. L MEM4 - CITY OF MENDQTA HEIGIiTS ,� � ' April 16, 198'7 To: Mayor and City Cauncil � From: Kevin Fr e�l�.�ity Admini.strator � Ra: Combined agenda ite�tts The iollowing materials an aircraft noise issues cover agenda itexns 8.d., 9.a., and 9,b. Council will probably want ta discuss aZl of the issues�together as a package. , MEMO CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS April 16, 1987 To: Mayor and City Council From: Kevin Fra fl � ,�ty Administrator � Re: Aircraft Noise Issues INTRODUCTION At the meeting of April 7th, Council opened the public hearing on the Aircraft Noise Attenuation ordinance, then continued the hearing and discussion to the meeting of April 22nd. Council should be sure to bring the previously provided materials to the meeting. On pages 3 and 4 of my March 17 memo to the Planning Commission (a copy of which was provided to Council with the April 7 agenda materials) I describe briefly the implications of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Part 150 noise abatement effort being carried out the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Since April 7th, staff has received more information about the Part 150 program. As Council is aware, we are also scheduled to appear before the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) next Tuesday, April 28th, to discuss the Mendota Heights - Eagan corridor. The purpose of this memo is to tie together these inter- related issues, and to suggest Council action to move us toward resolving some of our aircraft noise problems. PART 150 PROGRAM Part 150 is a program of the Federal Aviation Administration available to airport operators to ameliorate the conflict between airport noise and surrounding neighborhoods. As I understand it, a Part 150 program is comprised of a number of components, including a land use management plan. The Metropolitan Airports Commission is completing work on a plan for Minneapolis - St. Paul International, and we have been represented by Planner John Shardlaw in the warking group for the Land Use Management Plan. A copy af the draft land use plan is attached. A�ter conferring with me, Jahn sent �he attached -letter to MAC Planner Mark Ryan e�ressing our qualified support for the plan. Mark has asked that the City Cauncil mare formally express its suppart in the form of a resolution. A propased resolution is attached for your consideration. As described in my March 17 memo, Part 150 uses different technical standards than the Metropalitan C4U�C11�8 Guidelines for Land Use Combatibilitv with Airt�ort Naise in deriving noise compatibility contours. Briefly, the Leg standard in the Guidelines is a measure of the most intense noise a parcel of property will experience» The Ldn standard, used and federally required for the Part 150 program, is a measure af total noi�e experience averaged over both da� and night. Larry Shaughnessy can elaborate further on the standard� if Council de�ire�. Tha two sets of contours are also based on differing assumptions abaut aircraft flight paths. The Guidelines assume departures at a 305 degree heading on both runways I2L and 11R, while the Part 150 contours reflect the actual departure routes observed du`ring a test period last Fall. Sta�f has a copy of that departure� map ta present at the meeting. The Guidelines designation�, known as the "'Policy Contours" are shown in Figures ISI-1 and IV-2 of the attached Part 150 dra�t. The Part 150 Ldn 1992 contours are shawn in Figure TV-3. Although the Policy cantaur� will nat be recognized b� the federal government for purpos�s o� Part 150 approval, the document does endorse the Policy contaurs, particularly as a preventative measure, and notes that compZiance with those contaurs will more than meet the Part 150 requirements. Having an approved Part 150 program wi11 basically do two beneficial things for Mendata Heights. First, as I understand it, the plan will include a fix pre-approved carridar for flight departure and arrivals. Once the FAA has approved the Part 150 plan, the cantral tower and flight control center wiZl be required to ke�p planes in that corridor. Secand, there wzll be potential for getting 80% federal funding for correcting land use incompatibility prablems within the Ldn 1992 contours. This would include the Furlong, and hapefully Rogers Rd., neighborhoods. FLIGHT PATTERNS AND CORRIDORS - All of this "good faith" planning effort is, of course, premised on the supposition that planes fly in a predictable, acceptable corridor. The Nietropolitan Council's Policy Contours assumed flight headings of 105 degrees off both runways. The Part 150 survey of actual flight patterns revealed departures ranging anywhere from 94 degrees on the north to 116 on the south. A 94 degree heading on the north puts planes roughly over the south part of Friendly Hills. As I think we can all testify, planes have frequently been seen as far north as Highway 110 and further. The 105 heading assumed in the Policy contours was based on the belief that such a direction off Runway 11R would keep air traffic north of established Eagan neighborhoods, without disturbing Mendota Heights; it was put into use in the early 1970's. That approach worked well for both communities while the level of air traffic remained relatively moderate. With the substantial growth in peak hour traffic after airline deregulation in the late 70's and early 80's, the airport began using simultaneous take offs from both Runways 11R and 11L. In these instances FA�i safety regulations require that a 15 degree heading separation be maintained for safety purposes. Obviously, if the 105 heading is maintained on 11R, departures on 11L must have a 90 degree heading, sending them right over southern Mendota Heights neighborhoods. When we passed a resolution complaining about over flight problems in 1984, the control tower apparently abandoned the 105 restriction on the south and began sending planes further into Eagan, which has understandably given rise to some concern on their part. However, we still seem to receive numerous flights well into Mendota Heights neighborhoods. Knowing that the Mendota Heights - Eagan corridor is becoming an issue, the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MA�SAC) has scheduled a review of the issue for its meeting of April 28th. Both cities, as well as the FAA, have been invited to testify at the meeting. City staff and MASAC representatives from the two communities have been meeting to see whether we can agree on a joint position for that meeting. We strongly agree that our interests will be far better served and protected if our two cammunities can present a united frant. On April 25th, Larry Shaughnessy, MASAC representative Bernie - Friel, and I met with Eagan representatives. We agreed that we could all support the attached pasition paper as a jaint statement. Basically, the paper reviews the history behind the agreement for the 105 heading, acknowledges that the heading may no longer be realistic given today's traffic levels, but alsa goes on to point out that the FAA is currently "ianning" planes out over a much broader area than f would appear to be necessary for safe�y reasons. The paper ' rec�tatests that M�C, as a part of campleting the Part 154 study, do a dif�erential analy�is of aZternative corridor parameters, sa as to minimize the impacted area and equalize the negative effects be�ween the two communities. The paper also asks that the twb cities be closely involved in the ana�ysis and decisian on corridar alternatives. F. lu�� There are several actians before the Council this evening: 1. To discuss and hold the continued public hearing an the aircraft noise attenuation ordinance. Assuming Gouncil is in favar of the ordinance, to " also decide whether to resubmit the Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan amendment for approval by the Metropolitan Council, as recommended in my mema o�' April 1st (included in the agenda materials for April 7th}, 2. To consider adoption of the attached re�olutian of suppart �or the MAC Part 150 Land Use Management Plan. 3. To adopt a position statement on the corridor issue for presentation to MASAC at the April 28th meeting. Since the above is�ues are�all related and somewhat complex, sta�f will be prepared to give a publi.c presentation at the beginning of the meeting. It does not appear that the legislation autharizing adoptian af the noise attenuatian ordinance will have been approved by the time c�f the meeting, so Cauncil wi21 have a table actual adoption of the ordinance. ' , � 5 .... ".y' �- t U( �. a � �� -:�-- � , � � ` '•� �� r� .,�,�#,,,. 4� MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIFtPURT FAR PT. 150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM I,11ND USE MANAGED�NT PLAN Working Paper '�' March, 1987 HOG�,RD NEIDLES� TANlMEN & BERGENDOFF MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT FAR PT. 150 NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROGRAM LAND USE MANAGF�IT PLAN Working Paper March, 1987 HOWARD NEIDLES TANQ'IEIV & BERGENDOFF � TABLE OF �QIVTEZVTS Page � • iraiintiil+n7�i'�1i1� • • • a • • • • • • • ♦ • i • f 4 • • ! • f • 1 • • • • 1 ` A, Backgraund — The FAR Part 150 Context . . . . . . . . . . 1 B. Pu=pose of the Land Use Management Plan ......... 1 C. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 II. LAND USE O()MPATIBILITY.CRI'TERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 A. Gene ral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 B. Cam�atibility Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 III. LF,ND USE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ A, Future Noise Contours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ B. Previous Land Use Planning in the Airpart Vicinity. ... 8 I. Metropolitan Council Program and Guidelines .. .. 8 2. Comgarison af MC Guidelines with Part 150 Criteria. . 9 3. Compliance with Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . _ C. Approach to_L�and Use Management Plan. . . . . . . . . . . 11 IV. EtJALUATION Q�' LAND USE M'EASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 . A. Preventative Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 B. Corrective Measures . . « . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 , C, Technical Review and Screening. . . . . . . . . . . e . . 14 _ D. -. Evaluation of Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . �8 1. Land Use Plan Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2. Compatible Zoning , . . . . . . . . . . . � . . 21 3. Zaning Performance Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 4. Public Informatian Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 5. Building Code Revision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . « 29 6. Soundproaf Public Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 7. Acquire Developed Praperty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 � _ 8. Purchase Assurance Pragram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 9. Soundproaf Private Residences . . . . . . , . . . . . 28 i • m TABLE OF C'�]TS ( contirrued ) V. RECOi�IDID LAND USE MANAGIIKIIVT PLAN. . . . . . .' . . . . . . 30 A. Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . 30 � �' B. Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 _ . . C. Schedules and Costs . . . . . . .. .. . . . . Zb be pro�rided D. Ia�lementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , � � pravideci P.PPIIQDI CES : A. FAR Part 150 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines B. Metropolitan Council Develogment Guide, Aviation Chapter C. Sunnnary of MSP Co�nunity Attitudinal Survey, 1986 D. Consultation/Technical Review E. Draft Implementation Materials . j _ • j• 11 Lzsr oF Fz+�s �' ' • � fbilowing . . Page ' Figure III-1 1992 Ldn Contaurs and Metropalitan Gouncii Policy Contaur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure N-2 Preliminary Screeni_.g of Land Use Measures. .... 17 _ � , Figure IV-2 Generalized Zoning Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure IV-3 Existing Lanci Use Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 _ �( , LIST OF TABLES . P� age Table III-1 Camparison of MC Guideiines wi�.h FAR Part 254 Criterza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 _ . Tahle N-1 Im�lementation Respansibilities . . . . . . . . . . 15 ' iii , I . INTRODUC'r'I04J This sectian of �he working paper describes the purpose of the Land Use _ Managernent Plan element of the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Par� 150 Noise Com�satibility Program, outlines the report, and identifies the procedures which were follaw�d in development af the La.nd Use Management Plan. ._ A. Background The FAR Pt. 150 sgecifies sui�.ttal of twa sets of do�'umentsr namely: o Noise Exposure Maps, one for current conditibns and one for aircraft aperations as they are expected to be five years from today, in 1992. Information on land use, municipal baundaries, and other factors must be inciuded in this submitial. o Noise Campatibility Program, including recammendations for abatement af aircraft noise and for Iand use management actions to achieve the most compatible land use in the noise zones. This report constitutes the land use element in the second of these twa sets of documents. Ana].ysis af naise abatement measures was presented ta MAC in the repart "Reco�nended Noise Abatement Program". This was the �� basis for MASAC recommendations to MAC on March 25, 1986, and was `� considered in adoption by MAC af its Naise Ahatement Program on April.,,2�, 1986 .. B. Purpose af the Land Use Management Plan The purpose of the Noise Abatement Program is to reduce the effec�.s o£ aircraft noise or� the co�munities surrounding Minneapa2is-St. Paul International A.irport. The land use components of the plan are designed to provide the a�st compatible pattern of Iand use within the noise 2G?I1@Sr while creating as little com�muzity disruption as possible. The land use reca�nendatians will include bath "cotrective" and "preventive" programs. The corrective measures will be applied mostly in the higher noise zones, to areas clase to the runway ends, and to areas wizich are developed in urban uses. Land acquisition, soundproofing and purchase of limited rights in t�e properties fall into this category. These actians wauld be primari2y the respansibility of MAC. The preventative measures are designed to restrict new develo�nent .which would not be co�gatible with aircraft noise levels. These inva�ve land use control measures such as zoning and would be. implemented by individual municipalities. . 1 ! , C. PtQCGt�i1ZE'S FAR Part 150 requires caordinatian with affected parties and the appartunity far public xeview. The primary means of providing public participation in the development of the land use programs was through briefings, reviews, and ca�nents by MAS�C, and through zeview of working documents with planners from the af£ected cammunities and technical personnel from FAA, HUD, t+rnCA, MC and other agencies. ` The cansultant analyses of land use measures were delivered to MA.SAC, and subsequently to the Commissian. Adoptian by the Coz�nissian will permit integration of the land use management measures into the second of the Pt. 150 submittals, the Naise Compatibility Program. � 2 II. LAND USE COMPATIHILITY CRITERIA A. General One of the objectives af Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 150, is to - establish uniforni systems for describing aircraft noise and developing campatibility criteria. The criteria recominended for use around MSP and described belaw are generally cansistent with the criteria spe2led out in the Regulation. (The criteria as they a,ppear in the Regu3atians are attached as Appendix A). The purpose of this section is to arrive at definitions of compatibility that can be �ranslated into- land use regulatians and land management programs which are both equitable and consistent with coicununity values. Amang the factors wizich affect campatibility and which �re not addressed by the criteria shvwn in the Regulation's Sun�m�ary Table are: a Insulation of a building does Iittle or nothing to reduce aircraft t�oise when occupants have windaws apen or are engaged in activities outside of the building. a Land use compatibility criteria develaped under t.he auspices of the Metrapolitan Council of the �tain Gities Area differentiate between single family and multifamily residential developm�nt, Typical construction and decreased em�phasis an outdaor activi.ties are considered ta make adequately insulated multiplex develapment more compatible with aircraft noise than single-€amily development. These criteria are incarporated in the Metropolitan Council Develapment G�ide, Aviation Chapter (see Appendix B). o There are transportation corridors (Cedar Ave., Route 62, I-494,) running through the asea within which ground traffic generates Ldn noise levels com�aarable to aircraft Ldn noise levels. FAR Part 150 reguires that ambien� {non-aircraft} noise be considered in the de£initian of non-compatible land uses. In practice, naise levels associated with raadway noise will apgroach significant levels only <. in the i�nediate vicinity of the transpa�tation corridar. For exam�le, at one of the busiest raadway segments in the airport vicinity, Cedar Avenue adjacent to the I-494 interchange, the Ldn 65 contour woulci occur within approximately 800 feet of the roadway centerline. These and othe= "local" facto��rs were incorporated into the process of land use p2anning for the noise zones. H. Compatibility Griteria Tt1e fallawing are r�ates an se3ected categories of Iand use, exp2aining the rationale for the criteria: � Residences tother than hatelsy. In the Ldn 75+ zane, new residential develapmerit should be considered non-compatible. In the Ldn 65-7p and 70-�5 zones,�new residential development should be cansidered incoz�,atible and shauld be permitted or�y wiiere ather development is not feasible, such as the infi3ling of existing residentia3 neighboz`hoads. In this noise zone, insulation shauld be reguired to achieve acceptable interiar noise levels. In addition ta acoustical treatsnent af structures, patential. T'rPw rPcir3r.�nte ehr�uj,�j j�? made aware of the naise environment. firansient LodgincLs Construction of hotels and motels is generally of a standard that results in interior sound attenuation higher than that of single family homes. The nature �of their use justifies minimal restrictians, provided that a healthy indoor noise Ievel is attained. It is reco�nended that hote].s be permitted in all noise zones provided that interior NLR sufficient to achieve acceptable interior nnise levels is required. • Schoois It is recommended that schoals be considered compatible in the Ldn 65-7'Q noise zone provided that they have an interior NLR of at least 30 dBA, but that.they be cansidered incornpatible in �I1 higher noise zones. Tfie special-sensitivi�y af classraom teaching to periodic aircraft noise events justifies the NLR level mare stringent than that applied to residences. These criteria wc�u2d be applied to both public and grivate schools. Hospitals Hospitais aze vsually well-canstructed, air conditioned, and kegt c2osed, resulting in high levels of interior noise attenuation. Pravided that specified high interior NLR levels are attained, there �� should be restrictions an locating these facilities rel.ative to aircraft noise only in the mare intanse noise zones. It is recammended that hospitals be considered compatible in the noise 24iIB Ldn 65-70 with an NLR of at 3east 30 dgA, and in Ldn 70-?5 with-an NLR of at least 35 dBA, but that they should be considered incompatible above Ldn 75. Nursing Hames Nursing hames are basically residential in character and should be addressed in the same way as multi-family homes. It is reco�nended that they be considered incompatible in naise zones above Ldn 70,•and permitted in Ldn 65-7Q only with an NLR of at least 25 c�A. 4 Child Care Centers Since classraom instruction is nat as im�ortant a part of the function of a child care center as it is af the functian of a schoal, it is reconmiended that criteria far child care centers be less stringent than those for schools. It is reconranended that these facilities be cansidered campatible in zane"Ldn 65-70 with an NLR of at Ieast 25 cisA and in zone Ldn 70-i5 with an NLR of at least 30 dBA; and incampatible in Ldn 75+, Churches Given that the amount of time per week that a church is used for quiet activities is small, and the proportion af time spent by an individual in a church is smal2, the justification far adopting more stzingent compatibility startdards is less strong than that for schaols. It is reconnnended that the criteria proposed in the FAA's table of criteria in Part 150 be applied. (For schools, child care centers, or other types of faca.Iities that are part of a church complex, the criteria for these secondary types of facilities woul.d be applied.} Auditoriums and Concert xalls These uses generate a mix of quiet and noisy activities similar to that for churches. They are Iikel.y to be major public investments and it is believed that stricter standards shauld be applied to pro�,ect the investznent and to ensure lang-term satisfaction with the quality of the experience in the halls. It is reco�nended that the uses be considered connpatible in Ldn 65-70, with at Ieast 30 dBA NLR, Ldn �0-75 wzth at least 35 dBA NLR, and that they be considered incompatible in naise zanes abave Ldn 75. Cor�nerczal, Zndustrial and Recreational Uses Most uses in these categaries are not as naise sensitive as the uses described previaus2y. It is recam�nended that the criteria suggested in the FAA's FAR Pt. 150 guidelines be apglied. Table II-1 autlines the recommended Iand use compatibility criteria for the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport FAR Part I50 Study. 5 TABLE II-1 I.�11�ID USE COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA - • Land Use Residential Residential, other than hotelsl Hotels Nursing hamesi . Public Use " Ldn 65-70 Ldn 74-75 Lcir� 75+ N N_ N R(25) R(30} R(30} N N N Schaols (public and private) R(30) N N Child care centers R(25) R(30) N Churches � R(25) R(3Q� N Auditoriums, concert halls R(30) R(35) N Parking Y Y Y Hospitals R{30} R(35j N Coimnercial Use Offices: business, prafessional, gavernment Y R(25} R(30) Retail trade Y R{25) R(3Q) Wholesale trade and retail of building ' materialsi hardware and farm equipment Y Y Y Utilities2 Y Y . Y Manufacturing and Pxoduction Manufacturing, genera].� Y Y Y Research and laboratory uses sensitive to vibration Y N N Agricultuze and forestry3 Y Y Y Mining, fishing, resource production and extraction Y Y Y Recreatiana2 Outdaor sports arenas and spectator sports ` Y Y N Qutdoor amphitheaters, music shells N N N Nature exhibits and zoas Y N N Parks, golf courses, riding stables and other active recreation areas • Y Y N 0 � 2ABLE II-1 (Continued) � �� Y Land use and related structures cam�patible without restrictions. N Land use and related structures are nat cr�mpa�i.ble and should be �. " prohibited. � R{25� Larid use and related structures generally comgatible, measures to � ar(30} achieve Noise Level Reduction of at ieast 25 ar 30 or 35 dBA zm2st or (35) be incarporated into design and construction of structures. Normal canstruction can be expected to provide an NLR af 2� dBA, thus, the reduction requirements are aften stated as 5, 10 or 15 dSA over standard construction. T1-iese reguirements assume mechanical ventilation and ciosed windows year raund. The use af NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems. i Where the ca�nunity determines that resider�tial uses must be allowed, measures to achieve outdoor to' indoor Naise Level iteduction {Ni,g} sufficient to achieve acceptable interior naise levels should be incarparated into building arid/or zoning codes and be cansidered in individual appravals. Federal guidelines recom�nend NLR of at least 25 � dSA (in Ldn 55-?0) and 30 c]SA {xn Ldn 70-75). Adjustments to these � ' " recammendatians may be necessary in considering specific lacal canditions. In addi�ion to acaustical treatment, po�ential residents in noise zones shouid be notified of the noise envirorsment. Z Agpropriate Naise Level Reduction (as specified in fbotnote 1} must be incvrparated into the design and construction of por�ions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas or noise sensitive areas. � Noise Level Reduction specified in Faotnote 1 reguired for residential �- buildings. 7 • ` , �, r z z. r�,rm us£ r�G�rr s�� A, Fliture Noise Contours �e developcn�nt of a compatibie Iand use pattern is a process wizich will occur as a result of pragrams ia�2emented over a periad of several years. Land use contrals put in giace today will affect deve3apment decisians but wi12 show a perceivable effect only aver the long-term. Correctiv_e programs of land acquisition and soundproofing are expensi.ve and complex, and again, will show positive benefits in terms of compatibility only after a period of years. Consequently, the iand use-pragzam is based on the future {1992) Noise Exposure Map. The Ldn 65, 70 and 75 cantours for 1992 were calculated using FAA's Integrated Noise Model Version 3.8. Assum�tians made in the calculatian of these noise contours were: o The projected nu�nber af aircraft operations are drawn from the revised forecasts of air activity recagnizing the Northwest-Republic merger and as presented to MA:�C on February 2Qth, 1987. o The mix of aircraft types considering planned equipment purchases by khe airlines as far as these are kncswn. o Rurn�y 4-22 will be extended by 275q feet to the �Southwest, permitting increased use of the preferential runway system. o Aircraft degarting Runway 22 will make procedural turns to headings which carry them aiang the Cedar Avenue carridoz �50�} and 2-494 corridor {40�}, o Aircxa£t departing 29 L&R and 11 L&R will follow tracks which are identical to those recorded in a radar survey of departure tracks � conduc�ed in November 2986. These data indicate greater scattering af tracks than was incorgorated into earlier calculations of Ldn cantours. B. Previous Land Use Planning in the Airport Vicinity � In additian to aircraft noise compatibility planning under FAR Part 150, the Minneapolis-St, Paul Metropolitan area has a long standing £ramework of compatibility guidelines. . , 1. Metropalitan Gouncil Program and Guidelines In 1976, the Minnesota Legislature passed the Metropolitan Land Planizing Act. This Act requires each comrmuiity in the seven courxty metrapolitan =egion to prepare a Comprehensive Land Use Plan which is to serve as the framework of develap�nent foz� the particu2ar co�manity. Ti�ese p3aris must be reviewed by the Metropolitan Council and are to be kept current through an established amendment process. C �" The Metropolitan Council, in turn, is required to submit pertinent planning information (systems statements) on each metropolitan system (i.e. sewers, transportation, parks and open spaces, � airports) to each community for use in preparing its comprehensive plan. In the case of the airport, the "Airports" system statement, f the Council determined that additional information_ regarding j existing and potential future aircraft noise impact areas would be � needed for land use planning by the local governmental units, especially those com�nunities surrounding I+linneapolis-St. Paul i� International Airport (MSP). � In 1977, the Metropolitan Council, through its Transportation Advisory Board, developed aircraft noise �information. Membership on the committee consisted of staff representatives from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the Metropolitan Council, Transportation Advisory Board, the Metropolitan Airports Co�nission, local comnnuzities and an elected official from a community adjacent to MSP. A major part of this cooperative effort was the need to coordinate the development and utilization of a computer modelling tool that would consider both the State (MPCA) standard and Federal (FAA and HUD) standards for aircraft noise control and land use planning. In March 1983, the Metropolitan Council amended the regional develogment policy, i.e. the Metropolitan Development Guide - Aviation Chapter, to incorporate Guidelines for Land Use Compatibility with Aircraft Noise. The Guidelines encouraged development in areas around airports in the metropolitan airports system that can be made comgatible wit11 aircraftvoperations. They discourage construction of single family homes, schools, churches and hospitals in noisy areas around the airports. Less stringent guidelines are also included for development areas adjacent to other airports. 2. Comparison of MC Guidelines with FAR Part 150 Criteria Appendix D to the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development G�ide provides land use compatibility guidelines for the com�muzities surrounding MSP. For purposes of land use compatibility planning, aircraft noise is defined in terms of four Aircraft Noise Zones contained in the Metropolitan Council "policy contour." � As shown in Figure III-1, the Metropolitan Council Aircraft Noise Zones ex�end beyond the 1992 Ldn 65 noise contour. With the -" exception of one small area to the southwest of the airport, the Ldn 65 noise contour is within Aircraft Noise Zone Three. `�� Similarly, the Ldn 70 contour is contained in Aircraft Noise Zone �ao. The Ldn 75 contour is essentially on-airport. Table III-1 compares the Metropolitan Development Guide's land use guidelines with the FAR Part 150 Compatibility Criteria as applied C 9 � 1 • t�'d... r +� r : ,.;' :�'.::a.rx t :. '. . . . ; ` , :� . . • • Ai: _ � . . . . . . TABLE 22I-1 COHPMI80N Ot MC OUIpELINE3 1RTH PM PAHT 1S0 CRITCAIA � M6?ROPOLITkII t0U11C2L qUIpEGIHC3 �OR tJ1ND USB CQHPATIBILITi EQUIVALENT !AR PART 156 M2TH AIRPORT 1/OISC L11ND U56 COHPATSSILtYT GRI7E1tIA ��ss�ss�assararrrss�a�rs:ra:wna��s'r�ia��wss:��rr��s��s��r��:o� os�m��:�w..y�su��sa�rsssc.� o��s��r��»��rw�r��rwr��ir�rr=��rw�r�n LANp USE NEH INFILL EpUIV11LENT LAHb USC COMPA?IDiGITT 20f1E L7�lID U36 PO�.IGICS TYPE DEVEL. QEV�L. GON ?YPE CAITENIA I, pr�v+rnt nsu non-cowpRtibl• RC4 Sd 2NC0 dLA �0 LDNI AC9 SI I11C0 (MILIt 70) d�v�lop�e�nt. RE9 H� IHCO NLA 10 70-75 ABS MF iNCO (NLR 70) � AES MH INCO pLR 10 A£S H}i lNtd {NL1t �0} 80UCATIOtt INGB tfL1t i4 EDUt112I0t1 XHCO Canaid�c alt�caativ lapd uss MED2CA4 2NC0 MLR 10 MBDICAL MLN 1S •tr�t�gi�■ lnaluding •vwntu�l Culkur�l NLR 7S NtR 75 CULTUMD NLA 7S ch�ng�r Ln •Rlating l�nd ue�e. 0��/COH NGR IS NLR i5 attjCOM NL11 IS SERSTIt£S NLA 3S NLA 3S SBRVICES NLR 2S 2NDUSTkIl�L NLR �5 MLR l5 INDUBTPIAL CNST ^ AGRICULT. CNST CNST AGRICULT CNST 22. R�qai[� eoi�• l�v�l t�duction llEB SP . 2NG0 HLR 3S LDi4 6S-TQ RCS 9F 2IIt0 {MGlt ?S! for nsw dav�Iap��at. RES N� HGP �S HLR ]S PF.S M� . INCp (HLA 2S) qE9 MII INGO NLR 35 11tS MII ' 1NL0 (HLR IS) Di�couC�g• c�rt�in outdooc uus. BDUCATIOHAL INCO NLA 3S - ErillCRT2qlt NLR I6 REDICAL INGQ NL8 3S MCDfCAL NLtt �D GU4TUML NGR ]0 (iLll ]0 CULTURAL N[Jl ]0 O�F/COM NtR �0 NLR �0 0►F/COM CN9T � SERVICBS 1tL8 �0 HLR 30 SCRVI[E$ 'CNS? tNUtt5TR2xL CC#ST GNST 2l4DUSTRIAL CNST J III. lt�quir• nols• Iw�l t�duction AE8 SF 2NG0 IILII ]0 LdH 63-�4 EC4 St INtO iNLR iS) . Lor ri�w r��id�nti�l d�v�2opa��t. RE5 MF NGR 30 NLR IO RCS Hf SNCO iBLR 2S} AES ?fi! It#Cd NLR 34 AGS M!! INCp �NLA 2S) DisCouCag• sdUeatlon�! �ed EDUCAT20NAL INCO NLA 30 EDUGTION pLA �0 . M�diu 1[rcillti�s involvinq MCDICAL INCO NLR ]0 MCDiC�L NLR 30 p�rMant�nt lodging a[ outdaor C84TURAL NLR i5 hLR 25 CULTURAG NLR 3Q ,,., v��„ ' OFFjCOH HLR 25 NLft 25 OEP/COH CNST , SERYICE9 NLR i5 NLR 25 . 5ERVICE3 CNST� IV. R�quir• noLe• l�v�l r�duction RES Sf tIGR 1S NLR 2S H/A A4L USES CON52DERED Td pE „ fo[ osM d�vslnpn�ent. RES rii NLR 23 �NLA 25 COMPATZ9LC M/AIACMtT HOISE. RE9 MN NLIf 25 NLN 2S EDU�ATIOtl MLA 25 HLA 25 MEdIC1�L dtR 25 NLR 2S CUGTURAL NLR 2Q ttLR 2Q OFt/CpN CNST CNST SERVICCS CHST � GNST � ��w��s�:w��s�:wr:��sras:'s::�a::wrs:rassss�ss�a��:s�ss�:�:�o�ara�sr�:w��s��ar�a::�sa�r:saswar�easR��w.sw.rr.s�rv:��..��.��r��r ttOTCS; INCO • IHG4tt52STEN?, HLR : NOISE LBYE4 AEDUC?t011 (d8). RES � AESID6NTIAL, S� ■ SING4E FAMI4Y, MF . MUL?I-FhHI[.Y, MH � MOEILC HOM6, , O��/CdM r OFtICC/COHHERCIAL, AGRICULT. � AGAICUGTUML. e � 3. to the MSP errvirons. Guide is at least as Criteria. licati the noise zones e i� In all cases, the Metropolitan Development protective as the FAR Part 150 ComQatibility n of the Metr000litan Council (�idelines to 150 land use co�atibility criteria. Local Compliance with Metropolitan Council Guidelines As prescribed by the Land Planning Act, the Metropolitan Council's Noise G�idelines -established the policy upon which individual com�minity planning efforts could then acknowledge airport noise as a critical consideration in local land use planning and decision making. Consistent with this requirement of the Land Planning Act, many conm►unities adjacent to MSP conducted a review of their comprehensive plans to determine if changes were warranted to meet the Noise Co�atibility Guidelines. Following� is the status of these plan amendments relevant to the 1986 Aviation Chapter:�l� Minneapolis St. Paul City of Eagan Mendota Heights Bloomington Richfield Under Developinent Generally Consistent Generally Consistent Inconsistent — Revision Consideration Generally Consistent Inconsistent — Revision Consideration Under Under With few exceptions, tfie Comprehensive Land� Use Plans for all the co�nities adjacent to MSP are consistent with the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines as incorporated in the Metropolitan Develogment G�ide. For those cominunities where the current plan is "Inconsistent", revisions are still being considered. In the event that final revisions remain incompatible with the Aviation Policy Plan, legislation exists to declare a particular project to be of "Metropolitan Significance" and subject of additional study for up to one year. Though metropolitan significance reviews are somewhat rare, they are a tool which the Metropolitan Council can use to encourage greater com�nunication and coordination within the conumuzity and in adjacent conumuzities. C. Approach to Land Use Management Plan The approacti has two primary elements. Firstly, in the 1992 noise zones of Idn 65 and greater, the policy would be of maintaining the residential �1� Land Use Compatibility G�idelines adopted in 1983 Metropolitan DeveloFxnent CC�ide amendment are identical to those in the 1986 edition, except that the timeta.ble for compliance by indivic�ual co�ninities has been extended. 11 \ character of the neighborhoods while ia�lementing a program which will, in the long-term, result in the residents coming to terms with the noise environment in which they live. This'is the "corrective" program, designed to alleviate perceived problems in already developed areas. The corrective program would recognize the varying responses of different indivic�uals to aircraft noise as documiented in the 1986 Conmtunity Survey (Appendix C), and provide a series of options for resolution of perceived problems.�� For the individual who is so disturbed by aircraft overflights that he feels the need to relocate, public purchase of his home and subsequent soundproofing, attachment of an avigation easement, and resale would be appropriate. For the individual who can Iive comfortably in the area with good soundproofing of his home, noise insulation at public expense in exchange for an avigatiQn easement w�uld be offered. The corrective program would have a secondary but important benefit resulting from growing number of avigation easements in the noise zones; that of reducing the possibility of individuals moving into the area in ignorance of aircraft noise levels. Acquisition of residential areas in the highest noise zones, for subsequent clearance and use for non-residential purposes would occur only at the initiative or with the concurrence of the jurisdiction in which the area lies. The second element of the program is the "preventive" program, wizich emphasizes planning mechanisms as a means of preventing new development which is not con�atible with the aircraft noise environment. The area has -a head star-t in this�respect since the Metropolitan Council (MC) Guidelines established in response to State Legislation provide a structured and systematic basis for land use planning compatible with aircraft noise. The MC Guidelines incorporate the so-called "Policy Contour" which is larger than the Ldn 65 contour used to define areas of significant noise levels, and requires that planning within this larger area be consistent with the Guidelines (Figure III-�}. There has been concern expressed that the 65 Ldn contour Zine does not include all of the area where "corrective" or "preventative" land use measures sttoulci be applied. The areas addressed in the MC program are extensive enou h that a ro ram of lannin or consisten in erms o he aircra t noise co atibility auide ines w� n � ementatio_n �rogram, wi� adewatelv meet this Cnncarn _� �_r�+e MC Guidelines 3pp�ieCi to e re endorsed as program.� - �ij MC has discussed a revision of the "Policy Contour" but as of the date of preparation of this report, the 1978 contour as presenfed is the current statement of MC Policy. If and when the contour is up-dated, an appropriate revision in the Part 150 program would be in order. 12 � IV. �."VAI�UATIOlV OF L�F+�IJD USE MF�,.SURES �' The discussion of alternative 3and use control mechanisms is presented �, under the tw� categories "preventative measures" and "corrective measures". A. Preventative Measures Alternative mechanisms far prever�ting development which is inco�satib3e with aircraft noise include: Land Use P2annfng. In caordination with the Metrapolitan Counci2, Iaca�xnments amend com�rehensive land use plans to establish guideiines for develoFanent in noise zones. Zoning for Compatible Developrnent. To the extent possible, zone ta encourage eve2opment or redeve apment af Iand uses campatible with aircra£t naise. Whexe corr�nitments to residential developrnent have been made or where ather car�iunity devela�ent factors override that of naise compatibility, adequate interiar naise level reductian (NLR) should be required and potential residerrts rtotified of the noise enviranment. Zoning Performance Standards. Incorporate adapted noise contours on zaning maps. Require any new residential or other noise sensitive uses ta a�eet specified interior noise level reduction standards. Dedication of Avi ational Easements. Require any new subdivisions to � . e icate avigationa easements permitting aircr�ft overflights. Pro rarrsmin Public I rovements. Wiiere airport naise considerations are not o set community evelopment factors, avaid public improve- ments wiiich would encourage increased residential growth or density. Public Information Program. Develop and distribute inforn�ation concerning airgart noise zanes and naise impacts. Tdzget developersr real estate professionals, and lending institutions. Disclosure Ordinance. Require buyers af praperty in airport noise zanes to sign a statement doccumen�ing that they know tha� the property is subject ta aircraft naise, Statements wauld be attached to the dacuments transferring title 2ind would remain a permanent part of the _ transfer�documents. Transfe� of Develo nt Ri hts. Provide a mechanism for the sale or trans er o eve opment potentia2, or density, to encourage low density developsnent within noise zones. Develop�ment potential wauld be trans- ferred from pragerties within naise zones ta designated receiving areas outside of the naise zones. Building Cade Requirements. Modify building codes to require adequate �or new construction in areas affected by noise. � I3 8. Carrective Measures A2ternative mechanis�s for carrecting prab2euts in existing developed areas include: Ac ire Develo d Pra rt . Where there is substantial consensus on e part o a nezg r ood, and where the'murzicipality requests it, acquire a gzaup of pzaperties. The tract may then be retained as a noisQ buffer, used for ot.her airpart purposes, or sald for development in c�mpatible uses apgrt�ved by the mtu�icipality. The Metropolitan Airports Ca�nission will not make spot acquisitians within a residential neighborhaod which would adversely affect the in�egri�y o£ the area ar property values. Any zesale wauld involve surrender of avigation easements. - Purchase Rssurance Proaram. Guarantee purchase of existing homes in speci ie areas a ter e owner has made a bana fide effort ta sell the property. Acquired praperty would be insulated and returned to residential use with appropriate easements and restrictions, or if appropriate, canverted tn com�ratible uses which da not adversel.y affect the integrity of the area of a residential neighborhood. Sound roof Private Residences. Apply sound insulation techniques to existing resi ences to ac ieve a noise level reduction (NL�R) which would result in acceptable leveis of interior noise. MAC would rec,�zire avigational easemen�.s in exchange for the cast of soundpraofing. Sound roofin Public Buildin s. • On a priarity basis, apply interior noxse_ eve re uctian tec iques to existing gvb2ic buildings which house especially noise-sensitive uses, primarily schools but also buildir�gs such as libraries, nursing homes and community centers. MAG would acquire avigational easements in exchange for the cost of soundproofing. Purchase Avi ational Easements. Purchase avigational easements from property awners in esignate areas. C. Technical Review and Screening Technical review of patential measures was coordinated with the �� agencies and jurisdictians responsi:ble for iheir implementation. Table •-� IV-1 shows implementation respansibilities far the measures under consideration. Co�nents received through this consultation process F were incorporated in the preliminary screening of land use measures. �'��'` Figure ZV-1 surrnnarizes the preliminary screening. Nine measures were reco�nended for further study. The faliowing five measures were not .-_ r+�co�nded for further consideration. r,�:r (1) Dedicatian of avi gational easements (sub�division �re�u lations). T�iere is essentially no tinplatt�e �'re`sidentia�I-'an�wzt'�iin the i,cin 65 noise contour. Significant administrative effort would �:` be required an the part of local governments for implementation. 24 1 . ,.� �• '. 1i ';;i v`' :,;; �.� • :' •' _ � ' �. .. ! % • � . . � .. ' ,�. --- , ,�--., --,; _�, . . • � . C � TABLE IV—t IMPLEMP.HTATION ROLES AND RESPONSIl1[LITIBS POR LAND USE MANAGEHENT MEASURE3 uJ �w � �i.o Preventive Heaeures r Implementtnq Agencies Jurledictione � Alrport Stete or locel Meseure �eretor Agenc�/Juriediction I.�ad U�� llannins Potentlal plenning Srent MC: Revieton• to Devetop�ent sppltcetion nnd Culde. edmtntetrettan. Aeetet in Sutdeline development. Juriedictione: Revlelone to coop. plene. �+;� -�� Teder�l Covernnent Poteotf�l fundinR ne�te[ence !f Pert o[ epproved Pert�150 progreo. Co�p�tibl� eonin� Potentiel p1enninR Rrent MCs Pienn1nR eeeletance and Potenti�l fundlnR ■eet�t�nce epplicetion end coordinetion. if pert oE �pptoved P�rt 150 � ednintetrettan. Aeniet in progra�. � suideline developne�t. Jurtedictiones :onins confarmence. � ' i. Zonin� pertor��nae �tenderd� ' , Dedtc�tion o[ ��is�tlon�l % eeeenent� ProRre�l�g publtc f lmprovemente �� Potential plennins Rr�nt �pplicetion end edninletretton. Aentet !n Rutdeline developaent. Potential plenning grant epplicetton end edmtnletretlon. Aeniet in Rutdellne developaent. J Aeetet tn Qutdeline development. MCt Model ordtnence developnent. Jurtedfcttonea Ordiaence adoption end loplementetion. ' `.l .i. ' I.. � l' j; . Jorindictione: Revletone to eubdivtelon reguletione. MC: Hevlee Development end inventment Fremework. .1urinAtctione: Revtee cepitel lmprovemea[ progrem�. /----' i Potenttal fundinR •��f�t�nce tE part of epproved P�rt ISO prograe. potentlal funding eeetet�nce tf pert of epproved P�rt tS0 progres. N/A I � . �: ;; ; . . _ I :•'• ;;�' • ,�u ::.� ��: �`�; 1:�_;' 'i, : _ � : ! r : . .. _ , . - . . �� . . . , • . . - . .. Preventtve Heeeuree I�lementing Agencica/Juriedicttone � Atc�orc St�te o� locel ►ede�el Meesure Opecetor Agency/Jurtedlction Covecnnent Publtc infon�tion proRra�� Develop proRcea� n�ntertele end MC: Plen�tnR eeetetence end Potentiel fundtnR eeetetenee �dminteter proRrnm. coordt�ation. if pert of �pproved P�rt 150 -� proRran. , Jurfndlettone: Plnnning , eentetence end coordtnntion. ��.. �� ' � i• �� 9 i. '01�clo�ure otdin�nce Aeetet !n ordinence Jortedtctlone: Ordlnence N/A , development. development� edoptlon� a�d enforcement. r O� Tc�n�fer o[ de�elop�ent ctsht� � Potentinl plenn�ng Rrent Jurledlctione: ProRren� Potenttel tundlnR eeet�tence applicetton end development. Ordl�ence if pect of spproved Part 150 edmtntetretton. Aeeiet in edoptlon end edmtnietretlon. • progre�. Ruidelioe developnent. ouildlns code requtre�ent• Aeeiet !n Rutdeline • developnent. Stetet Reviee building code. ti/A MC: Plnnntnq aeeletence end coocdioetton. Juriedicttone: Code enforceuent. .� ; .. 1.i.. i i 7 � 1 i�� ' � f ., :' i: �y� I ' � � i ; __ ± .� � . . � __��... !�w�� /1 "�� +7 t . . ` ""'""1 .�+�mt �'„*�..� ...,�... -�..M.: \ . N �J t Corrective Meaeuren i�nplenentlnK Agenclen Jurfe Tctione Atcport Stete or tocel •, Meeeure Operntor �ency/Jurtedlctlo� �• � , �i �-.. 9aundpcoo[ publtc butldinR• Develop proRr�� Qutdeltoee. Jurtedicttonn: Plennl�Q ' Potentinl Rrent nppltcntton eeeletenct nnd coordinntion. �nd adninlstcation. . Schaol dietrtcte: ProRram developnent end caordlnetion. Acqulre de�elaped prapertr Pucch��t a��urance identtfT pote�tiel acqufeitlooe, t�+tahlieh prtoritlae. Putential gcent epplicetlan end adr�iniatretlon. Pro�caa e►enegen�ent . Develop pco�ce� Ruidelinee. Potentiai grant applicetian end edminletretlon. ProRraa► ■enagenent. Soundplooi p=iTtte cesidtnces Oevatop progre�a �nidetiate. Potentiel Rtant appllcetion •nd adnlnietretton. � Purchaee •rigationel easea�ents � Develop proar�n� R�ffdeltnee. Patentlnl Rrnnt nppllce[lon , end ndminieiratio�. PraRran t�nnaQenent. �',. ' Juriedtctiune: Plenntng aaeiata�re and coordinetian. ' 1 L.I! ' ..S � �. Juriedictlanes Planning asaista�ct and coordittation, ',j t. JI 1� . I •. Jurtedictlaee: Planning esnlatance and conrrtination, proRrea adminteCtatlon. ��t •tl � I•�'t. ,•�� ; ;� Federel Covernment Potentiat funding neetetence lf pert of epprovcd Pert I50 pragran. M Potentisl fundinR �eetrk�nce if part of •pproved Fert 150 ptoRtee. Potentiel funding eeetet�nce ff pert of apppravtd Part 154 progrAa. Potential fundlnK ee�tstence if p�rt of epprovcd Pact ti0 progcer. Potential fundtnR tE pert af eppraved Pert ISO proR�en. ,_�..... r.....� �n...w ��.. ....--p r--- -l�.-" �_,•�q nry�r9 r-"-;; �"- , � � �w'"Y:� �.: � i . I ._ ;� :_ .. '.� . _ _ .... _ r 1 u- � Figure IV - 1 � PRELIMINARY SCREENING OF LAND USE MEASURES .9 � 'r' �1 • , � ., _ .�., IMPLEMENT{NG . JURISQICTIONS/AGENCIES � N s J U Q C7 U [t U uJ c4 a 0 = J j � • � O p ►�a- . Z � a � U � O Q w cn p Q o Z = o�C O Z . POTENTIAL LAND USE . ' F- T MEASURES m w i i oc � cvn i COMMENTS CONCLUSION LAND USE PLANNING A Update MC development guide. Retain COMPATIBLE ZONING A A N A Limited scope for rezoning R.etain ZONING PERFORMANCE STANDARD A A A A A MC model ordinance Retain OEDICATE AVfGATION EASEMENTS N N N N N Limited scope Delete PROGRAM PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS N N Limited scope Delete PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAM A A A A A A Potential benefits, limited costs Retain SOUNDPROOF PUBLIC BUILDINGS A A A A A A Significant benefits & costs Retain DISCLOSURE ORDINANCE N N N N N A A Unresolved legal/implementation issues Delete TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS N N N N N Not feasible , Delete ACC�UIRE OEVELOPED PROPER7Y A A A N A May be required in specific areas Retain BUILDING CODE REVISION Currently under consideration Retain PURCHASE AS5URANCE A A A A A Significant benefits,comp�ex administration Retain SOUNDPROOF PRIVATE RESIDENCES A A A A A Significant benefits & costs Retain PURCNASE AVIGATION EASEMENTS N N A N Not recommended as individual measure Delete LEGEND A - APPLICABLE N - NOT APPLICABLE i SOURCE: MAC/HNTB Evaluation of land use/development data provided by land use management program technical reviewers, technical reviewer analyses. e _ � .y.. . . :.�-, within the Ldn 65 _.�:na urban services. ._.. be obtained more .��::: and administrative � �� ccmnatibility benefits � . . •::� public information �. .: complex legal and . .^.�nts. Significant ..� regulation beyond the :r�s not reduce noise or •• �:�ificant compatibility �- .:�=aate the effect of • • :n�orporated in other . :::� purchase assurance ., . . . . .. . - . ' - � . __:c•�ing land use measures. i : �--- .. Y. . ...... ' . .._.... �J --'-ir�;5�r.-�%LI�1GiiP1y C.J.o :c•.�. -.. �_.�... . ..�.�/' tr'':nl LeQUCt10I1� �orrccL:fa r<,�s-::es: 6 . �-� �': . _ . , _ . . . . 7. :.c ; . : �� . . . , . . . 8. P�. _^.�s� , : . .. • - . . . 9 . Scs r:;.: _ : : ; . . . . • ,- � - . . • . To ai� in . -;-�: .- . -r t•• .. ^ . � . �� :-.,•�• . _ �•�,sier to understand the analysi s, •r.� .. • • • . � ' -• � � • -^•�•:•:: �• � : - r ;.��i: �d in tabular form. Ttic ptes�r,_a_:•,.. - -:�: . •�� ' .. ...-; ��,..,,::.: ts�:cr:l•_ - �. ..:�: . . .:;•. r� �:: �:.�• ;-.•,��.urc is provided. Ar�� _ , :,h; t. ��••,•. ,: �• •: ,. : t�.. ;�.: ' � ��•! - �:`;:.. includes the area :+ithi:� �:.� ;•i;� ,. ..,^ , ,,•,... . ,,: '. , •r.�. r,:nneapolis-St. Paul Int��r:,�t i�,;:�i 1•.i : ;�,c t 1,:: � :.�! • .;•,i •.�� .. .n�•,: ,�•. ,,Tp�opriate. l,r��i�i��tr�-i tu•r��•f,t-. -:!�i•. :.�•�t:�.;► i::�•:!y lir.ts the benefits the "� ,� .. 0 - measure wvuld be expected to provide. � - Casts - Tf�ese aze the p�ublic and private sector costs invalved in xmp�ementing the msasure. • Effect on Pra.per� Values - This is the cost or benefit o£ the measure ta cate`garies o� groperty c�+mer. _ " Effect an Tax, Base - The in�act of the measure on adding property �- ta or removing progerty fram the tax base is discussed here. r I Iementatian - This summarizes administrative and other actians ta zrng ement the measure and identifies any special difficulty anticipated. - • Other Considerations - Any relevant considerations not previously a resse are iscussed heze. Conclusion - A recommendation to include ar eliminate the measure in e recammended program is discussed here. � u 0 l� � I�ASURE 1: LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT _ Description: .�. In coordination With Metropolitan Council, local jurisdictions amend comprehensive pla- in conformance with the Guidelines for Land Use Compatibility with Aircraft Noi� �. contained in the Metropolitan Development Guide, Aviation Chapter (Appendix B). � Areas To Yhich Measure Vould Be Applied: Jurisdictions within the Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport Aircraft Noise � Zones contained in the Metropolitan Development Guide's Aviation Chapter (Figure IV-2). Portions of the following communities are included in these noise zones: M•inneapolis, St. Paul, Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights, Eagan, Bloomington; Richfield, Mendota, �. Sunfish Lake. These noise zones extend beyond the 1987 and 1992 65 Ldn noise contours , developed in the Noise_Exposure Map (NEM) Submittal. Anticipated Benefits: � Establishment and maintenance of the greatest achievable degree of land use compatibility. New development, infill development of existing residential areas, and reconstruction/renovation of existing noise sensitive development are addressed in the Guidelines. Costs: Administrative costs of preparing Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Effect On Property Values: Any changes would be related to specific zoning, density, and capital improvement proram changes resulting from plan amendments. In general, the value of property dedicated to � compatible uses such as commercial and office development exceeds the value of �:i residential property if a market for such uses exists. Bffect On Tax Base: � - Overall effect would be minimal, regional demand for various types of land use woul be unchanged. - � - Possible effects on local jurisdictions due to shifting of development from one area to another. ` Implementation: • � - Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) approves measure. � - Metropolitan Council and jurisdictions establish schedule and guidelines for �• - consistency in plan amendments. - Metropolitan Council considers revisions to Development Guide as required and reviews local Comprehensive Plan amendments. • , - Jurisdictions prepare draft plan amendments for Metropolitan Council review, and � subsequently amend local Comprehensive Plans. Other Considerations: -� - Costs associated with plan amendment process may be eligible for 80 percent Federal funding if part of an approved FAR Part 150 Program. - Federa'1 funding would be limited to areas within 1992 Ldn 65 noise contour. Conclusion: Include in the Land Use Management Plan. � I L O � � .� Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport Parfi 15C} �iudy Policy Contour and Generalized Zaning on Base ' ___. Poticy Contour R Si.�i. �t.�;d�.ti.t i i«d.�r.:ei Y M�III ��ii�nl7ei IN In�fl��ianel t G..rrti9i YIEO M�di�at OK �ei\ iN Ileed He�s�d PF Fvb�:: tec:i.ry ft flead Iletw pp �I��n�d D��ley��nl � Ayii�rll��sl Figure IY-2 ' :1 ' �h� � , ,�yr � � . ,. .. � j � �1 :h.:j��'�F'tr . ' v.. 'i' .�:Tt.�'r�'ti:�t;.�.tii]rn�L -^r��.^ `�K�?'•:y-�q.'n.��!":M'L �7 � x'� �. ^�j:. �,. :�:V � �'.:''. S: ' � ' t, �..�'d�,�,.�."�.'",�{'(�� ',�'� i .i , . �S�i:, .n;'�lii,!fi�,'i•Q,'�.+x: .d: , • .. '�r.,-tis:l+..}n�:' " '.i . �,�'�.•�:i: •:.1i'�.�,+:i{r:'+ •:.5; . i% �. i' . . � l.; . ; �, A,., y':. > �' i�.: S ;..t.��::% : °ti ' , ,.r • i, . }n.,'7 "t.,..41 °'�'. , .,a7.�.. .t�'�'=.'�•♦ .'i, '�{� s s, � ��`d .L,e , Y• .3..• .��:ii''.- i `y' � 4{ r ;�r . �"• . �.;, :.�..:�'�,�,,, �,a . .,,: ;i• ,., . 1 ..i, ��) ��Y��';�i; �`' ,',•`c � :!( • •i •r`'� '�Y. 14? :1•. ti�1'•''uF`^'::ii•�., `.�if'.�;:` �js.: aY= •} S ri'i �'t�.i�t� �# �! t. r .ly. _ ':"E.. i: •ih', `ci,.lir'..#..�I'.•.:,.. � �r'• �� <��?,;,,�Sw�,_ ,;; ..�.:t;r '.,.�..-.::;��; .i ) .,.,,> :,=,e:,:: . �t . �. . . . r ,r �.,. '<'; '�C'� t, .f,..�,.'. :dM1s'>.,} •.:'y..k:;.� r"; . .,..r. , �'x'' ;iL�'r' .;�,�..ij.::;' .•�' �q :C''+`} .�in'�>: cy � '{.r � •:{ . ,�^.}�tl''i/'�.^S� -F,..� :}�L"�''-.y''. i L:.. '� 14tt�"" �1 �:t � . '4tV.�r:.i.,..�s1' '� �i�'' . , 'i;.,. . i' ..f..�'• r;% ::ir -t{.a^.s..,x� � .t:+, d''l . • , .. . . , .+r. ;'3..; . ,. .�:�.. - ,�'.,,::r�t. ;.� •�;,..; .._„ ..... _. . �_.. ,_...... � • , . . , .;�. ;� KEASURE 2: CQMPATIBLE ZONING Descziption: In accordance with the amended 2ocal Comprehensive Pians, lacal jurisdictions zone property ta permit anly uses campatible with sgecified noise zanes. �• Areas To Vhich Measure Vould Be Applied: �'' Areas within the Hinneapolis-Saint Pau7. International Airport Aircraft Noise Zanes contained in the Metrapolitan Develapment Guide's Aviation Chapter (Figure IV-2). F Portians of the fallawing cammunities are included in ttrese noise zones: Minneapolis, E St. Paul, Hendota Heights, Invez Grove Heig�ts, Eagan, Bloamington, Richfield, Mendota, Sunfish Lake. These noise zones`extend beyond the 1987 and 1992 65 Ldn naise contours f developed in the Noise Exposure Map Submittal. Anticipated Benefits: Prevent introduction of nan-compatible develogment - in designated noise 2ones. Approximately 459 acres of vacant land within the Ldn 65 noise contour are zoned for compatible development (Figure IV-"�) 3 If developed at characteristic residential . densities, the development potential o£ these areas is approximately 450 dwelling units (d.u.} as follows: B2oamington - 76 acres; Farmer stadium sit�, residential develapment not likely. Eagan - 75 acres; Three tracts adjoining both industrial and residential develppment, patential for 150 d.u. Hendata Heights - 340 acres; Appraximately 150 acres barder residential develqpment, potential for 304 d.u. Costs: Administrative costs of rezoning process. Bffect On Praperty Values: Compatibie us� zoning would have minimal negative efect if demand for compatible d�velopment exists. Prices for commercially zoned property typically exceed those far low density residential property. gffect On Tasc Base: - 4verall effect wouid be minisnal, regional demand for various types af land use would be unchanged. - Possible minor effects on local jurisdictions due to shifting of development fram one area to another. Implementatian: - MAC appraves measure. - Jurisdictions prepare zaning revisions, - Metropolitan Council provides planning�assistance as required. 8ther Considerations: - Cost associated with rezoning process may be eligib3.e for 80 percent Federal funding if part of an apgraved Part 15Q Pragram. - Federal funding wauld be litnited ta areas within 1992 Ldn 65 noise contour. Conclusion: Include in the Land Use Management Plan. 21 0 K.EASURE 3: ZONING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Desc=iptian: In coordination with Hetropoiitan Cauncili lo�al juz'isdi�tlons adopt the Madel 4rdinanc� for Aircraft Noise Attenuation developed by the Metropolitan Cauncil (Appendix D). Areas To Vhich Neasure iTould Be Applied: Areas within the Hinneapolis--Saint Paul International Airport Aircraft Noise Zones cantained in the �ietropalitan Develapment Guide's Aviation Chapter (Figure IV-2). Poz�tions of the fallawing communities are included in these noise zones: Minneapolis, St, Paul, Hendata Heights, inver Grove Heights, Eagan, Blaomington, Richfield, Mendota, Sunfish Lake. These noise zones extend beyand the 19$7 and I992 6,� Ldn noise contours developed in the Noise Exposure Map Submittal. Anticipated Benefits: � - Prevent introduction af non-compatible development in substantially undeveloped areas. - Require appropriate noise level reduction (NLR) for new canstruction in designated noise zones. - Require appropriate NLR for reconsiructed partions af existing noise sensitive uses in designated noise zones. Casts» . - Administrative costs of adoption, implementation, and enforcement of Model Ordinance. - Increased construction casts related to NLR requirements. Effect On Property Ya2ues: No measurable effect. Effect On Tax Base. No measurable effect. Implementation: - �iAC apgraves measure. _ - Metropolitan Cauncil develops Hodel Urdinance �or use by Iocal - Metropolitan Council proposes modification to State Planning (Chapter 362} permztting local cantrols rel.ated to NLR. - State Legilature adopts spec3.a1 legislation. - Jurisdictians adopt, implement, and enforce Model Ordinance. jurisdictians. and Zoning Legislation Other Considerations: - Madel prdinance may be revised as necessary by local jurisdictions. - Alternative to Building Code Revision (Measure 5). - Administrative casts assaciated with adoptian of Model Ordinance may be eligible far 80 percent Federal funding if part of an approved FAR Part 150 Program, - Federal funding would be limated ta areas within 1992 Ldn 55 noise contours. Conclusion: Include in , the Land Use Management Plan. 22 � 0 2tEASURE 4: PUBLIC INF4FtMATION PROGRAM Description. Develop and distribute informational materials concerning aircraft noise and Noise Compatibility Program elements. Potential materials are shawn in Appendix E. Areas To �'hich tieasure Qould Be Applied: Areas within the 1992 Noise Expasure Hap Ldn 65+ would be included (Figure IV-3}. Anticipated Benefits: - Iflcreased awareness of areas affected by airport noise permitting hetter informed real estate purchase and financing deca,sion�. - Passible decrease in non-compatible development. - Increased awareness of Noise Compatibility Program elements benefitting current residents in areas affected by aircraft noise. , Costs: - Smal2 initial cost in development and distributian of pragram materials. - Minor administrative costs in maintaining and updating program. Effect On Property Values: No measurable effect. Effect On Tax Base: No measurable effect. Implementation: - MAC approves measure, - Packet of materials developed and distributed to land develapers, planning agencies, housing autharities, local affices of FFiAlVA, Iending institutions, and rea3 estate cammunity. - A computerized list of properties and residents in the airport environs could bE developed ta faciiitate two-way cammunication on matters concerning changes in aircraft naise and Naise Compatibility Program elements. Other Considerations: Cost of program development may be eligible for 80 percent Federal funding if part of an approved FAR Part 250 Program. Conclusian: Include in the Land Use Management Plan. 23 , ISEAStTRE 5; BUZLDING CQDE REVISIQN Description: Metropolitan Council modifies State Building Code to =equire naise level reductian {NLR) for new construction in areas affected by aircraft noise as defined by Metragolitan Development Guide� Aviation Chapter {see Appendix B). Areas To Vhich Measure i�auld Be Applied: Jurisdictions within the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Aircraft Noise Zanes contained in the Metropolitan Development Guide, Aviation Chapter. Portions of the following communities are included: Ninneapalis, St. Paul, Hendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights, Eagan, Bloamington, Richfield, Mendota, Sunfish Lake. These naise zones extend beyand the 2987 and 1992 65 Ldn noise contours developed zn the Noise Exposure Map Submittal. - Anticipated Benefits: � - Ensures appropriate NLR for new construction in designated noise zones. - Hay zequire apgrogriate NLR for suhstanxial renovation/recanstruction of existing structures in designated noise zones. Costs: • • - Administrative costs of adapting, implementing, and errforcing Building Cade revisions. - Increased construction costs re3ated to NLR requirements. Sffect On Property Values: No measurable effect. Bffect O�n Tax Base: No measurable e£fect. Implementation: - In consultation with State Department of Administratian, Building Cade and Standards Divisian, Metropoiitan Cauncil propases madificatians to State Planning and Zoning Legislatian {Chapter 362} germitting lacal controls related to NLR. '. - State Legislature adopts special legislation. - Local governments adopt revisions to building code. Qther Consa.derations: - May be required to impl.ement Zoning Performance Standards (Measure 3). - Local administrative costs associated with revision of Building Code may be eligible for 84 gercent Federal funding if part of an approved FAR Part 150 Program. Conclusion: Include in the Land Use Management Plan. 24 l�ASURE 6: SOUNDPROOF PUBLIC BUILDINGS Description: ' Apply interior noise level reduction (NLR) techniques to existing public buildings, su as schools, which house noise sensitive uses. �. Areas to Vhich Measure Vould Be Applied: Areas vithin the 1992 Noise Exposure Map Ldn 65+ vould be included (Figure IV-3). Two public schools will be eligible; Wenonah Elementary in Hinneapolis, and Centennial School in Richfield. Anticipated Benefits: - Protect public investment in existing facilities. � - Provide acceptable interior noise levels for existing noise sensitive public uses. Costs: � `� - Significant capital costs. USDOT estimated cost per 20dB reduction at $5,750 per � classroom in 1977; may now equal $10,000. Total cost of program estimated at $440,000. ; - Administrative costs associated with program initiation and maintenance. Effect on Property Values: No measurable effect. Effect on Tax Base: No measurable effect. Implementation: °• - MAC approves measure. - MAC and participating school districts would identify schools to be included -- �� program. �, : - MAC develops priorities and phasing in coordination with school districts. - MAC develops detailed cost estimates for schools included in initial phases of programs. � - MAC applies for federal funding, appropriates MAC funds for 209: local share. - - MAC contracts with school districts which are responsible for construction contracts. Other Considerations: � - Cost of insulation is eligible for 80 percent Federal grant assistance if part of an approved Part 150 Program, depending upon availability of funding. - Assurance of continued public use of treated facilities may be required for eligibility. �- - Other schools in close proximity to the Ldn 65 contour may experience classroom disruption due to aircraft noise. Noise insulation for such schools may be considered on a case-by-case basis. Such projects may not be eligible for Federal grant assistance. � Conclusion: Include in the Land Use Management Plan. � 25 KSASURE 7: ACQUIRE DEVEL4PED PROPERTY Description: Purchase groups land vacant, (2) easement, ar (3} of properties developed in non-compatible uses and (1) clear and keep sell for redevelopment in a speci€ied compatible use, with an avigation use for airport purpases. Areas to Vhich Measure Yould Be Applied; Areas vithin the 1992 Noise Exposure Map Ldn 65+ wauld be considered (Figure IV-3). Acquisition would be emphasized in the Ldn 7S+ noise zones. Acquisition _af properties fn Iower noise zones, Ldn 65-75 would be cansidered under the follawing conditions: - Other compatibility measures would nat be effective. ` - 4ther land use planning factors indicate the desirabil�ity of land use acquisition and conversion. - - Airport development and operatianal factors indicate the desireability of acquisition. - Acquzsition initiated by MAC (nate that the purchase assurance measures would be applied only at the initiation af the property awner) would accur only if there is a substantial consensus on the part of neighborhood residents that they desire acquisition, It would nat be initiated on a"spot" basis without the cansent of affected property owners. The program will not result in dispositian af acquired properties for residential purpases. Anticipated Benefits. Remave non-compatible land use fram noise zones. Costs: The maximum casts wauld be the appraised ar negatiated value of progerties plus administrative costs. Property values in the Ldn 75+ naise zoMe are estimated ta range fram ta per dwelling unit (d.u.). Approximately 22 d.u. are located in the � Ldn 7+ noise zone. The costs of implementatian will depend upon the extent of the program and the extent to which acquired properties are resold. Effect on Fraperty Values. . - _ v Na effect on groperties which are not acquired. Effect on Tax Base: � - Acquired property would be removed from the tax base. - Properties resold for compatible use wauld be returned to tax base. Implementation: � - MAC approves measure. - Lacal jurisdictions provide planning assistance, caordination and proof of community consent as required. - �AC develops priorities and phasing. - HAC contracts with jurisdictians. Other Cansiderations: • - Acquisition costs may be eligible for 80 percent Federal grant assistance if part of an appraved Part ISQ prog�am. C+anclusian: Include in the Land Use Management Plan. 25 > l�ASURE 8: PURCHASE ASSURANCE PROGRAM Description: MAC purchases existing homes in specified areas after the owner has made a bona fi effort to sell the property and has been unable to sell at a fair ma=ket value Acquired property would be converted to compatible use, or insulated and returned to residential use Wfth appropriate easements and restrictions. Areas to Vhich Measure Vould Be Applied: - -., Areas within the 1992 Noise Exposure Map Ldn 65+ would be considered (Figure IV-2). Approximately 5836 dwelling units (d.u.) are contained in the Ldn 65 noise contour. � Anticipated Benefits: � ` - Haintain rreighborhood stability. - Increase compatibility through insulation/easement. ,�_ - Reduce noise concerns of existing property owners in designated � Estimated participation (d.u.) based on Community Attitudinal Survey conducted in August, 1986 follows: Ldn 65 Ldn 70 Ldn 75 � �� L- �� rK � t� Minneapolis Richfield Bloomington Mendota Heights Eagan 634 405 364 7 26 98 156 19 3 3 noise zones. (Appendix C) TOTAL 735 564 383 7 26 1436 273 6 1715 NOTE: Survey indicates that approximately 35q of residents have considered moving, this percentage is applied to 4902 single family residences within Ldn 65- Costs: - Initial costs of property-acquisitibn could range from $ to $ /d.t�. - Permanent costs of insulation and property transfer estimated at $12,000/d.u. Total cost of program estimated at $20,580,000. �� - - Continuing program administration costs estimated at $50,000/year. Effect on Property Values: Value of insulated properties would increase slightly. General benefit to property � values due to improved neighborhood stability. Effect on Tax Base: Positive. Implementation: - MAC approves measure. - ' - Local jurisdictions provide planning assistance and coordination as required. , - MAC develops priorities and phasing. Other Considerations: - Program costs may be eligible for 80 percent Federal grant assistance if part of an approved Part 150 program. - Reuse of acquired properties would be consistent with local land use regulations. Conclusion: �` Include in the Land Use Management Plan. �. � =•: 27 MEA5URE 9: SOUNDPROOF PRIVATE RESIDENCES Description: Apply sound insulation techniques to existing residences which results in naise level reductians (NL.R) sufficient ta achieve acceptable intezior noise levels. MAC would acquire avigatianal easements in exchange for the cost of soundproofing. Areas to Rhich Keasure Qould Be Applied: Existing -residential areas within the 1992 Naise Exposure Map Ldn 65+ would be cansidered (Figure III-1). Soundproofing would be emphasized in the Ldn 65-75 naise zanes. Saundproafing in the Ldn 75+ noise zone would be considered if other campatibility measures are not feasible. The approximate number of dwelling units vithin the Ldn 65 noise contour is 583b. Anticipated Benefits: - Protectian of airpart from noise - Maintenance o£ housing stock. - Energy conservation benefits may - Acceptab2e interior noise levels participatian based on Cammunity 1986 follows. Minneapolis Richfield Bloomington Mendota Hts E�gan SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF SF MF Ldn 65 1178 34S 753 221 675 198 12 4 48 14 litigation brought by-participating residences. result. far participating residences. Estimated Attitudinal Survey (Appendix C) conducted in August, Ldn 70 183 53 290 85 36 IO Ldn 75 6 2 6 2 SUB-TOTAL 1367 400 i049 308 711 248 22 4 48 14 TOTAL 1767 1357 919 16 m SF 2666 509 12 318� 4121 HF 782 148 4 934 TOTAL All ' 3448 657 16 NOTE: AI mu tifamily and 65� af sing e ami y residences within Ldn b5 are inc3uded. , Casts: Depending on the degree af-noise exposure and the extent of NLR treatment attempted, a recently completed pilot program indicates that the cost of soundproafing would range from $6,OQ0 to $25,000 per d.u. Since it is desireable ta provide a noticeable impravement in the noise environment, at least 3-SdB additional NLR should be sought. Consequently, it is estimated that program casts would average $8000 per d.u.' Total cost of program estimated at $32,968,000. Continuiag costs af pragram administration estimated at $50,p00/year. ' Ef£ect on Yroperty Va2uess Slight increase in property vaiue passible due to insulation, but probably less than cost of impravements. Effect on Tax Base: No measureable effect. 28 ' Isplementation: . - HAC approves program. - - Local jurisdictions provide planning assistance, coordination, and program � administration as apprapriate. - HAC establishes priorities and phasing in caordination with local jurisdictions. �� Other Consideratians: - - Program costs may be eligible for 80 percent Federal grant assistance if part of an appraved Part ISO grogram. - Heasure is consistent with Metropolitan Council noise compatibility palicies. � - Pilat noise insulation study recently completed by MAC and.City of Minneapalis. - Residences in the Twin Cities area typically pzavide superiar NLR {26-32dBA) due to , climate-related construction techniques. - Heasure is only effective i€ windows and doors remain c3osed and measure does not address outdoor activities. Conclusion: Include in the Land Use Management Plan. � 4 29 � V. RECOMMENDID LAND USE MANAGEf�TT PLAN A. Program The levels of aircraft traffic and the mix of noisy and less noisy aircraft which will be aperating at MSP in the next 10 years ir�dicate that traffic unconstrained by a restrictian on air carrier aperations will ZesuZt in a peaking of aircraf� noise in the 1987-1989 time-frame. A cantinuing decline in average noise levels can be anticip,ated after this. The program is designed to address the 1992 situation which is the paint at which the prog�'am can be expected to yie�.d significant resu3ts in terms af land use changes. The reco�¢nended program consists of two major elements. `Firstly, are the preventative Iand use controls wizich will be exercised within areas defined by the Metropalitan Cc�uncil's Policy Contaur, and consistent with the criteria spelled out in the Guidelines. The Metropolitan Airports Commission will sponsor a pzogram of financial assistance to the municipalities in the implementation of these palicies. The poZicies will have Iittle direct effect an the more fully develaped areas of Minneagolis, St. Paul, Richfield and Blaomington, but will have moz�e effect on com�minities sauth and east of the Minnesota River which are less deve2oped. Any redevelopment within the area wauld be suhject to the grovisions of the guidelines. Measur�s which will be included are: ' - amendment to land use plans, - amendment to zaning maps, - application of zoning perfarmance standards, - public informatian program, and - revision of building codes. The corrective programs will be applied to areas within the Ldn 65 contour. The measures to be imGplemented are: - acquire property developed in incompatible uses and clear or sell for compatible uses, - purchase guarantee af hames, - soundpraof schools within, and close to, the Ldn 65 noise contour, - soundproaf homes, and - soundproaf other public buildings. The preventive measures are primarily the responsibility of the Me�.ropolitan Cauricil and the local jurisdictions. The corrective measures will be initiated by I�SAC. Each corrective measure is described below,�,�s it wauld be applied in the vieinity of MSP. , 1. Acquire Pro�rtY_Developed in Incampatible Uses and Clear or Sell �or Compati �e Uses . . This measure would involve purchase by MAC of a group of properties, probably residential, in the Ldn 65-75 zone, with either: - • _ 30 � - clearance and maintenance of the area as a buffer; - use for other airport purposes; - resale, with avigation easements, for co�nercial, open-space, or other com�atible uses. The measure would be applied only at the initiative of the jurisdiction in wizich it lies, and presumably only in neighborhoods where the jurisdictions have established that there is a reasonable consensus among residents that they prefer to vacate the area. Redevelopanent in a specific com�atible use will be subject�-to jurisdictional approval. - The Metropolitan Airports Commission will not acquire property on a "spot" basis except where it is to be subsequently resold as a residence as part of a program of maintaining the residential integrity of a neighborhood. In the discussion of schedules and costs, this measure is not included since it's application is highly speculative. Should the demand for this kind of acquisition be identified, the program would be modified. The survey of the neighborhoods proposed for priority action in the implementation plans will identify if these, or other area, are candidates for acquisition. 2. Purchase Guarantee of Homes and Soundproofing of Homes The combination of these two measures would be the primary action applied in the Ldn 65-75 zones, with homeowners being offered the option of: - purchase assurance, or - soundproofing in exchange for an avigation easement, or - no action. Purchase assurance will be selected by those who find the aircraft noise levels to which they are subjected intolerable, even with additional soundproofing. If they are unable to dispose of their homes after bona fide efforts to sell, public purchase will occur, after which the property will be soundproofed (if required) and resold as a residence, with an avigation easement. Individuals who are bothered by aircraft noise but not to the the extent that they feel the need to leave the neighborhood, will be offered additional soundproofing at'public expense, in exchange for an avigation easement. The soundproofing may take the form of general treatment of the whole structure, or treatment of a"quiet room" at the discretion of the homeowner, if the type and condition of the building permits. � For the purposes of calculating costs and assigning schedules to the programs, data from the August 1986 Comaminity Attitudinal Survey was used. Data on the degree of annoyance experienced in 31 C the different zones, and the percentage of residents who indicated that they have at some time in the past thought of moving out of their homes as a result of aircraft noise leve�s was considered. It is recognized that the recommended detailed neighborhood surveys will yield data on specific properties to be treated, and that the general program estimates will likely require amendment. 3. Soundproofing of Schools � Recent comments_from local residents have indicated an especially high level of public concern regarding the interruption of classroom instruction by aircraft overflight. The follawing two schools are located in the Ldn 65 contours and should be soundproofed. - - Winona Elementary School, Minneapolis - Centennial School, Richfield It is possible that additional schools in close proximity to the Ldn 65 noise contour experience significant classroom disruption due to aircraft noise. A follow-up school insulation program may be required to assess the need for further school insulation on a case by case basis. Sound insulation for schools outside of the Ldn 65 noise contour may not be eligible for Federal funding assistance. It is recommended that these schools be subject to confirmation by the respective School Boards that they will remain as educational facilities. Following such confirmation., these schools would be eligible for a noise insulation program which includes: - mechanical ventilation - double-glazing of outside windows - acoustical wall and ceiling treatment if required. 4. Soundproofing of Other Public Building Other public buildings reco�nended for soundproofing are those �- wiiere a quiet indoor environment is important to their functioning. Libraries, nursing homes, convalescent homes and community centers within the L�cin 65 contours are candidates for noise insulation. B. Priorities , Implementation of the preventative measures may be initiated at once, since the actions are all within the authority of the jurisdiction. If Federal financial assistance is to be used to support the implementation actions, FAA approval of the Part 150 ccmipatibility program will be required. Priorities for the corrective measures will be: Priority 1- Insulation of schools in the Ldn 65 noise contour. Priority 2- Potential follow-up school insulation program. Priority 3- Private residences and land acquisition Ldn 70-75. 32 ��- . Priori�y 4- Friva�e residences and land acquisition Ldn 65-74. Priority 5- Insulation of ather public buildings, Ldn 70-�5: ,, Priority 5- Insulatian of other public buildings, i�dri 55-70. � � , 33 . . ; l ' � :tiCO(:PUH \: Ff� CO:�;SLLTF7 G pL:1�:�ECtS �� -U ��` LrltiL2SC_iI �:ii�C(-iEiECTS 7 .i00 rIRST .�.�'E�UE :�URTH ~ April 6, 1987 su�T�. �:o - . _ 1tt�iivEAPC}LIS. �tti �i.tt)1 C!' .i,iy• i30(1 '� Mark Ryan � Metropolitan Airports Commissian Twin City Airpart Statian 6040 Twenty-eighth Avenue, S. St. Pau2, MN SS111 RE: City of Mendota Heights Comments Related to the Drafi Fart 150 Noise Compatibility Pragram Land Use Management Plan. Dear Mark: Let me begin by apologizing in taking so long to get back to you with the City of Mendota Heights comments regarding the draft Part 15D Plan. My schedule has simply rnade it impossibie to spend the time necessary to do a complete review. Now that I have completed that review, however� I am pieased io report that we find this draft to be consistent with our expectations based upon previous canversations and meetings. The paragraphs that f�Ilow contain �omr�rxenis �hat are intenc�sd to clarify th� City's position regarding specific responsibilities in the areas of preventiva measures, corrective measures, and imptementatian. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA We have reviewed the section on land use compatibility criteria and find it to be acceptable. This entire isstse is made cansiderably more palatable with the decision to base the airport noise compatibility strategies on the 1992 airport naise contours. As you know, these revised contaurs sh�w only a very smali portion of the City of Mendota Heiohts with residential uses within the LDN65 to LDN70 contour area. This is an area that the City believes can a�id should be addressed through corrective measures. With , the madifications of these contours, •the City anticipates no problems yin camplying with the land use campatibili[y criieria sei forth in table 2-I on page 6. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL GUIDELiNES As you know the Metropolitan Council's naise compatibility cantaurs encampass the substantialfy Iarger porGion af the City af Mendota Heights than do tfie ParC 150 contours. The City of Mendota Heights has undertaken a major planning study o€ the area impacted by ttyese contours and has esseniialiy COMMENTS RE: PART 150 PLAN PAGE 2 -�' Completed an amendment to its comprehensive plan as it relates .to this_area. Tliere will continue to be some issues related to land use as they relate to these contours, but without question the level of compatibility will be substantially improved following this amendment. One of the elements that has held up the City's adoption of this comprehensive plan amendment has been action on the noise compatibility ordinance prepared by the Metropolitan Council. This draft ordinance has been completed and the City has reviewed it and found it to be acceptable and �° expects to adopt it in the very near future. Following this ordinance adoption, the City will have completed its efforts related to the comprehensive plan amendment process and this matter will move forward with the Metropolitan Council. While the noise compatibility ordinance has been the principal reason why the City has not moved forward, frequent complaints from land owners in both ' Eagan •and t�iendot�a Heigh�s about ai:�ort operations wnich are inconsistent with the preferential runway system headings have also been a problem. All of the assumptions that have lead to both the Metropolitan Council's Noise Compatibility contours and the Part 150 contours are based upon assurnptions related to airport operations. Historically there have been problems with the airport 'opzrator and the FAA in that they have not been consistent in operating the airport in compliance with the operational procedures upon which the noise contours have been based. The City of Mendota Heights continues to condition its participation in this entire noise abatement effort, upon the commitment of all of the other participants to perform their role and responsibilities in accordance with these agreements. EVALUATION OF LAND USE MEASURES - �. 1. Preventive Measures The City of Mendota Heights recognizes the potential advantages associated with the public information program. However, we must emphasize once again that while we will make every effort to participate in this effort when possible, we feel the responsibility for developing these materials should rest with ihe airport operator and the Metropolitan Council. 2. Corrective Measures We feel. that there are some opportunities for the acquisition of ` developed residential property within the City of Mendota Heights. The � specific information �elated to these areas has already been submitted to you under separate cover. We have discussed this strategy informally with the representatives of the neighborhood and representatives of the city council and there appears to be support for the implementation of this strategy. We look forward to working with you closely in the development of this strategy and to insure the successful redevelopment of �hese areas. . � ,��y COMMENTS RE: PART 150 PLAN PAGE 3 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION With the qualifications and comments summarized above, the City of Mendota ' Heights wishes to express its support for the draft Part 150 Plan, as prepared by the Metropolitan Airports Commission staff and consultants. If it is of , any benefit to the Metropolitan Airports Commission for the City to adopt a formal resolution containing these comments and this support, please do not , hesitate to. contact me and we will make an effort to provide such a � resolution. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this process. It � has been anything but uncomplicated. We look forward to working with the � � Metropolitan Airports Commission and surrounding communities and _ the Metropolitan Council in the successfu! implementation of the noise abatement strategy for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Airport. � � Sincerely, , �AHLGRE��t�, SH,yI-�ULUVV, AND UBAN, �NC. ; John W. Shardlow � cc: Kevin Frazell, City of Mendota Heights , 1 ` � �� .�� EgGAN - MENDOTA HEIGHTS CORRIDOR ,.r:FINITION The Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor is an outgrowth of effective community planning and the expressed intent of the MAC and FAA to concentrate the greatest proportion of the air traffic where noise compatible land use can absorb it. The corridor is, by all assertions, the heart of the preferential. runway system. Even as air traffic has exceeded the �capacity of the traditional PRS configuration, the existence of the corridor has allowed the largest proportion of departures and arrivals to occur away from more densely populated airport � neighbors. However�, the same increase in traffic has taxed the ability of the corridor to effectively serve this funetion. , , HISTORICAL The development of the corridor occurred over the years by a CONTEXT combination of cooperation and confrontation. For many years, areas of both Eagan and Mendota Heights adjacent to the airport were planned and zoned fo.r commercial and industrial uses. Tliis was as much for safety as for noise reasons. In the early 1970's, when the preferential runway system was devised; it took advantage of the land use and open space southeast of the airport to help alleviate the �noise crisis in Minneapolis and St. Paul. To assure a safe and noise compatible area, the MAC even purchased severely impacted homes in the Acacia Park neighborhood of Mendota Heights. Because the PRS addressed only the direction of aircraft from the airport without specific parameters, the traditional neighborhoods adjacent to the Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor received as much noise as the corridor did. Eagan asserted that aircraft traffic patterns should be modified to keep the worst of the noise in the compatible corridor. In an attempt to accommodate this request, MAC and the FAA established a procedure in 1972 under which aircraft would stay on or north of the extended runway centerline for a distance of three miles from the runway end. . The procedure was a significant first step in the evolution of the corridor, but less than a year later the issue was brought before MASAC when Eagan asserted that practical � application of the procedure failed to mitigate noise or � reduce overflights of adjacent neighborhoods and, therefore, was inadequate accommodation for the disproportionate level of traffic focused on the area by the PRS. Bear in mind that neither Eagan nor Mendota Heights was prepared to accept the premise of the PRS unless its logical extension was the optimal use of the compatible area provided. This issue ultimately led to Eagan's resignation from MASAC in protest of such impact without accomodation (Appendix I). . C��'�IDOR In an effort to protect the preferential runway system from a � MMODATION legal challenge, the FAA, MAC, APA and major airlines met to 1 consider further moldifications of the departure procedure. It was determined that a five degree left turn on take-off would better utilize the corridor and the procedure was so modified. On the basis of this accommodation, Eagan rejoined MASAC and abandoned any challenge of the PRS. This modification recognized that the orientation of the noise -• compatible corridor was north of runway centerline, where the ` compatible land use remains today (Appendix II). This accomodation was reported in the press and described in much � the same way as it was understood by residents until recently (Appendix III). , SPECIFIC ASSIIMPTIONS Between 1973 and 1977, two significant events occurred. Runway 29R/11L was upgraded and extended to handle turboject traffic. At the same time, the departure procedure was further modified such that aircraft departing both runways to the southeast were issued headings ten to eleven degrees north of runway centerline. Three issues are significant to further diseussion of the corridor. First, these changes oceurred when the PRS placed landings pr�ncipally on the 29 Runways and the departures on Runway 22, thus reducing departure impact in the corridor. Second, traffic levels were sufficiently low that nose to tail departures could oceur and little if any diverging separation was necessary. Third, the magnetic headings of the airport runways are five to six degrees greater than their designations. Therefore, the actual orientation of the parallel runways is roughly 116 degrees and the standard departure headings were 105 degrees. ` Over the next ten years, corridor neighbors and their respeetive cities developed certain expectations based upon these headings. . In the late 1970's, ' around the time of airline deregulation, but prior to the industry's significant expansion, two studies were�undertaken which solidified these expectations. MAC developed its Noise Abatement Operations Plan whieh evaluated existing�noise abatement measures by comparing impacts with and without eaeh measure in place. The study focused on a 1977 base case and was completed in 1981. At about the same time, the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Airports Commission cooperated in the NOISEMAP Project to define long term land use compatibility standards for the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. The project which was completed in 1983, was designed to define differential policy standards for noise impacted development. As a� part of the Metropolitan Development Investment Framework, the noise map's policy contours largely define the character of development, particularly in the corridor area of Eagan and Mendota Heights (Appendix IV). The fundamental assumption of both studies was that 105 degree headings would be the dominant departure routes southeast of the airport. In addition, both were predicated on the belief that productive land use control measures or 2 • the use of existent compatible land use must complement source noise reduetion. Although the MAC glan used an Ldn deseriptor and the MC-MAC study used an Leq, both resulted in eantours whieh coineided with the campatible land use in .the eorridor fairiy equitably. While ne3ther Eagan nor Mendota Heights were co�gletely free of adverse noise impacts, the worst of the impact was focused at the middle of the compatible area and its o�rerl.ap into residential. areas was similar in level and scope. P'gg gND MgC The assumptions of bath studies urere formulated ar approved 3ESPONSIBILITY by the FAA and MAC, either directly or eooperatively with other ageneies. Essentially, the corridor headings assumed in both formed�th� basis for virtually all land use decisions through the study period and in its aftermath. With the implementation of the Aviation Chapter in 19$3, cities affeeted by aireraft naise were expected to madify their eomprehensive plans ta eomply With the standards oP the po 1 icy cantours. �ITY The City oi Eagan, through its comprehensive planning �OMPLII�.NCE process, is essentially campletely compliant with the standards of the po].icy contours. Mendota Heights has Iiltewise engaged in �ammending its comprehensive plan. Where eurrent land use is not compliant, its long term designation has been or is being changed to eampatible uses consistent with surrounding uses, In short, the Gities of Eagan and - Mendota Heights have modified their planning to be consistent with the expectations provided them by the MAC and FAA. The cities have provided as much compaiible area as they were to7.d was needed. � If the airport needs to madify its operational assumptians, as it apparently must, it should engage the eities in a diseussian af haw best to do that (Appendix V). � - �FFECTS OF The past-deregulation growth in air traffic eroded many DEREGIIL9TION operational assumptions, much as it has all around the airport. As traffic levels �rew, it became inereas3.ngiy necessary to util.ize diverging separation between parallei or sucesssive departures. The need to maintain at least fifteen degrees separation betwe�n increasingly greater numbers of aireraft resulted in noise impaets beyond those anticipated in either of the anlayses described above. Even before the s�udies were complete, FAA procedure provided for diverging separation to the north af the 105 degree heading. Despite its presenee in the Tawer's operational arder, the relative infrequency of its use apparently resulted in its laek of eansideratian by the FAA or MAC in the aited studies, This 90 degres heading when flown from runway 11L resulted in direct averflights of Mendota Heights neighborhoods (Appendix VI). _ ., _ciIINTTY On a� least two oecasions, the increasing frequency af these° RESPONSE overflights resulted in official complaints fram Mendata r Hei�hts to MAC or'MASAC. In both cases, the proposed solution was to minimize the use of such headings through controller awareness. In the latter case, occurring in 1984 (Appendix VII), MASAC also supported internal changes by the FAA whieh allowed the removal of the restricted flight area from a neighborhood in Eagan and the adjustment of-"headings on take-offs to make more consistent ground traeks keeping aircraft within the departure corridor." The latter languaget resulted in some disagreement on the part of participants as to its precise meaning (Appendix VIIi). Eagan's representative, like others, believed the language to refer to the adjustment of departure headings to account for the wind, thereby approximating the ground tracks of the traditional corridor assumptions. This practice is still followed by FAA personnel who periodically track departing aircraft and adjust headings into the wind to maintain a desiredtrack. , The interpretation that this action did not modify tradi- tional corridor assumptions was the basis for numerous letters and position statements including Eagan's recommendation that the traditional headings be reviewed in the Part 150 Study. The Metropolitan Council likewise cited the traditional headings in comments made relative to the Part 150 Study. It was also ass�erted in no fewer than three Eagan resolutions forwarded to the FAA, MAC and MASAC specifically referencin� the 105 degree heading or operational orders which included that assumption, the most recent of which was'jointly passed by both cities (Appendix IX). At no time prior to the spring of 1986 did any agency suggest that these assumptions were not valid. FlA gCTION The FAA interpretation is much different. The FAA has asserted that the evolutionary development of the corridor has been entirely discretionary on the part of the ageney. It has further asserted that the operational boundary of the corridor lies at the edge of the compatible land use along runway heading without regard for the equity of its noise • impact. The FAA has said that the.intent of the above quoted language was to: ` permit the tower to keep noisy aircraft within the corridor. This would be accomplished by keeping departures on or north of the extended runway centerline or localizer. This would be aceomplished by "playing the wind," consequently, the 105 heading may or may not be used (Appendix X.). INCONSISTENT Not only does this definition vary from that of the cities, IMPLEMENTATION it ignores essential issues in the initiation of so - significant a departure from stated policy. The FAA suggests � that MASAC authorized the change. MASAC, however, is only ' advisory to the MAC on noise issues and no record of MAC 4 action on the proposal exists. Therefore, if the FAA needed authorization, it has apparently acted without approval of the responsible agency. The operational order which includes the change is dated September 30, 1985, more than a year after the cited MASAC action, making any direct relationship - with the MASAC action unlikely (Appendix XI). Since this was after.the Part 150 process had begun, any modification should .have been �proposed by the FAA for study rather than unilaterally undertaken, thereby changing the assumptions for the whole study. Whether the procedure was in'fact implemented before the spring of 1986 is doubtful. Les Case made no attempt to suggest that a change had occured in response to Eagan's resolution of December 17, 1985 (See Appendix IX above). , Moreover, any implementation of the new headings was not F known by MAC at the time of the Governor's Task Force , meetings in early 1986 as MAC representatives vigorously asserted the 105 degree definition of the corridor throughout ' the proceedings. This assertion was reinforced by background information prepared by the MAC for the Task Force in early 1986 which included the 198U Operational Order. The MAC also continues to distribute Fact Sheet 103 which states that departure tracks are modified in the corridor so that traffic is shifted slightly to the north, routing departures over open, industrial areas (Appendix XII). Even if this is no longer completely feasible, the worst of the noise impact should be concentrated in the area so defined. Moreover, the FAA's stated ob jective for the change was to keep noisy aircraft within the corridor. Yet the subsequent modifications of the operational order have only widened the corridor by ten degrees while leaving the 90 degree heading over Mendota Heights intact and in use. In addition, a 1986 study by MAC showed that up to 60� of all traffie departing 11R was south of runway centerline or turned south of centerline before the three mile limit over Eagan nei�hborhoods. This at a time when sensitivity to the regional noise problem has resulted in 57� of the annual departures and a similar proportion of annual arrivals being concemtrated in the corridor area. This definition also overlooks the fact that the widening occurred incrementally thereby spreading its incre�ased impact over time. Therefore, the FAA has not recognized a need to undertake an environmental assessment under FAA regulations which require an environmental assessment and the submission of an EIS or FONSI for: New or revised air traffic control procedures which routinely route air traffic over noise sensitive areas at less than 3,000 feet ABOVE GROUND LEVEL (Appendix XIII). � The modification of the 105 heading•after almost ten years of 5 use constitutes a new or revised procedure. The modification routinely routes traFfic over noise sensitive areas at less than 3,000 feet. It is also important to note that overflights routinely oecur beyond the parameters represented by Part 15� documentation. Therefore, the limited ✓ documentation of current operations in the corridor area may si�nificantly understate the broadness of�tHe impact. Essentially, this significant change was undertaken under -dubious authority, in direct contravention of its stated objective, without any enviro�mental documentation and, most important, without ever directly involving�the cities or public it effeets. More recently, the FAA has su�gested that this broadening of the corridor is historically based in the "original noise program for noise reduction over Eagan" which places operations between the extended centerline of runway 11R and a heading of 090 degrees from runway 11L. If this is in reference to the procedure noted by Mr. Glumaek in his 1973 correspondence, it was abandoned as inadequate at the time of his letter. If it is based on the premise of defining parameters for operations without regard for their noise impacts or on the basis of impacts at much lower traffic levels, it is not valid. If the a�ency actually believed the corridor to be as wide as it currently asserts, it could have made that assertion at the time of the MC-MAC NOISEMAP Project; in fact it should have since the thrust of the study was to define preventive, long-term land use assumptions. Neither the MAC nor the FAA made such assertions at the time and they should not be free to ignore t•he consequences of that decision'now (Appendix XIV). IMPLICATIONS What does this imply? It impli�s a need on the part of the FAA, MAC or other responsible agency to do now that which has not been done to date: a complete and comprehensive study of the environmental impact of air traffic in the corridor area and mitigative strategies to focus the worst of the impaet at the corridor's middle without restricting parallel capacity. The City of Eagan requested such an _analy.sis as early as the outset of the Part 150 process. �The cities have been assured that the issue will be adequately addressed, but to date � these assuranees have not been fulfilled (Appendix XV). The Cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights recognize that the increase in traffic has created a need for a wider area of operations. Aircraft could not be constrained exclusively to 105 degree headings without severely restrieting parallel capacity; yet those headings are the only ones the FAA or MAC have adequately or differentially studied to date and the ones on which regional and local preventive land use are based. The Cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights have accepted a regional responsibility to absorb noise impacts as is evidenced by present land use and comprehensive guide plan� designations for future land use. The FAA, through its F.A.R. Part 150 requirements place as mueh emphasis on sueh land use as it does on operations. Where land use does exist, the Part 150 requirements imply a need to study optimal operational use of the area. The current Part 150 element concerning the corridor is wholly inadequate in its seope and foeus. A fully analyzed combination of flight track modification remains an _appropriate operational alternative (Appendix XVI). NEED TO EENEi1 The Cities' cooperative spirits should not be abused. The ACCOMHODATION presence of sueh land use was earefully planned. DiFficult decisions were made to redesignate certain areas in exchange for aecommodations by the FAA and MAC to make them adequate. Compatible land use did not oceur of its own, but rather as part of a cooperative effort. Since conditions have changed,� as much if not morei effort should be. placed on defining an optimal, equitable�use of the corridor which meets current needs. PAa0CHI1L Absent adequate study of the impacts of the broader corridor I�ITERESTS procedure, residents on each side of the corridor have assumed that their increased aggravation is the fault of the other. Meanwhile interests in South Minneapolis have asserted that any constraints southeast of the airport create a bott�leneck which sends more traffie,-to the northwest.,. As to relative fault by corridor neighbors, each is operating under the assumptions it was given by the FAA and MAC via the Metropolitan Council. The Cities have been led to believe that full parallel capacity exi�ts whenever fifteen degrees or more of airspace is available. When the FAA has undertaken to widen the operational area to 25 degrees to provide 15 degree separations, clearly there is room for improvement to the benefit of both, sides. Adequate study of a package of assumptions which will focus the worst of the impact where it ean be absorbed best is essential. The Cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights are willing to jointly study means of defining sufficient airspace within the eompatible area. �This does not mean that flying within an area so defined is as easy as fanning, but requiring controllers to perform feasibile work tasks is the responsibility of FAA management. South Minneapolis would still likely receive parallel departures when when high winds prevent southeast parallel departures, when weather requires the use of both ILS approaches on the 29 runways, and when peak level arrivals would generate greater noise impacts than would a smaller number oF departures. In an area with prevailing west winds a departure pattern to the southeast cannot be underutilized when it aecounts for 57 percent of all departures. 7 'ROPOSED What do Eagan and Mendota Heights propose? It is not the iSOLIITION intent of the Cities to recapture the noise environment of the past. However, the noise environment of the past was based on focusing the worst of the impact equitably between the residential areas of the two Cities, as the Metropolitan Council contours do, and a modification of flight tracks to accomplish that. To attempt to resolve this issue, the Cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights suggest: 1. Adequate Analysis - The Cities have proposed in the past and continue to propose,that differential analysis of several packages of flight tracks with varying coneentrations along each track be studied to define a feasible combination of headings providing at least 15 degrees separation which places the worst of the noise impact equitably between the two communities. The Part 150 process or a study process which similarly addresses both land use and mitigative operational measures would serve the iriterests of the entire region. The current Part 150 corridor element merely describes the present situation in d'etail without examining any mitigative strategies. 2. Ongoing Enforce�ment - Because human nature seeks the path of least resistance, any resolution of this issue will depend upon adequate management to insure that South Minneapolis receives no more than its operationally _ .. dictated volume of traffie and that operational parameters defined through analysis be followed. 3. Ongoing Environmental Assessment - Airport neighbors have become aceutely aware of the dynamic nature of the airline industry. Iiowever,. when changes must occur, environmen°tal documentation should be automatic and preemptive, ��not grudgingly acknowledged after the fact. The FAA shoul�d not presume to go from the equivalent of a two way road to a superhighway without public process and the direct in,volvement oF the cities and citizens affected. The Interstate Commerce Clause is not absoYute.. It only pertains to unreasonable restraint of trade. Consideration of the environmental rights of airport neighbors is a reasonable expectation. � �4. Consistent Communication - It is difficult to adequately develop citizen expectations when procedures or assumptions are changed without adequate, direct communication with the Cities and their responsible authorities. If we are informed, we can keep citizens informed. If we are not informed and realities change, citizen complaints against the airport are appropriate and inevitable. 5. Traditional Assumptions When Appropriate - Groundtraeks corresponding with the 105 degree heading are still the r;� best naise abatement eanfiguration during late nigh� and off peak operations. The current operatianal order still� requires them when diverging separatian is no� in use. Noise impacts and overflights outside of the eorridor withaut apparent reasan create the mast vehement af naise complaints. CONCLIISI4N In sum, ehanges have been undertaken'� whieh madify substantially the land use assumptions Eagan and Mendota Heights must follow. Hawever, these ehanges were ur�der�aicen .wiihout publie process. No� effort was made to study its impaet ar eansider its relative equity. Beeause the general area was campatibl.e, the rights of those on either side were averlooked. It is unfair to penalize an area's residents because its governments have acted responsibly. The point af this positian pager is nat ta prateet Eagan ar Mendota Heights citizens to the detriment of others. Nor is it to seeure a noise f`ree environment. Na airpart neighbar can expect that. However, they should be directly involved in a meaningful way with deeisions which affeet them. The point of this paper is to elicit an adequate, substantive study of the optimal use af the corridor as a full parallel capacity airway in an appropriate forum. Optimal use meaning that whieh �equitably centers an the middle of the noise eompa�ible area. Eagan and Mendata Fieights have aecepted a regional responsiblity. The airport has an abligation to eooperate 'with the. Citie�s to mitigate the adverse consequences of that respansibility. APPENDIX I � � r`''t 1n ZA��t O : t �` f Z r o �P�;AC * � o ' ��f � 40: ,'r��s�o�� June l, 1973 ,•�. ' ; �-`� g� �� l�� 6�'J2J�,�'t1�..�� ° ��t/ i�'' ��.•"�✓ � . METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COiJ11�11SSlON P. O. E30X 1700 • TWIN C1TY AIRPORT • MINNESOTA 55111 OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR • Mr. Ray Kempe ' State Represeritative District 53A . , . Dakota County . �• 310 Christine Lane � West Saint Paul, Minnesota 55118 Dear Representative Kempe: .- I ` PHONE (612) 726-57T0 . . . 4 ., F . • • � -. � � . � ., . , I have your letter of May�30, 1973 regarding the resolution adopted by the Village of Eagan expressing opposition to the noise abatement preferential runway-use configuration as jointly administered by the Federal Aviation Administration (�FAA), Air Traffic Control Tower, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and the airlines serving the Minneapolis-Saint Paul �nternational Airport --�nTold Chamberlain Field. ' . � ' The aircraft noise problem at Eagan has been the subject of a great deal of discussion, effort and work on the part of everyone concerned• which includes in part the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC), the MAC, the FAA and all 8 airlines. In order to search out a solution, we have worked in concert with the conterned principals, Mr. Roger Sperling, Mr. Marvin Green and Mr. Don Giblin. As the result of the combined,work of this Ea an Committee, MASAC, . e I'AA, the airlines and ourselves, we placed into effecta 3-4 mile\•�, ME gate eparture and approach procedure that seemed, u until ver 't recen y, to completely satisfy the problem. As a matter of fact, � . empe, we elt that we had found the solution to the Eagan problem� and were not aware until approximately a month ago that the solution � was not as good as we thought it was. � - " The impact o� the seriousness of the present and deteriorated situation in �agan was'dramatically brought to our attention very recently when Mr. Rog�r Sperling announced the problem at a recent meeting of MASAC 0 � OFFICC LOCATIQF!—CQ40 20th AVE. S0.—WFST TE(iMINAL AR[A—�AINN[APOLIS-SAiNT PAUL INT[RNA710NAL AIRPORT �� • � Mr. Ray K�mpe -2- �une 1, I973 • - `'J� nd then wi�hdrew the Eagan representation from tha� body. The only .�ndication we had that our solution "had fallen apart" was through a very strong, very emphatic, very caustic complaint from Mr. Marvin . Green a day or sa before the scheduled rneeting. � � Immediately after the meeting we set up procedures to find corrective action. First, Mr. Henry Kuitu, our Executive Director, Mr. Claude Schmidt, our Director of Naise Abatement and Environmental Control, and myself extensively visited the site, evaluated the situation and taiked with various residents within the area, Then we called an emergency meeting af inembers of the MASAC Operations Gommi�tee, members of the airlines, representatives of the FAA Air Traffic Control Tower, • t e Ch�.cago Representative of the Air Transport Association (ATA) � and ourselves to pursue in depth what had gone wrong and what possible remeda.es w�re available. This committee met on Tuesday May 30, 19731, procedure which is an improvement of the orictinal. We .feel this . � pracedure has the potential to completely sol.ve the problem, in our, _ - opinion. Very simply e�l.ained this procedure is a left turn immediately ' a��er take-off to a compass heading �v create as much as possible� � a buff�r area betsaeen the departing aircraft and �he enclave of houses closest to the departure and approacYi zone. This is ra�her radical take-off procedure and we feel we are gaing as far as safety will permit. We are willing ta do this to this degree in order to try �o obtain the best pos�ible relationship with these airport neighbors. The cooperatian exhibited by a11, concerned was mos� commend'able and .� the.wil.lingness to do everything possible was most obviaus. , � t. ' For �he record, a few statements have been made to the press and others regarding the dispersement of traffic to the southeast that are erroneo�s, It has been stated that we are directing 50/ of our total traffic on the runway (lIR) closest to Eagan residents and Mr. Sperlings hause. �This is nat so. We have two parallel runways in the sou�heas� direction which is the "heart" of the airport op�ra- tion. Runway 11.L, the farthest from Eagan, carries approxi.mat�ly 40/ of the �otal aircraft mov�ments to the southeast.. This is �he traffic tha� departs over the Acacia Park area which is i:he property we are in the process of acqui.ring in conc�rt with Mendota Heights. Another statement that deserves clarification is the one made in the press that implies ihe Mt3.0 seems to resist offieial representation from Dakota County {thus Eagan) on the Commission. Tl�is is not true, 9 � Mr. Ray Kempe �� 3une 1,�1973 . 'he MAC sponsored a bill for an act during the first half of the _ession that a.ccomplished just that. We worked very hard for the passage of thzs good bill because we belie've the suburban representa- tion is vital and needed in this day and age. The bill passed with an overwheZming victory t108 ayes to 14 nays}•in �he House, but -- bogged down in a Senate Committee. Needless �o say we were very disappointed that the bill. did not become 1aw. We welcome and solicit representation from Dakota as well as the other counties. �. ' There is no question that perhaps the mos� serious problem ever encountered in �he histary of air commerce was that of aircraft noise _and its adverse effects on the airport neighbors. This problem was an internatianal problem and practi.cally every airport of th� entire .world was faced with a seemingly insoluble dilemma. We were no exception here a� the Minneapolis-Sain� Paul Metropol.itan and Suburban. area. �+ie had our share of the problem! Howevert I am pleasedta be able to repart to you that t3ie problem � of aircraft noise has been gr�ea�ly attenuated, especially in the Minneapolis and Saint Paul Metropolitan and Subarban area and it is getting better as each year goes by. We completely agree with . the FAA, NASA, the Airline Qperators'Council Snternational {A4C=�, :he airlines, the engine and airframe manufacturers and other autharities in the fi.e2d tha� aircraft noise as such will cease 'to be an _issue 4 by the end of this decade. This is due ta the efforts of all concerned to find innovative methods which wiZl provide reZief fram the problem. Pe�haps, the most impor�ant contribution of all is the introduction of new hardware such as the DC--lQ and the L-ltill that has been ' designed and manufactured for the first ta.me wi�h noise attenuation . in mind..WeYe at the time period when the introduction of these new � aircraft a.nto the opera�ing fleets of the airlines is beginning to become apparent. ... and this is only the Ist step in a series�of � new quie� hardware �hat will be on the scene in the futuze. There is no question about it, Mr. Kem jets - the DC-8 `s and the Boeing 707 �s These aircraft made their appearanc� i a very s�rious prob�.em in 1966. Today being phaued out af operation because ?e, the first gen�ration of eri�s are noise offensive. n numb�rs sufficient to cause these aircraft ar� rapidl.y they hav� reached the end of their useful lives and for the most part are depr�ca.ated dawn to the poin� wh�re they must be sald and they will be soid�to the emerging � � a riac. Ray Kempc �� '-4- s..1 June Z, 1973 nations of the world who have a different set af priorities fram us. The replacement aircraft, I men�i�ned previously, the second�genera- tion of jets, are 4 times less noisy than thos� being retired. Just behind these second generation jets are the quiet aircraft, the 3rd generation ot jets, powered by the NA,SA quiet engines, NASA through its aeronautic mission has sp�nt a great dea1. of time, effort and money develaping the quiet engine which is scheduled ta appear - as retrofits for tYiE e.Yist3.ng aircraft such as tlze 72? and will be used as the primary source of power for the new aircraft now a.n the pracess o� bcing designed and manutactured. The impact of the quiet engine should begin to be felt sometime in I.975. We will aiso be witnessing at this �ime period the advent of the QTOL and the QSTOL (Quiet Short Take-off and Landing Aircraft) such as the Europl.ane and others. Also making its appearance in the future will be the blawn-flap canfiguration aircraft which will also be quiet and STOL. So what I am �aying, in e�fect, rir. Kempe, is that aircraft can be and will be compatible with the�environs. What we must�do, through cooperation and effort, is to seek the bes� possible answers for �he pres�nt. . - Here in the Twin Cities area cae have�implemented 12 far reaching prograrns that have had warthwhile contributions toward noise attenu- ation: . . ' 1.. �referential Runway Program _ , " � Y �� 2. Restriction of Training Fligh �s - 3: 3 Degree Glide Slopes (excepting 29L - Category IS runwayj . �. Nois� Abatement Take-off Signs (induce Pilot Sensitivity) 5. Track - 4 miles DME gate �� 6. VASI - Visual Approach Slope Sndicatar � �� . 7. Mendota Heights, Acacia Park acqaisition prograrn , (53 homes, 75 acres - 3.5 ma.11ion dollars) _ a. Inita.al step 3.n land u�e program. � 8. Noise Abatem�n� Jet Take-af� Profiles • ' 9. Keep-�m-high Program (FAA) � � �' a. Jets remain at 1q,000 feet until 30 miles from Wold b, Descent Restricta.ans Requiring to Remain at 5,OOQ ' F�et until 15 Mil�s� from end of Runway (lower power settings during ste�p descent� . 30. Graund Noise A�tenuation Program � a. Phase I- Green I3arrier ... Transient Op�rational Noises b. Phase II - Maintenanc� Engine Run-up 11. ATIS information program -- pilat awareness and s�nsii:ivity program -, 4. : . I2. Voluntary night tim� curfew: � � ,�r. . Ray Kempe .��y,� �5�- . y,�;ane 1, 1973 The implernentation of these 12 points has given our a5.rport interna�ianal recognition and I can say to you that we have led the nation in noise ' a�ement efforts and accomplishm�nts. ' . I wish ta assure you, Mr. Kempe, that the problem in Eagan is of . the highest priarit�r to us. We are dc�ing everything tha� we believe � possible ta make this airport'operatian more comgatible to its environs = and still be able to contribute in a positive way to the soci.o-economic 1.ife of our communzty. Thank you for your iett�r and we will be most anxious to m�et wi�h you at your convenience to e�lain the problems a.nvalved in greater depth. . ' . - • Very truiy yours, ' � /��. / . �, ., � . 1G�/. , l, 9 . � � .,,,�� j� . , . Raymond G. Glumack . � . ' Director of Operati.ons . • . � :�r . • . w Enclosure � - ' " -RGG/P� � � ' ' • � . . ' . ` • _ . • :, _ • . 0 „' � ' u . u APPENDIX II 0 - F • • • . , ' . . , ' . '- . ... . . ' _. . ' , .. � \ ..+^.a r. a l: . � �' - f t � I ( i . 1 . . %�- (')} .�.�, � X. , - , .o ' � 1 ! .t- '�,,, �..- �....!��yy !. � p1 j � t y � ' � !�• ..l a � . • .•..i�.o �; "- •� ��y I\ ' •t��ty' ,. •;;^\•:.:• .t� �`� � �.� � � •�,�.�►,y^' k K'"�• � �1 �.....a v �'\j .F ��`: r�a: ;..L.(�� '".',/ '. Yi/�' r'.., e, i/i � Of •�I%�v 1:: q� ; .•�•,•�>r�� ( / �.�: i Y �S .'y ` � " "t i < •� � • t I f�{ f ' 1•' (1y �% � � • : S � j:i /��. `T : 'i ' ^( . �� : �- i : �,, .�4� � ��.. ` t �,ai b 1� , \ s,�•i uL ,. ��ji r �J• • jw y % •\ l A''`•;�� /. -�SY'-L:�. /(/.:.' 1 •` 0 �. �vC'�,.� ' ; � � :� �,.,r.�v :+ �'. � � �„rl� � �`t,` ��l""^.. .• 'r•`':..�'F,' r `! 45/..�..• 0� �i� �.'•�.��t��.C'�� J��j, .;�,.��;w �i � t � •� ,.,. i�. y2 •��. � � e..•.�• � '. • 1 � �Y.`J��' ��r`'j •' f�; /�:'..� i.t : •-�l • • IiF'•l ,,. � ••' ��;'; :�: , �A„ir �� { y4 y'� l �i 1 �.� �.e. �� `�� ,�:.,�:1 ={ti-�-l��._jijl' � �/l:fil�Y4�"�,�) .,`'QQitt , •� 1� . '�� .i '� ti .a � . ! . � � t'�`'� { � � J'\:�``�._� ,,.sas '�%'''�w _ ��r/- �:; ! K : 1l,`1.�, Zn ti �� j ! . :` �a •� � �, . :t, ��' i �t �1 �� •s U':� ? � l� i . ` "` � :i' -- = - - . _.�% %"'�'. =� k ' '"�1 'r 11•" �» " N' '• � � 1 � '�, • ;! ._._ _ ` --. ; , b�,.a+ : :� t '=''� `' ; t 4 � ;'«:` � . t• r � i '�"'' .+ r 't ( • r : g � �ti- s . ,� � ; .. � �' '•�,,,.x.. • Z;:• '� -; � : t•��i � �1«��•��•i, � l'4 `..•:i!�:��' ,� �,�'� kt' �•. ,4,� Y �Q^�+i�,�.}`}(/, �:��,f �t:A^�i,''r.t• ...� � •� (�.t� -%i : "' ,'• , ,,,'t,� , •1 '� _�A"".a_�,,,..!� L ...H'YSaiST�I1 • R�SATIOK ,.l :� � • •. ♦, ' •� �'��'Y� �,:�'_V% r� ��S �� ` �. 'Y..��:� .t� • �,•.,,�.i.`Y"' ., �_�:.�w...• . ..�• ^'`-'Z�"�":; • � 1 P,.... 1' .r y�ti�� •; ' 'j � � i•.�y :�n.J.r..: / t�, ��<.` .i x r : . �/ '�"� , : � � . •�• • LXa' • "`�► ♦ ; �1ti j Y r ,,. t� r i i�� . ,. ,� t � � � •:/ �� i r..: / �'j .;% �r : ' ��'� . . � :S � �� X�.T"S V uJj 1 (r' ��jl'� li 1'., , i� .r �� / : ��.:�,�'`• �"�' t. / i: �: �� . �. �\ � 0.1�� ` =` � , � `� � r '� � . ' t `'- ', - V � • .�' i ' .. � • � �� —n.�,.,"- j% y • �j;•.� • r•,•• � w-• ., •',.. �^ �w,�.{c�.:� �1 ., � ,—' �..lt"' �; J`(. : �• �+.• �/ .- ��...�' .+,'?'i •' , ��- ft .-i j � .. .+� . �"'�L ',t} ��''�'% V �.�,�� . 'C�tS !� ,�• ,/ � �'.. �i., •"'� � �i t��Cll1in11' .� f,�• .� • � •'• 9 . .�t c" � V' J k ` '1. . �' •• .� �� . ^ �/ �� t• �.�, Q }r ,i i � ' - / � � i � •��•�� • .•.e:// �• 1 � jJ ♦ �r� r�� . �'` „ ( .�'y��'!",�. i t� ��` � ��• t'""(I j � •�1��.... Q,..;1.. .' .t •�"�. '.. �' .. 'U t � �«�, ` � �+•J ��,� ; ,r J"'\. + �� \��`M�":i !'� �Q�. .y:. •; �'a t . �r• .�r ��ij,• �� '�• :� f..-� j�.,. �: '• E •,. � ;.{/ :� , ... �� , C�.. Jj_`�� ,.r� "'' :, �J.� .ti` o�� K�, {• {�' \ �'. � l� ,`' •'•:�.,,,tij� �• . I: { •� •`��a"+`�y � t f . �li� '� � i� '�(�L 1. i�'.-` ��i'.,� ' (�{ „r� ' � �)a�t' , {'. . i1 y� � :_�,,, �' ;�,� � �� t� � �' .?\.� � .• j ' l l,l. • v\Q� �'°'°�Crrp :;' ,�` i • �� .�'�� . .c^�'� y' : is�.'- 0+`'`. �p�� J ��, 1 ��``,• • „n,i� . � � • p t 1 .r . � •'� � .. ,+. � r . + ��. Q.t' � 11.N.a,c�i i,tlKt�c�i \.i • '. ' .,i'��...� �3� i _.. r,. t �: t. 1011 �l ,., .r^.""� � � • [ �• 1 � �' � e • � � �. s r... .\ 1.n y N! �• 1 ��i,. � . r1. i �. .�,.... _ ...�y'�%,• /"` `.. .� ✓ . . :: J . ( '„ ; r „ , . �' , �{ ::. � �:.. • 7 . �. y o... ': j. �`�_ ,,,�,�,� Oj �� 4 1�•,,%`-•.;.;,,,� ��•.., 'i 1• t [ � � � '•" •'•' e Sl tr �;�'' ? :i � � L � . j�..•.-;"' 1 .}: r •�J � ~' ,,,,. •- " • + �1 1 : t L, :� '"p.+, ^'_ , .^,:.. 1 ' �: ; � �,�, :� � � ; ', . ��wt . s,,? � � •.��...... • t � � ;-�' ; :�: t � ` J '' �� . �. ` !/ � .r� n r , � •_ � ,�• � � ,n �►.1,� 1 .: ••'. �:� �, i ' � � s. �.. ' :y�:... �r � • 1 h ��'�p�t�. : � _ .� •/". e '^� w'1 � � � �� lt•a. a Ij,t�� a a '4✓'- ✓ �, •: •>.r '��''•� ,,,,� .j�.,'� �-i30 `'t' ��.. �� ,.` \ lt t, �'� • '.t' � � .i� ��..� C. �t!'�� 1hi.L, � T��?� S1 • t� a�• '�. � \ � S t � �! °' t C�•�' �: :1,; ��'' y Y' s,.• . .� •�� (� C��.. +.' . 1 •t y �yir/~'�` , 4� ' •i :�•t�ei��:�:�:' �.,:,;, i`f.� L. �, `. .�� .T�Wta•p /,�,V '\:QAVS' ..f..�.! i. �, % • ;; D -"��1.� �..,r.:.'. \� � +% ��t•.•t`• ', !4� �• � �• • ...:%�-r' 1. ... '`,`t, r ' t . . • .� ., ��........ • '33 . 1 � ` '�' , ' 1: • l-� � . . :i�•� � ' , ._ �'( � t , ! �� ) `5 i :;,.,,, j:C= �. (�'': '-c,,; • , °i �. i%�! `• •�y t ... y �'` .-'� � rl,tlh� ;� c'`� �'�4 . '`i `G � •' � •P � � ,j `�� 1.% „--,•"' Y � 1 � ��t .�'� '': � �� e� 44 � t`Z F` .Ei .'•� O � ti , -.V.ri �'�..�':.�.,/ «�``'..:`` J ' � i. � _...t,,... , i: �, , • a�±,�.t+'��y� � � t • � � < ' �''�' �► � ,. •'G ; ; • , ��' '?''••" S E i� A� t O iPf ��E� �b ��L`\\;. ^%'�� ,,,� � r�� - » ,, '�� '� . �i� � ' \ p�' �' 1� V ��"� +'��,.�� ^" � � .�:Ct��' ..^> ;" .,io�d� "��• �� . �... �►��^ ' • '!'r � �o�� t� � �� : iiT�.t�r .:'.''.- .. , �a� a � .. �,,, . r,..�%� '/ J � _� WY.�. , 1• .�' �\� ` ^ 'r �tti�r •: "�.: �. '.,r'3 /• •.. �• � ,,,,��'-i ,� � �..,�-; ' ;:�.' •*�+,•+�,/ � �t%G� Cti\ri�.��`"^\,�,� � . \�y` 11�� pi.�`•.[•u`^�i (�,i • �� iiYl wtll ta'� 31• • � � : • V% t � 1.�', ll-•••'� �\\ �: �. _.,,� ,,,,- 3r�« . ' �� "� '� ,`1 + Jr • . .� , i � �1'� ."� �� !`Y, • _• + . r�! / ;3 • r \ a /. , q.�,.,\ ,��+, ,��+. ,'a.�. � [ ,i/.� ``~,,�`��( jy�'— •a� ' •- ,�``��''` j ,, � � ; �'�t •' ` 4.� '� ��. �,�, a�.: ls-f. i5 ~� . ' • , , '� �•' �'."'�7 /i� � urti.tw"`� \, � �`T !� .,� �;. �•"`. ; ( � . , �„� .� � . n"`..1� �rr� n� ,S-}'^ "�=1„�...- [� _ � (%, � •t6 �8• ,� �♦ • � � /()j // x='� � �r ��r. � • ,J\ . •i�p/ 1„"'Kr. �y• , �� ,�.....J � lLj�J+ A� ♦. t Q�{/� • t� ,t^�' �:i . �,t :� �' �.t � 1'" %S! s� � w • � � , ' % �' r � • .�-4 �p ' . . ♦ . `\�. . � \, i , .:�� „ 'tn��•�� Y • i {� • '�%•• �.A �,T`� ` .. • '�� •i t•� �� U Y � � 3� �..,,�' �'"`^ . �� t� p'�� ` �''? r � � � r�t '�,` � ..---�.+ : � � •\ �v1�, •'�P� { { „� . �ySS �� , � �t Y J �,2. �'- r-�„ y� :, ;� i?� 1. + �� ..b�''`�"�+ . .�,..,..� r'�. ' I i � �, i\ , � ��.. � ',,�;a+Uo°t'sF • �,�aeoa � ; . t rj' ji . [ ' t // / � . . . ��%,f✓� � / .��.�„�R",,,�.; a-' ,.,,�t� �1 � ' � ., �i G�� ' � tE*ro�t,�� a I��M �:tlw w �. !( ; r • �l �, • f 1 .jl �1 :.� �a „ , �+ ji• ,�^;; .�, ^ t• o `�",�. ' ;Si� �j u\. -'•' .'•, � iih7t �r� b �.f i �`I �.>� r ��?, � % / .+'r. ' � ��.. . , � � 'o \,� � w t , • � � ♦ .r: . � .w"' •, ,. .. l , ?� � c� oy ��t-'i' � ' ' i • • . ; ""�: � 30 ' F� r ,; o%"" �"%�' . . `� =- �'� ,1 �- � ! �asi"� l� / i �� ~ , %< � l ' f � ' . . � ��,� ,�•":Y �� ;,,-.,...r!� .� . ' i �t (+ � � • �•».• � � v'4' �``� ' �:.. � *�� ,,,.�': . ,r� �` ,,. J� •• � t:y� `_ ,••� / } '' � . • � , ��r�� yl`��' �, t�'�"�{%�',�,•. ;..�� ' . ' i � i�� "t� �� •�: _� y p � �i . r �,•, , , . � � f.:::•:: ::�� "`.,... , � � 1 �� • fi' M � m •�� :'� �" .✓— ,;;Y.;. ^. i ,� +�.;....:� �..�.;:'" ��:i��" '"^�:�. � ' '� - '��'�• i��.�f��:, 1�._^ �,r v � ` '•�� [ ' , 1:«•. • `' .�.. i V '.� l.• `� ` �• � ,.' � � / ; �`� �,fl"" �..i:..�'��.��1 ' ff � � � ,t � ' ` '.::4� •.�. ..i�'•.1,!"`'�'�! � ' . `� ' �' �+' . ; � r''• . •+ � �/ �� 1 �. ,."�i • �.: .. `; • .�t'� � •' .� '•s :� � � � . t; , � '` 4 ', -.j"'V i .�' /....:.� .. � '� `� ., � '•. �v.' �ti `.iJr �:'' . y �4 � ,�� `\"�.' j ' '•�,+ � ..� .� �'�� '. ��✓�I i' \. ;� •,'� �C:'=,' t� + S ! ' �i``^G��".....+f'' • r , � :' ' . ` r ... : , • '� . ;•. " ' f . .,�� .% ' . i {�' -� .i•s' i�� '�� ..f��•.�+/rt�" �~��p.l`�'� i�2��(�1��`�'� � ` :i �. -:;''��'"..��. :�{: i'�;.�1 �. o,�r. �.�..�..._= ��,i,�,... :;4�.� � ..� •'t � .r•.e�,_" �{� � �, It � � p, Pr O � ��. ,•/Y •• � v� . t� • {• f' i1 tON yy+ � +� M� �• �l '� • r t i:i 'r� � �1�� `'l"+,- !'•G �+. / '•I ..� I •� �•� t+�'. �;'riyir s. ►;,,,,,� ��"'.� f'� i� `' A '�'' ;p,. „s' p j ` i ' " � Q � ., P�,R'� , D, ��i �,,� � � ` O �„✓ .c.. C; ' + � , • ` t'_,-`=',�,.�.,-.' •y"'SF' i -'. �J : l:.i 0 ,. ...,�/� f.,�\ • � � � �. c ~ pi � � ..) � ``I.� ANp: P �`�� /C� - �,, v • �w+� � �.0 • � :'.... � y�j/ ' Jc � ((� `� y.. '� �`� � ..,r,�n a i.c '�. M �UY .l�� .� �%'1^� ^ � •r(�',�� {} t � ''' �!'�.! p '� l-� (� �; ` 'f r,� _1'y�� .. '�.. , '.... t .� �'t• r�• � � l.� Y��": • 1 Y, ,,�"• t• '�y'µ f � � .. • /� R. ' � � �V��a Y' GP � ,• r /�, •.. Ll � � � i;: .:�r• ,r'"`` �� / �1ri'{ � � _ � • � . t� � i •' �'`. )� / • .� . rip"1%� � . +._... e •7 �I _ ._ ... = !. �� r~ • :�. . _�.•!..3 :. .'��:.�►.:e`�:�. ��"`� ��. ' i`,/�� . • _ .: 7 � _ ) . ': . `-� • '1�`�. t 0 .� �ATTACHMENT 13A \ � �''`""" i �� • �� i1 F D RA AViAT1CrN DM NSTRATOON y Hpls /S �.Paul IaGI. Totaer Minneapolis, Ma. • 4 � MSP ATCT �100.7D • February 15, � SUB.T : RUNWAY U5E FRDGRAM - NOISH ABAi�t�NT I. FURPOSB: To define noise abate�ea� gracedures for International Airport.� •-- Z. DISTRIBUTIQN: Minneapolis tower peraanael, Aiz Carrier Distriet Office . �34, Great I,akes Air Traffiq Divisian, Great Lakee Environmental and Naiae Abatement t}fficer. � . • 3. CAriGELIATION: MSP ATCT 4rder 7140.2C dated March 15; 1973. � 4. ACTIONt The control of air tra£fic aad the operation of aircraft sha11 be in accurdance �rith the fallawing: . . a. Pilot Res�onsibilitfes • (1} Whenever weather is not a factor, landin,� aircraf� shall � i � . maintain an altitude•of 2,00{} feet or higher-, abavs grauad, as long as �►racticable. ' • n (Z) When approachin�„to land ott a runway served bq a function- � ing ivatrianent glide slQpa, large fixed wing aircraft , equipped with a functioning II,S iaetrumentation, shall be .flava eo as to =emain at or above the glide slope between the outer and.midd2e marker; grovided that W�78II the VFR distance-from-cloud criteria require inCerceptian af the • giide slo�e ba.,aeeu the ou�er aad middle mar�Ce.s, 3�rge fiaced-wing aircraft shall be flawn so a� to xemain at ar above the glide slape altitude between Che point of inter- ceptioa aad the� middl,e marker. , • {3) Whea approaching to land an a ruasrap served bp visual.glide • slope devicea, fixed-wing aircraft ehall be flown so as • to remain at or above the giide slope n�til flight belaw the glide s].ope is necessary to complete a sa£e Ianding, . (4j Jet noi,se abatemeat zake-off profiles (or procedures} sl�ali be used whenever auch procedures have been approved for use by the ogerator of the aircraft involved. b. Controli�er Respaneibilities: � • --. � • - -- . pistcibution: p�L-530, AGL-540.5 AGL-4.2 ACDO #34 Iniriat.d bq: MASAC, iSAC: ATA, GA.UO �14 (infa coplsa) 4pns 0£cr/Training TRACON I 2 �E .o�.. ,�_�_, �.,.,� ' r'7 �.� �? �J. . " . 0 m .? , .� s i t i .; � .� I � ' . :� ' : ' ;. t . � ATTACEiMENT 138 �/ � • ' MSP ATGT 7100.2D ` �• 2/15/74 ' . . ' �2. � {1) I,aadings an runwaps 22, 1].L, and liTt sha11 be cnrtaiZed '. •- aa much as poaeible vhenever wind or Craff ic conditions . will allas+ �a alternative, provided: ' (a} The procedure will be �eed onlq with ciesr and dry • �" runpaps, i.e., theze is no ice, slush, eta., vhich �. . •. . . mig�t make use af the ruasrap uadeairable.. . . • _ _ � - ., �� (b) Wind velaci does not exceed 15 knots � t`}' • (c} An,y ¢rosa wind does noC exceed 80 degrees fram aither' si.de of the center Iias o£ the ruawap in uae vhea- ever the xind velocity is 5 knot� oz more. ' (2) Vector arriving aircraft 3,000 feeC MSL or higber until intercepting Che glide path establiahed on fi.nal approa�; unleea a particular a itus�iaa dictates athers�ine. � (a� Nosmallp, Cum all turbine powered arrivals on final approach at least tsio milea outaide Che approach fix. (3) As traff3.c conditiana permit and in accordance raith pra- cedurea atated abave, attempt to camgly with the follrrwfng ruaway griority: ' V � • I.AND7NG � TAKE-OFF 29L�R lIR&L �+ zz 22 , � ' 4 ; . . IIL � �t 29L � R {4) Wheuever the aormal.pattera ie aver the Highland or Saut& " Minneapolis area, a noise aensitive message shauld be added to the ATIS informatian. {5} In determining traffic conditions, the followirig guide s'hal2 be used for apglicatioa of aoiae abatement grocedures: '. Light traffic 0 ta 30 per hour " . • , Moderate traffic 3Q to 50 per•hoar 8eavy traffic Above 50 per hoar .(6} Ta accompiis� these noise abatement groeedurea crose-runway opera�ions are oftea required. It is nat required when visibility is one mile,or leas or when the Craff ic is can- aidered heavq, by the abave guide. �Then Craffic is consfdered ta be HEAVY, as described ia {S), uafse abatement gracedures shall still be used as_�zuch aa gasaible. The follos�iag prvicedures map be used as a'� ' guide undez these,conditione: e � � ATTACHMENT i3C �r , MSP ATCT 714�.ZD 2JI5174 3. ' {a� i�N 1.ANDIN� ON RtIII�ti,tAY • -' . � 29L •or R � � � . Depart ELH,'SOM, BEL and ANO , tr�affic on 29L ar R. Degart 30D, RAD, and MUN traffic on Z2 4 � Depazt ANO, BEL, JOD, aad MUN traffic on 4 ' � Degart ELH, RAD, and SOH Craffic an 12R or L. liR or ' ` ; • . � Depazt (ALL} traffic oa 21R or L. 22 . Depart JQD, MUN, BEL and ANO traffic on 22 Depart ELH, SOM txaffic an i1R or L. u (7) Controllers ahall deaq a request £or i3 C1T4'ii:.b, epnroach ' training pracedure involving turbine pawered aircraft. {$} ' The ust of gargilei zuusraps for maximum e£ficieat use of the airport is not prohibited by tbis order, except • during "quiet hours", - (9) Duriag the hours designated by MASAC as "quiet hours", the . uae of reu�wap lI% and 29R should be avoided. �. MendoCa Hei�hts - Ea�aa Procedure *_ (1) Tuzbine powered aircrait departin� on 11R ahall be issued , . instructions to maintain a heading af IIO degrees for 3 � ' miles before atarting aay Cura. Departuree of the same__ • type on IlL sha12 be fssued ru�a headin vr 110 de rees i nee e, or separation purposes for the same'distance. ,' Turbine-posaered air.craf t landing (ar 2ov pass) aa runways 29L or 29R aha11 be vectored to at Ieast a four-mi2e final,. (2} When issuing a vfsual approach clearance, add the following inaGruction ="Standby for vectar to ruaway 29L/R". Vector thie airczaft sa that be starts a ficzai approach at four milee and on a runway heading. t3) A2I aircraft shail be directed to use thia procedure during the designated "quiet boure". _ ' f� • : � , _ _ 'ATTACHMENT 130 • . ' .. - . . . � r �• �r' � � . ' ' � rssp Axcr �ioo.2n � i . ° .' zlzs/�4 � ; r .. � . � • . 4. -, , . . .' d. 8ackt�round. The coatrol �f air traffic, in accordance vith - ; aircraft aoiae abatement progxame, is secondary only to con- �' ; sideratians of safetp. Such programs, developed in the pubiic . ; intereat, may i.n sarae cases cause operational penalties. Sn ` �. caoperatioa Wtth the Air Transpor� AssociaCioaf Metropolitan ..� . . �.ircraft Sounri Abstement Counci�, Metropolitan Airports C�iseioa aad �he Federal Aviation Admix�iatration, thi, inform�l ruavay j [ ` use program was develvged in order to zeduce aaise problems in ; the Twiin City Metrapolitaa Aacea. i ' " , � . , : -- �� . ' � ��i� . �'� . : I: _._.. J � � . i -� .� (.,1.; y t.- c.� . LE3TER A. CASB ' ; � � Chief ' .j _ . •; , � . i . ; . : i � . ' a� � NORTHWEST AIRLINES 1. FIF 73-7 dated 5/30/73 2. Noise Abatement/MSP 3. Effective immediately a new departure procedure will be utilized for take-offs on runways 11R and 11L at MSP/ This procedure ' � necessary to avoid noise sensitive area/ Tower instructions will advise flights to turn left from the.runway heading of 115° to a headinq of 110 as soon as practicable after take-off_from runways 11R and 11L/ The left turn to a 110 heading should not be started below 500 feet above ground level and not before crossing the southeast end of runway 11R or 11L/ The 110 heading should be flown precisely/ �This procedure is designed to keep aircraft on a flight path north of the runway 29L localizer course/ Should it appear that winds aloft will cause your flight to drift south of the runway 29L localizer.course centerline, the tower or departure control should.be notified should that further heading changes may be authorized/..No turns to on course will be started until reaching a po�int 3 nautical•miles from the southeast end of runway 11R and 11L/ Occasionally variances to the procedure may be necessary because of turbulence or certain wind conditions/ Arrival procedures remain the same/ Strict adherence to this new procedure is required. Future changes in departure procedures may l�e necessary/ Monitor ATIZ and keep current on precedures/ Use your skills such that our industry may be compatible with our airport neighbors/ 4. FIF inaint,ainers acknowledge above message posted. William Hochbrunn , �J ..� � T0: Pilots' Clip Baards -- MSP-Ot'tD-DTt�i .. BCLLETyIq �0 7 FROM: A. W. Hinke DATE: May 3Q, 1973 The Villag� of Ea�an (�ua� �� he ;�:z.�.:��at��?i� - St. Paul International Airport) is a rapidly grawing co�munity ��*ith a rapidly gxowing nu:L�a �14V?�+mra Som� time ago, in an effart ta reL�ieva this problem, certain straignL� out {1? _ --- and strai. ;rt in (29L} Dracedures were i�n�lenented, .�he�e should hava worked, but obvious devi�atioas from the procedures plus a..*-.�increasing resentment tot•�ard �he preferent'ial . runway sys�tem Yzecip�tated ; aga� i s�Jithdrawal z"rom MASr1C . ' • � Tn r.�,king a hard operational look at Eagan�s �rc�blem it becames 8pp8r8a1t that '`1 unly a vsr; s�+a?_1 devi.ation to the ripnt of d�sire� out bound track caLaes i � an impingem�nC on that noi�e sensitive area. Z:� a�iser wo�ds, ;.ze '_'9� �c�r_a7.i.zer j ' represer�ts a thin Liae between a fl.iGh� nath that is acce��able and or_c ti:at . _ is unaccenta le. ' in recognition of �his fact, the tower will soar be issuing ir.struct�.ons for. a 110° heac�ing on Z1R degarture�, Thas wi11 irsure a�t:ffer area �eL•4�een actual. and criti.cal fixack nnder zero R. drift cnndi��ons. �?e eXpect a].3 crews to adjust ou�- bound headings as ne�essary to shad� the �iort: edge or tha loca�z�er. until �hrec' ma.les aut from the 3irport. • Naturally, t�e :�ea3ing restrictiuns do not apply whan safet;r is af��.cted. Your co��ie�e ccoYer�t� ryrr -i.s axEsected. . f ` ��--..,. _ . � t.,L.� ��.--. A. W. Hi�ke ,, I:anager - Fligl2r Opera�i�ns , � 0 APPENDIX III , ! , ` , . � -- - __ . .. �.._._ i • . . � k �� 'r.i!'T�"�7"';..+r+�a rs►'Y`�".'s,`�'A: ,_ .�,..5.�—��_ �►<<� . .:. � . ,-��.��.-..,��. _..��' � , a' • ��- . '�„mj'..�i.il.r . Irwry ' � �1 •3;,.•�1 •'�,� . •; ,,.- �. . , • �. `2 ' ' . .. • , . ' • i.. , � .. '",� rT� : � � �ecif f �. ��i��ri e: `�� i�:� �� Ea��, : N of��e�. � s -�.:, . _. � . . � , .�.. .. : . . . . _ . , � : . _ : .. .:.. : .. .. ::. �.. : .:�.... .:1_.. :. :,, : ....: :....... .: • ;:. «`By B4B GQLIGOSSI ' �vi�w � that �many� pilots on ' c]aimecl • �th�ti "we'ir�� had �• ., t i o � : • • �Adininistratioa,�M ; ��; � - '�� r�ter.' . ' ': �" depaiting' flights have � �; absolutely outstandingca..:�•�Narthwesfi� arid North�Cen- : . �, r'.... - . . . r . , . . �. •tieen f�ying. ou�szde, a'non-' operation �from' �the au�• �tral and the�Aar,�a�sport ;: _. ,A new,'noise-abafemenE' . residential.nolse.coi�ridor�.. .;liries,". notedthat discipli �� AssociatiPn. ., .�''. ;�,.:•, :.:::=;,'. =; taiceoff 'procedure at 1=Iin- • � }�e Dakota Couniy vil�;, , : na� • actions� were a mat• � : ' -' - � �Y�' ' `�.rleapolis�St . Pau1 interna=° �2a e, ' - ' � ' ' . �� "�� :� :'- : ter .between� .tiie carriers ' "'Ii ` jtipnal,Airpor�,was�startec�'.;` � , • �••� •='. .'`•-•'`f� .:�ndtheir.piloYs: ' ..ma� � :`�"4S�sdnesday�with.'the�Met=.. �.•�ir�•'attr'ibuted�fha+PT4��... . ;..;-.._,.;�, ;��.....;;.�.��.'.��,:..�__10 . a,x��ppaiiian:.,.Airgo�fs, •..Camt•. `gT�m��largelyta.nartheast';:'.,"�Th��ne��praeertiiire:�as� ��inau . � :missiau• (MAC)•prbmising.',,�uriisr.whicir,:acca�'ding tia `M: established�:a�iter.a.meet:� :� g :� naise•'relief.faxEa�aares-.:an NIAC..inspection�,�.,aze.•.�j�gY�esday�':attended.b��.:'thre� —;��ts: , r : � '. .,;t, �, . : fareing; a.i.riiuer�-to :<<irift �: �,; re resea#atives.: .'; f r o m . : � a �'tt II':. o ' ��as � taken ; 'slightlg, .o#f;; course �aud� �G-�:.•ti�'Fe eral •Avia�; '��uari� � .t��:• �..�`'��. . • :sometiaies�� -ov�er,; ham� e� v�.�ek•.:after: ��agan: ' / � ., . ' , � iF�oppeii � out. o%tt�e 1�Ietra•,: �„• and apar.tmen#.�.. • :. � :, •:a;; �: .'�, r.�olitan�:..Aixcraft; Sound.: .:.To.:compen�ate,:fos..#he:;,, � . ��atement�.Z:ouucil {M�iS�...':wind factor, �pilot� haveY';"' �'� C}-'and��thr'eatened;MAC:'.'.beenin�uctedto"�iake�a':r �. �. - � sli ht left�•tur� ;aiterlift:,�:� ' � �th. a lawsui�#dr sending.: ; =:. � . :� . �, a Iarg� numlaer of aircraft ..�� he�:•main�: snuth:s ; � "�•�ver �;' i�ts�. environs•;.arid'�•�;.sast nortt�.w.e�ts :xu��v,�y�:'.' � � ..,;I::;.:'� � 1. ' 'cu�'�� v � •�ivr,pr; k . � �yvay farari� ;?�npte'�op.ulat-,�i • :;.,,�,: �,:. is : #Ota11y� °at2=��;. : � '�Ci-cities.. � .. � �.� ;�, -. :� '� �. : `.�ered: ta,''�• said: Gltnnack, ' _ ~ x;� R a y�n p n Glumack, ';.� ��'1l:ha,Ve no�;pxoblem.":. ` � jidAC's..;ogera�on�. direc- .:. ..� � ' .,- . -..,::,�:'.•� � f�pr, disciosed� in.an �nter-�: _;=;:11�eanwiiiie;; aa'_.. ��encY:�c �`� �. -`. .:� �`� -�%Ia �u>�s.�r,e.p,ri.rt�yd�l��that�.: ��ir-�Y�_ _ �'1•�L�•T�'��r�:�t�.r��.,._�•_�__�ni*�'_� ..�'►T��i..w....:�'_. :bQ4'J]' "�Ila�. II��SB-i2�itC2li$;; J� � �:a��E��v�:,,� .,._i�v� ... .r . .. •. .�...... �r?= _: •� �, � . � '��,•y� :�% . :• � w r , �l. 1�'t. . �.^..+�'��1� /`1 �1� 13 /', 1 �' A � �� r\ . �: •, o,, �`� �." 'Jc^''L• i. _ ,:_� c�.� ...:.i � . y�:lJ�:. c:.: :� c:� �, �� , , r� . ..�,-1.r; •v:', � r�1 i!+ !Yi � � `'•" �� '14'1� �1 �� ' ",�� ;+ . ..� : �,.;.�.,:v�� ::��v�.7� � �1�1 �il� l::..�c.,��...� � �r � �d:��u`� � i:�• i)a:i tVasc�c Jr. ,' llull \\�riicc �I�url: w:rvr:: causcd by ' I?a;;:�n's tvitl;cira�val Crom li��• li�`lCt)�)J�il:ill At:CC:lft tiuu�i�l �1U:i�ciucnt Coimcil . ' iii bl:iv � ��ncinucd to wony ' i:,r or,;;mir.ation Tucsday j tu;;hl. , '1'i«� �ounc:il. �vhiclt iii- ; ,•iu�ir:: rcprca�ucalivcs uf .�irfi:i�•s. eici�a and thc :�;�•�;v�,ulit:�n �\ i r I� o r t s � �'��.uui:.::iuit, l� �::� rcl rC- �,uri:: tha41{:t;;:tn'scnuc�nt .�:�ult:. :IIP�:i':IIC I101ti� WlIS ' ,r,::t�iir�l bu[ t;t:tt correc- i 1� �` .t V L l U Il �1':15 I1��C11 �. . • ...:i Ji �.�t:V J�JG� :.;;::::i �:::.Z _ y... .. ... • L:):::::vC'l:a `.� ::•rlut�•n. 1.11. � � .�•.•In��; :.alr:.�n:;tt l'rc�nt � �'r.�;;u��, \'liun., �v:i:: t, ;�r.il��t tu �I�;�lh t:;u•- i�• '1'ur•.�►:�}� �ii�,ri�i�i�: i�i ��.,�,•��,�„•��. •�u 1:; �•�•.ir•ul�l y�uil4 i:; 1� �� t �� ; y�tr::li��tt��l :ih�iuC ,:�,• ,��.��•r ,�c .i,�n�� i t. :��- ,L•.•.,�,i, :�:, thr c'.i,liu�:cui� �'��n.� ..;.u�•.: :� t t �� • ti �• �• •..�„� :� �i,l �• r •.,� i� ��•:i:: :t •.��••.��.�1� 1.11' l�li• ��N��1.11�11' �'I��•�u�.'.il l'u. u(' ti�'�tllti- ��.�c,•, :\r�r.. �1 �ir �'ll1' :tl(�11'lit•��'S UlliiL' •..,��1 .i ;;�uu�� ul'1��•n-a;;t�r;� �.�nu� �nlu lhr �n�lii c� 51:t- t�.�u �•.,,ly 'Ctt�•:.,I.��• :itt�l •..��I �lu�� li.i.f :.r,�tt hlurnl �n .� � .tr �r.�rl�t•�1 �►u lhn I��U�;r ul� IIIt• ��i1\�'ll(U\Vtl :�t r.�. l' u I � r r n��•r::l i�:.�Iril ancl ��unl :1u,1�•r:.,nt':: Iw�ly in .rn allr�' :�1 :II��u4 :i :t.ill. '1'li�•�� ,n.•I.,�,i u�i tha �•u►tth In•i►r, ��u.•::liuiu•�l :11�AuC :l l�I��,•I.:n�.��•. :.i.��•: :\;��•. .i,�l�n 1.. I�ul�•r •.�ni � li.u..r., �q'��Ii.thlV \Vll� i�.• •�u •ni :iltrr an aul��p- . ;ii��irtr�l tuJ:i��, . �..`l •. �:�t;^`••;` � within a wcek of its com- plaints. Slanlcy Olson of I:ich- ficid, c o u n c i 1 chairman, ti:ll(�, '��1,^,1n OVCtCC:ICtC(� to i�s problcm at thc last mce[iii� by walkin� in hcrc and pullin� thcir sur- prise" oE announcin� with- <lr;iwal from the orbaniza- tion. R a y ni o n d Glumacic, llie uirports commission's rcp- rc�aiitutivc. c a 11 c d Uic �uburb's ac[ion "thc lilUc bumbshcll" but said that "pullin�; out was not thc c:t c a l y s t" tl�at brou�;li� about Uic clian�o in aper- :<<infi proccclurG,a[lYlinnc- u�� u I i s-5 C. Paul Tnlerna- tional Airport. Thr. chnn��c mc:in� thal. pi- uL; ta :tn � c� l�on t�T �� <��<«� ; <<�W:►�•� �.:�. ':til I1QW 7lt'U II1tiLCilCICt ln uuiltU ii .�-� i� �rCo lttr�t t� w:�lc�� suru � ic�r � ni�es c c� n��t ri l nvcr n resu enua arra. (�I:cun a:�icl hc will cottl i�t- u�� ta ,ccic n ntcclli��; bc- l tV �: n n l.hn nofsc-nbaf ��- nirnl. cc�uncil of 1•:a�;an cit'. firinl:t. C�lumn�•Ic sal�l hu brliuvrs m o C�� liUrtiliot► inust br. pul�l t� I:►nil-usa �' u i� l c u I. 5in�;lu-I'uutily �`�\ti1111 l% ` j �)tN�G1�'1 � `J/ 0 ��,�� I;l'l:liLr (li) �� Uc�lii��t� tIic: Y�in}; (0) . 1 i�1;�ts� S•(, 5.5.Sq, 57.50. Scuclrncs S ccniurcitizcr.x 52.75. 'Prr(urmenres 8 1'11T; �: tiu »,��•�•.. l:u�hrirb�uulli�.•,Vin�•�Nn�l 1'in� �•, A1 pl+. 5 S•Iq.i (�� l:),ti77•'�:�•1 All 1)��'lun'.r 1i►1:i�t u(ii��•s I l��ur�'I A��l �u j 1'hl ra�'cpt tiuwl��y ��T11� �`�l'l'�� M��N1� Illl.fl.�n 1Y1111/ 1111111.JA � 11��.1 I�i.•1 1�•..1� V� •:��..� I�omes a;e bcin ; built in "high-noisc arcas" of Ea- gan� he said. adding. "we can scc history rcpeating it�cif." � 7'lic council also lc:irned tliat in addition to the 13 .to 15 ni�h[ flinhts prc- viously reported by sched- ulcd and unscheduled air- c r a f t at International thcrc al�o are air taxis tl�at account for about 20 to 22 talc�offs and land- ings per ni�ht. 1' h e council's executive director. Claudc Schmidt, �aid thc air taxi plancs arc smslt BcechcrzCts and Pip- crs th:iC arc not c�s loud as jet airlincrs Uut whosc noi�c can� •csrr� farthcr. 1'�':�� l� I_o.l_�.;J_�ii 1_�. �'��.�_�.►W �.i.' i'�� ' �� :3�? � , r.��s��a�s `-� L"9:�C1�:�� ' ' • � S:��C"1 � 7i ��S �;:) P: �°3S� �I3i��f�5 .�:� � . • Pr,�. �� rt�a • Cl71C9t::1 XI�V • G7ii::lESOiA V'lAiLEY�a ?(;(� `Dinc�cr `I7,catrc THRU JULY 29 ��" f �� Plny! iouse °� �J ('r ? � '�:�0 474-4181 n�--�. Quytu��'s ��,�,�"�^i: ',._ ��jl,�'iw.�.�� ', � _: �. .: � ��z�r.�tl�tf�'��.� �F:�i �•::''�,J:tr ,rr►,c:r.ti�L�:��fJ I -%C.: s• ...�..:.._.� I �:��V111�S_`�'=�-� 5�r atli� � \ ■ ■ � inneapolis Tribuno `Ned., ,:ur, 1St S�'.��v��-,t;:-:::,:;��:��:::::�:::::::::', Ig? , J�S:�: � �� •., ' ' ' ,i ��,`:-.;.:..� ��:;:::� 4 :.; � �''� `�:•� • � ��' .��..1,;::.t, � � � .';• i'•'�;,�q'•��.�� • �.�. �; ..;/�'?:�i'•� �f��. ; � ._ -- ^ ; _i•7 ,, .1.: ��1��. l ;, � i �••/ f �"�� j�1�.�;��+��'i'.` . •� , They'd � 'i� ;�,.l�' � • • � .i•-' � . . �:f / Nevcr t 11•��17�1 t�+�`:: �i,, r'� forgetThc! :(;4:�,1'�15;i:�;�•t��l" •,� - Day Ho •� ` •,. �;►�,y'�•�,:ti•;e. � ; �� D�ifted `E �ll�'• , �,.l.I.i.{! . !��• - • • � :` Into Town. ••'� ^ .. � . •. ` � •� ��ll:fr� .1` C�./L02 'i7+.0�` , �.. -- '�,/: !�,....:'"'�' �� •._ .� �� %� .i �----PLus— r �(�� r��'� .. + Paul �lewman �1 ��1 Z.�.�1./l�" \� �!+r�.��..rt , -• i�.;�a.��ti = -'-� �, , ,l Su^;' i �►:..:.. �l':a:(}%,�::�:'1.',::l:t:? J�l �7i.��1.. . ••�;��:,�i.r. ��c�..•,�„ �:J �:�.J �„1 COLGR .. •-, :_ ::3'`' � �`."__,__�__--� - �� ,n.:,•: i�t�: ' -- —.�- -• ; ' 'I ,:��._��I:,�: �j �( ,-� � � � 1.�� V : t y .. ` . ,:�r: I_...f� ,� � E��.4; y . _ � . :t �___..._.. , l'i�i.�• i ��i��i� ..�� LR1�� en-.-• � �� Jr,�.� .:. - � �� •,' PRO�I,C'� , ...::'I�'._.::;��;� , P��:<<.. k r � � � Y✓ 1�• � �E��1r�u��; � ��_---'=� .._. _ ET c�,sicc�oa- � ?.- r � , srtn eic �`• ;�.�=--� � D(SVEY tZA.�9A '�t+� �',. •.•%•r�, :��,1 �. ' WEEK �j � ��1' �: �; -� ' �+.":� I ( L'` '�%/ t JUNE 27 to JULY 3R0 '� � 1,� j(��., DEAN JONES 1 � KEENAN WYNN �a� ,�,�, i1 �`� �^ . �t � c' • { +l: �'' •`•. f C'.��..��.�.;� •�J.1y . , . v� v: ;��s�'` �� If�L�.�l'��'�•1��.� � �lG1ti�! � ;.L�L.�Z.i;:I.�L�;+�� t"�- ��?t � iJ�l��:'�f1;i�1� •c��• �.�: I �',:.. �t _.,.��1 t•-=•..��. '' �i0�►ii'i.��3�P as �'` . f .Y 9� ? + �c�� 1, � �� 7��•,:._.. I �... •��p�E ATBOTHDRIVE-INS. C,fl�--.� ;'1^1 �; (HIlO![N � TIGU 11—f0� S i UM7IR 1�([ _`. 2 FROM DISNEY e`�� ; N°,.. �° � 61 ��nur��so�� ar;n ��S�IO�IBAII S.N,..,.,:: , �. �a4.ea� t EXPRESS�� Cana�� f, , � — -- . �_ �...__...._�.._ .... . APPENDIX IV Existing Measure No. 4- Departure Track Modifications Description: o�vo proeedures far Zarge aireraft2 haue been estabZished �hich affect fZight tracks; a minimum attitude for turrta b,y raest, north- wast and northbounri departuras f`rom Runr�ty 22 and cz vectoring Zimi- tation for depar�Gures from Rurua2r�a 11L an�i R. Aircraft turning right, departing Rurtt�rzr� 22 are instructed ta remain ort rurttsxzy ' headting untiZ Zeaving 7, 500 ft. MSL (660 ft. AGLI. ?'tzis is aimed at :rri.nimizing overfZight of the resi;�enti.aZ areas of eauther►n R7ch- field. - , o Dspartures on Ruxr�zus IIL and R are %ssusd headinas �vhich minimi of betrveen 090 ° and 120 ° to departures on Run�ar� 11 L and betu�een Q90� and ZOSn de rtures on Rurtz�xz 11R. These headin s are to be maintained. untiZ at Zeast three miZes rom the e o the runraz . Large tur oprop azrcra t can be vectore at the piZot's request aZong routes Whiah do•not pusrfty noise sensitiue areas. Noise Factors: o The Runway 22 departure tarn restrictian results in significant shifts of the Ldn cantours to over mare compatible areas in the '` I-494 carridor. The resuZ�ant chan�es in the conCours southeast af the airpart, off Runway lI, are also appreciable (Exhibit i�}. o A net decrease of 3800 resic�ents in the Ldn "65-75 zane and 200 residents in the Ldn 75+ zone result from this measure. Daytime occupants in the Ldn b5-75 zone are decreased by a net 6Qti people and within the Ldn 75+ zone by about 30Q. a With the turn restriction removed, the L1065 contour for Runway I2L and R departures would shift and shorten. However, the present measure reduces residential population within the contour by about 450 persons, wiCh the daytime population remaining approximately the same (Exhibit 14}. a The number af peak haur aperatians affected by the Runway 22 turn procedure is not sufficienG to result in a chan�e in the Runway 22 ' L��65 contaur. , Airport and Aircraft Opertional Factars: o The two procedures result in very small and acceptable increases in contral3.er and pilot work2oad. Also, there is a smal.l ciecrease in the airspace acceptance rate for departing aircraft hecause of the slower dispersion af aircraft, particularly with the Ttunway 11 pro- cedure. � lATC Graups iV and V aircraft as aated in foatnqte to Measure No. l. -27- � o The measures have had no significant effects on operational margins or the surrounding airspace. � . Air Transportation Factors: o fihe pracedures have had na significant impacts an passenger and carAo levels af service nor on general aviation activities or air- line company aperatians. Cost Factors: o The costs of extra flight time to�air carrier aircraft have been very small, about $$O,Q04 annually. o No capital costs have been associated with the Cwo measures, Ecanamic Factors: o The two procedures have nat affected the lacal econamy. Energy Factors; o The increase in annual fuel consumption by air carrier aircraft has been r.elatively small, approxiMately 70,Od0 �allans, for the cambined procedures. . Implementation Factors: o These procedures have �een successfully implemented by MAC and ATC with the cooperation �of the aiYllnes an� other large,aircraft operators. Existing Measure No. S- Noise Abatement Departure Profiles Descriptian: a Air carri.er and military aircraft at M.SP utilize cockpzt procedures on takeoff whick attempt to minimize noi.se on the ground. fihe airlines have devetoped a procedure in r�hich the aircraft �I.imbs as quickt,y as possible to 1, OOt1 ft. abav� graund Zeuel <A�L1 arzd then acceZerates at a reduced e7imb ttngle untiZ the fZags arc� sZats�.used ., far takeoff can be safeZy retracted. Once the ,fZape and sZats are retracted, potaer is reduced durting the aontinued ctimb to 3,000 ft. AGL: In 1979 North�vest and Repub2ia AirZines r�ere usin,q a much r�duced "Quiet Thrust" r�hiZe the ather airZines at MSP �ere using a • re�iuction to min�mum cZimb thrust. fihese procedures reptaced an o7.der procedure r�hich utiliaed a ctimb direct7,r� to 3, QOD ft. AGL at which time �ke rzircraft r.�aa acceZerated and cZBaned.up. Upon rea�hing 1, 500 ft. AGL, eng?ne taazver zaas reduaed ta rr,�imum cZimb thrust, -28- � 0 i � f ✓ � ` + . `i- --, _. ± _;. c �f':�„�� Exhibit 13 .. • Nr°''" Ldn Naise Contou�s -- ��'��.^�� a Departure Tracic � �.. 'h:' N ; ��x� o Madiiications •.t� �:. �� i c� y� � � � i � h - ••�.� �./ _�......� � M++ t � � i ' � ��-- �' E 'C'= q� 1977 Baseltne Contour (with �. '� �� '''r Measure in Ef/ectj � w�a .!� :. , ^.•-�,� Q Contour without Measure ��.`; -': N itscrease Caused by Use of - �"� ' '� � Measure �'� .Z' � � ReductEon Achieved by Use � w �`'��` of Measure �`� ° a �� _."'�. �� a " .,. � � � ,� � , o - l � c � �. .� »� � � ' Prepared by � Howard Needles Tammen � Bergendoff a �' �~ � � . � . •� Statule Miles ° ' � � . Ktlometers ° ' a � _/ C . C •• . ; ; �� Source: HNTB analysis — -.;..i.,_,`� --- --• ---- - -- - � - - -- ._._.-- - - - � ,• Diagram �1=is a hand-drawn averview of all the fligh�, traeks used in the NOISEMAF project to generate LEQ & LDN contours fbr both 1977 and 1990 �ime periads. Diagrams 2 through � are eamputer-plotted maps showing the 11 L& R runway � flight traeks: , Diagram �2 shows the NOISEMAP flight tracks used ta depiet departures fram runways 11 L& R thraugh the Eagan corridor area. Diagram �3 shows the flight tracks as app2ied to development of the i977 LEQ 62, 65 and 68 for MSP. Diagram �4 shows the flight traeks as applied to preparation of the 197? LDN 65 and 70 Por MSP. 1 .� � p '^�'� �sr.<'_� -:A -._.: . qrH %rf` . .�:•�o ...� ,_� ��l , Cr. .z r:''��'� �` t .� 3L�fo � �•:: y �f o3� � !, � � �Aht� !' "r''�:.;^. �,. � S : t �`�3�` � < lc 11� ;ti:i ;i°o', - `" _ _ �� « / ' '9�:j�,,:;� ' ..'" 0. 0�: �'`�c 5• �,,..,.vM1 /' 49 .. i.. � ` � .sr'+'•ui ' �T� sltx py ' : t.;:' � MoNtREqt i w��f �.�' ``'` ," :,y,r � fCkQ ......... , �.1Mr "'n ;�,� ' � �> f sr. � .. �� -.:`"�.� �I�F �-.:"l'�" G.��•% �j`�: '�' _ �'G,,.;�;�M1 ;,• ;:(•.� . 56 �ocM�,°�r ' �c` ••�� '`.. % '"��.'•A Jf �t.:,�• T_E ._ '�" �.t:� o . mL DCECNLdE � �✓ . �� .'•�� . + � `•:: r `? ' AH�'^^+..�" :�': .... ' �.� ,y, 3 .;��... RD. f�Y '.Li ' '� �3 '�;sjt� �•v::::::::�:.. ...::. , � :,� • � � „^ : �` 55 ' :9 y � "`.�:a;� r � 1`DAL : ':�� y ..:s. �.y::«: :•: :: f.A.► "•F. . W p� .i `2!Q �� '+l ►...-_.;-.� 1'.'l. '� W r�� 7'7:2.''� i.'r . 1:+`�'�. ., r ---' �"-' , 4 ,r,.:� �.IF;. � ... F •:�.r�'` ! p > `�i t.::... `:.�... . , ,, :� � �cf , .� � � .. �• � y�r- ��r�'' � 4 . . � U1iEq �, ,�' '''V.;S�. C[t�j-� �,'' "';!�L' :;.j; . ,f�,r K t` 5 "",:;a'` '�..�,r�-s% <:�' '�ir; " �t `. �' _ �A •£ 'ti-� .. . r „ :-L• `. , y�� ' it' .�i _^ _ , . /. �r: :; 'l : �, 7) at_ . , � �" �� ""o�. � t � til � y �roS�. :;.: f ( � L' :iT;' • K �J�` ,' � .r ' p� �:•-. � .. �� r.,;... ... � 4 •�.;• S,�j��T, w s� ...,� �:. �:�4 `\,,�-...,� ��' �''�`'•...... �_t... �:�.,��gy o� t:i x p ♦♦ � ��?."�-.�......, -:•.♦ " O � � ` y~ i v.:t�� W�1,._� � ��'� " �O l. ? . :::� � MJtlt. �� a S �'.-�^._��-`-.r 'r�'`.�5� L � �. � /rA t � � . `� .X�`.",l lfRNAi7 �.'�'rn %IUrS�S.✓�' i : ,�'• ��}. ::.� � ; _,."'... .$,: :•.i:: V _ a �..� :' `t� - / �"•�':'•�.,,� � hTW �g�,, :� ;:. r ` , �. !N AlAip�f A�SliQllitt �1;:.,? °z 1 �••v ::� :� �� 3 ::,i.:: W� ORf V - 'y. �� j, ' D : j' �'"' '�w,.,.�,, •� 'Za/�e`�� •-�`�:,;�..., ;.., r, , � :`4;i i. ,! ':?°'�, o i � �i'_ �� .. �-' :��.�•��:�:.�; r � < ly ;; �i � � . • ' ' ;�; � �� f _:.. �� ; 17 oA�p7.A� �� `��:;: r' �' �;�S tjrH ; r.�t� ( ;�'y' � •�. �� _ �r3 � �_ P./766 _ ;:•L:� $� w �, P t �%� +� ��i ,,o;,, ` . ' ..'t.. .�r, �'t ---eo"` 110 r�snoo "�.:' ��I o �,d,/�pAVL .� e ..-� o � ;� �ii�� fORIS�IJM��'•� �• � i :'.i� � I�` % i.}�' �'� ^7•?::::•� _ � ` IOt �5,016 e*, �� : �u1 r � ;. . � Q( : �' sourr, tx r� �♦.�MATtON�t , i4�t; �� .. `8� "S,y'f ' � i., �::� .:'r•...1 .: �wtt't). ..'�.'� � '',r:�:� i�. .`�- :• t � :�';. � fMfTfRY � �• � 4'� R:::::: • . �7s ...• RD:�:' t �t �»... `+�,;,,.y.`�,r ..�.: r-{ 4e� ,,,,,, : s3ft�'}+ ,,� � :�%:�tFa's . :.:...... �"�r 5 ,,,., , �,,,f.' • �� n � ` ;:1 _1""��;�,�, n-rEiV r,s . �•� ,.�.::�.:: ;.:;;;;.::••; _; ..: .� .:. u ' --�_ H� DpTA :: u � �:.: . .�,� •. • �....... ,. • ^+:::.. ' �� _ ' r�.-...., �,....r�..:� _,_;-�.-� � ` :::F�� 1,0 .iss '�r � �j o IG�.Z. ,-::' ,k�'��:�.�;. . `�� ` ��::: �° ... � ''a. ,�. .4�' =' � ro►. s S'� - :.�.� y,. 7 , 3 ..,� ¢ ' � "'� 43C `:. ' ... � ~ � � asd .'�: U :i: �i��'' � ��.•:c-• � 55 � .' `:;'� :� � •"..(� ..... ' ae� q. '~ I�'FIS . : � ,� ;'f�:'� � 'r� a0' .•:�� - �G�•m'" �. ��'q ' � . �T 4LqI,;EH' .'.�. '.t:.� J , '�_,"':':�.• �/� t,•. `��l d� �: ��Schm' , 110 ',pQQ j% ':o' x��:�a �..,�...�'" W�:�. r�I.T69�1„�. . L ytii i �'''� . �'y'"� _ "^,�,i'`.`�. • _ . o� i>.a .' f,�t C,�.:' �'.!'•� �SfN � fi` ii .:(.'��,�' i,/,,p,• �.o ,: �=y_�;;; „� '.�. _ c �' Iw, -.•a'`•�i :��:r ,... 99J :. s .� �K �� :�r1�r , . CV o '';�; �� ` E� '� ) ,tg ' �.^.'^'_.z` �� , a _ "o p• � �...::�� ::?i:'�. �q� ;-- `'��E:��`�� c; �� r a9 F��. Xo sho�� 'ke n� 4 ��k'"'�16 �;,� �:SovlNSi �� F F.AS. yE o �:� L"aI• ° � n �^`''�;;�'`��•-�...: �5..:✓.;; :::�:t . Jj �� OAK � °fe ..Et: A�» �'� ii o ' . 3 „ � �e�' ' /' , � \ x .ii' �� 4 'r \ .. � �� 1 � � )Ot 7 •n ' `{ii i �••� � , :ti ''=�"g`� ��:,:; ya �+..7 � �//%. 4� N � P �.«' � `ii :''�.+ r' : '-�.`�_+� �r`.�{�,... 4Y I ��'� � 'a'ti /1 ��' � `�� a J t::�.':.:::�:.V' � .� � / ••.�:•. _ �'-�:: ': .• '.'.{:,: O$ �°t\ �.-'�"�lvd: Y'�NCEf �/i pp9D � . � ~ o �� iAi •.:� r: :,ti r,��.. , , E •.; • .,��L`�:: 9 *�• � d� te po,. • �, " ; t..' S �� G,Rp R rM� si:r 4 lP $Inck ' RTiCOls ` Bl,yckhea, � �.�r� � :i . i3 xEIG A/AYdPAi ap,�0 ,;: . t Lake kO,r�°y. � p•Le�' �� o ,: E't <; • fpr i�.�H�',S �, o.er ' r'r} . orb j 36 � ` � p� En�tFRt� Ffsh L�ka � �'•.{.'�iF- ��i?� 3r.li+ d '�:/i:c 6 �'�Q,� RD. �G. � {� ) , ' �t.:' y �� Y��.'S.. 3i �� ; �j ♦ ,'`� � "O \ � � +�. E . v 'J p , ''F'•; g c �7 � �, • :.�' • � -•. �o r �J � j�ur V K'fSCOT't °n , m � P"� � ii CUKEiN_� � 4' f@ 2 p. ,, �:• It .i. ,, _. �.o.ER70p� � L,�e � Ro. w �a ��:: 5�_ ��- �; }: .�.v.O ��d E,9Gq � ort i � a� . �%arcottyO�j.�. . �� iii�} � ! rp�,lo, •'\I.1 W� Bald i. f l y L f� �,� �. F�S:. �qt a�a/! 1GfeC � r . Lakr o• .:'• #.'.. - S� akea' S1 •.. '�!:� z 3:I "�'�'��.�.S.f LekerY 13. " ! �'.l.i� 9 �� 3 73 �� °:�; � �� 4r; 35E �: i c-- ' •,1::' a F.►•s. tr�,:• { 4'. $5 `� ' �;%:: � ..., � �� '� 1.: S _ R.. � o� �� ./ {!��!�' W. . i��i ' .•'r'`• ,t ,� ♦ . , : ;;:,;�':� - . .. . '� . . . �,,��k�..b�)� � : �� : . .. cJ�� J' �� . . • ,4 \,��'LI �'' ,� � . � � . .--,�.� �� . ��1. �.�.�� . .-. . •: y . • . • ^ . � . . � • �� •• . t . . 1n�l, I 1 ' ' � ��lf 6' .. %! • ')• •F` � . • a � • ' .Y t • �!�.�.,..�.'. . ' •� . , �! •- . . • ��• � e• .�f �t• •� . . . . ` . . ;, � '�'� ..�;�. : • ' . � '� . ' . . , �}^� �/\'� ^ . . Y. � •` .. ' . . . • - . " '' �ti '� '� ..1 '� • • �f.• 1 ,i't;'"�y , � . . ' i. .• +b� •: , � ,y,. +• '•' , , . .i;;� • � • •" �"—�.�� , . r • ' �'� • • . , . � . , . ,. � � �,. � .. ' nta�nl..l-� ,, i ��-� `� ' � . . ,., :: .. . . . • ./�... ' k, r i �' ..r' , ' ' ' � �� 11 V a � . , . � • . , .. �., . ' � . . . � . `•)3 � r, L� • ♦ ' i ��'Q.�.,,1�� Y\ �,"7� .a�� ' � '��'•i . . . . . ,, ' � � :r:, , � , j � : - .. .. . . va . .. �,�,. � _ . _ ,. . .. ' ' _ . , .., . . ;�;`' "�.: "'.' �v�,tiy-� , '• ..�1�: :, . ' f .� -,� • • . . .. . .. ��.T� . . �, . , . . . . :fi' . . . . :s. . �. _ ° : . . -�.��`� . �. �. � :�. ..: � � : . . . . . :�, c,,j , . . .. �' � . . _ . . . .. �....,.;�:.. ..... � . . .... ,. • • . . :• • • • • , . • • � • . ^ • '. . " • . • • • • • • •• • • , • . • • ' °i' • • :r. ' . . .. • • ` : : �� : • . , i ' , �+. .}� . � .,. . . , . . . . .` . , • , . . , ' . ' - � ' ' • � , ' � l . . �, • . � . • , . . . • . , � i . , . , •.. ' + ' •�Q. ♦ t . . .' ` . • . . . . • �.., � � - •� , . . • • . � • � '. � ' + . + ., � � ' . ' . - `c� � , ' . ; . . ' • . . . :� . , , ,� . ;• . , ' • • ' . . ' . � `� ` ��"`"``""~-�-.,"`', . .. •.�: , _ �.��G . �,t ' . .;".-� •�• •' '•;� . , ,_ , . .�� .. . . • . . • "' , . ._r�. "�-•..,�. ' . . , t ' ' . t ' , • , . . � . � . _ �., � ! . ' � ""�+..,,,�,' ' . .. , r' • • ., � 'f� ' • . , . . . ' . r�. ' ' . .. . . ' . _ ; • � •` ' ; , . • . . ' �. ''s:' ` . � . ^� � � L�,bti • (�� . , ' . ' . ' .}r . .• • • � 't' ' � ' . . • • ' � •`�� • `•r .' �' � ' � , . " ' . ' • -'i , 1' f • • • i • • , • ,•�� • � . • . 1 • � ,. ' ' � .. . - ,. ' . •• . �. �• , `, • • . • . • • .... . •. •T.t.. 'tiY•• ' . � ' • � � . ' . .. • • t • •1' • . : . . {r' • ' • •' • • • .. � • `� I . . . .. . . � . . � • • . . . ' ', �., - ' •• ' • � . ' ' •, �•:.`'}:, , . . . - . _ . . . . • • , c . .. . �;.;s ; • . � , . . � ", . , , � • ' • • � � ' r.�" � • ' •'� ' � � �i •:; •{ � ~� • • . ; . • : , • : . . . . , .� :� . , • ' ' • . . . ::- ' ', . E��Y ';�L.J.� • ., . • , .. �.. .F •r :. . .• ` :, . ,.. . �•::=� '� .'y�' � .. . •�.. , , r . , , ' � . " � - • ' � -'. ' '-- ` .. . . � . .. . . *... . �. . S . .. •:�i» _ _ r-, n� �, • . . . ti;yX,`��y��4,w�� .4�•I: . � �l��i. »�'r '��i �.'.`�i'y.f�1t� �w:\�i. .';`• � . �:ef :ik..r:.�r�� j.'li�.�i . • , � - ��~ .r�; %�. �,':i ::;,�,�:'a':s �s . �1... 'i:a�y:F�l+;�;�1 . ' • ' •ii� <^.�fi Y �., r .a: ... � ?'• ��k�.�"'if:7.�,i:}i ^ ` .w r . ::'�n:.i'jr.'��.y''�. � . .. '�y~ � j <} ; »�`�,��i�F �. r..: ,.��`:n`.i�,�,-�. .1 �•,Ri•.iT�.M.�?~i�f.4�Y�aM1J `�•: j,( R .� •� ��... .•�' t . . �i':`��"ry..yF��y:i��...;�; °;a^f��l;�<.��.��n��.�i�' ♦� � �' . . yt�..±aR •:+, �l, i F.i�:."��.i �:: :.�r : � �,; . 3�,i:-y'ti.,�. 5, a h�•,,,z s:;,.;,;:. `,r:;;.:,,:_.. '.:.='' . • � . . .. , . . ...�i`I s';: ..• •�. �n.. �. . �. _ . . :.';"„t? t :f.. ?r�. %: - •4�. .. ',t�,, .::; • . • . . . ' . ;.i.e4 t�: • v �a. •~ : �7 . .. ~ ';+ i � ' . • �y' `•y' . ', ' ' .'' • . . . � ' � �� +",�•.Y.'.'�.4`' . • . ;' . �•l't.wT�'��' ' , •' . .. ' ' • • • . � :. .L.. :', ��.•y. ... . ' : ,,., _ 'r,;� , ,l �. ..1... . % .-. , . � . .�r) �.�. , . ...�••�� : . ��-.. �. �._...�_,. -.... .� . . `'' � • V ' � • • •• . • ` • • . . , • � •• !I• . � • . I � • . . • . , , • .• .•' . . •'j,' • •� ,. ' •'♦ . . !. . . .. . .: ' .. , .� ' ., 1 . ' • . y� ... i � �... . .w^'s_..�' •• ,.:,- �. •�•{-'. . •.' •.' • ' . . ' ' t . . . . . • ' J. • . . `'' _ ... •`'' • .. , . •. ,»�L.�" • ,� ' • ' ''' . � w • � • - « , , `•�• ... , . . .' • �M . ' .• . •t .. . . :r' • � ?t.�' . , r J% � .. ., , " '�.Y.1• ��..\1•1t � `� i�t.�.•• � :y' •� � - ,. . . . ,. , '•: , / :. • . ' • . . . ' t ' r.. � `^i i�. ' �' � .R, . •. .•; ,� • ' '� I \r . .� � .i: !'! • . �. • ' , . � • • ! � ' � T . .. .... '!1f- ,w='�. �i • . � . � ' .. . • . � � . .• , . . M.1�, . • �•� • rI , .x, �.. ��w.'"�� . �• �' �'' S' t.: � . . 5t _. ^ .. . : ' . ' . . . ,-r.`� ' . . " :' • . . .. . . :t:. . . 't - ' " . . • � • . .. • � �� tt'.. . . � . . .�. ' . ' . . : i. ` . � . . . . ' . , t i ' 'ji•'c:. .f� .. '.r!'�� .a�t`• ,�}�,•,i. • .i•... . , +�r •�� . � ... '4?i.',+ ... ' i. . . . ` r�' . -,. :��, _ :�' '!)r•.•' d � 'r°, .. � ..';t . • � , . , .. . � . � .� • ti.. � ;t.,.. _ . . . . r ,,, � .. . '�ii ={,i' . i7 ... �;...j:.: � . . . ' ' ' • .. . � . •. r . ,: ai• �}, • . ' * • .: �:y. ::'rn� • • • � , ' . . - - ` • r' . ',� � . .`�.Jw '�•�+ 'tf' .•,,• "�`h ..1 `: . . . . . �'.,..� � y.. : ' :. ti. � . �.. : � �• . • . . w .."i>.,�� . . . � t • . � ,+ • � R ' `'4• :t '4: ` . . . . �,r •f�4.' � 1. ` . ' . . : -�'•. ' ..�' ~ � . .; � ... . j • t _,�;.�.��4: •,I ��!1�.�,• ry•'y'',t,• •.a' `Ye r . 1 , t ..%.'. . �`~1 . ' . • � '., . . . . '�. � � . ii �.::'' !''r� � ' � �t�` � I .+•` , � . i• ` - ' . y'+" . . . . � . '+wti�..�.�,',�.Y `':? ' "•-W' �� • : � �:;.+•. .a �' • . • �' • .. . " ., ' , . t.:; •� � ��! �: �` : L� . � � . . a �r • � F:• . ~ . . • �'�`.'.,,�..�.'! , . � l�#:.'y�,,:::aas , i• ..-„i.� 'M�ti: . r.h:� ,� • • :�;YO;.:o!�� .A .v: �:. �.� e . � ��'7;t �!c.t: : i•.h ci• .�,' .i, . �y i� • r ? . . . • ` ; ' . . . ^ . • ' ' ';,i'{ .'-�: `.; :.�.,• s .:. �.d� , '` : r • . ' . - • . ' . , � ',� ,.ve • . , r �r•��4+•,.'��`• .. �,'";° ' , . . ' . . . � . '� ' , : � : . ��'�,��} .^ � ..� . : . � • ' + • ' • M1 . . . ' y . ��.': . '..: ;'►•' � ''tt:t'�:�• ' . .. , . ' ... , . � � •.�� „ � •, ' - , ;tg�`,.�`:: •��+�• �.. 't v {• .��• i '�..� .+x v � =.a:e„�•�R iir."{�' }�; �:�.. , . . . . . a . - . d^i j . '•:''.�,wt'• . . • �. . • ' , s ' - , ��'l:iZ.;�;te:"•'y; „'. %.y.'.:� ' :� , .r. ' :'} •• • . . r , � ' t•,- . ::;y�`'�',y:,�,�,�, t'.. .: � , _ • _t. .. . . , � . t r .{�y i+:�.r�j,,,� . r„ L� � ,�� ''• �jt � , ..«i. Y . :, ' Y:�'-. • .'�.�+."-�Si:l.y• �{', .•. :. �"I, ' :t• `:. . ' ' ~'�' `„ .V.(�..ry , ' •y.y 4 ��!-r"�:�'y�" �':`i: " • : $.•, i '': i•, y' t��!•� � _ ...�:. "; ~ . !; � .3 • � .;.,. ' : . . . C: . ' . � �, � . . '"!t: 1 'f2!:" +• �.,^•.,,2+4'� .. � ' ' r i� �L .. :r . ,.i..i - • ,�� .. y : .i: • i ' � , .. ' . • • . . , � ..�,rl'�)'. ...• t : a' ' �• . . ' . . - :,s�,,,ri>+�,r+�"„ ''.. . -',.'• .�f. ' . �^ . � " . - • " a . ��i1�';�;�; ��.: .:� ' , j - .�'f:t<'- �i:. . ' . ' • , .. .. . . ' ' � � .. � . =t. rj 't�.�'y'L: •' �. �• 7 . "` .� � . . � . .. • , ' ' . • . 'R�ir�i ��Y ! R.a. � : =.'.' . . • ' . . ' � ' • . . ' � . �i :�.'� �. 'w fy�: �t:+ •.i �. 'j�'y�,,�+"�� -• . +•1.� �. i � „ � ��-i(. . . �y _ • �%'�•� .. .. � . . " r wr � 'i ; «t i.-..'.' ' •.y!.`, ' . ir. ' • , r . �_ � �11 �+t.�'. • ' ' ' . . �y..:. .�4" . . �:.' . . . i �t -t�f. .,'r.�.�a;•: �,, r'"�',`" .� `,+; ! :J ' . „ : ' . .. , � � . �".•(i!� '• 1 � . • •• . . . . . 1 ' ..� .. . . . .S. r: S,�!''�i� ...' �...r:.�' , i':', ' , ' �r . ' ' � . � . }(�.�. ..: . v� . •' • . , • '.. { ;; ;R�;'`,:r• ,, .' • ' , '.' . .�.�;', . ,.:. •� J , . • . )7 r �!w:t:T ». . 'r� . . ' . . • � � ' ' � t . � ' � �jr 1 f• ; ,: . _ � ' ,' • , ' . . .. •.. � .. . f :. � � . ' �e 4�.�J .�� ' . . .. ��G '� R' ' •;• w tr �. .�:. �. . . . ' .. . , �'.: � • +Tf: ?• +�� '«,%' .`' � � . : , ` .. , .. .. . • • • . .. t�''�:i":." „ 't� ..'�'~' +.i:8'.''`• S-' � .. ' � ' . ' . - j.^� . . . •s•• . . �.r , .:r. :-a.�" . ;-=�f �:� .,:. � . . . . . . . .. �...., . . . ' ., . . ;Y .�::- _ , . . . �. . . . . . . . . . _ • : V_ . ^ • •- . : . . _ ; • ,. �. • + . , . .. . . ' . ' . . . . � �.. . �� . . . ' .. ' � �, � . . ' - .' � .� • � . ... . .� .. • � � , ' , ' • . , ' , • , .• � ;, • . ' . . . . `- � . : ` '. ' . . .' • ' .•' .. ,;, '. , . • ' ' .: • ,'�; .. • -. ' . . • ' � ' , •t' . � . � �� " �- .. . . �,,,1�'`=`�.:� 1'� . . � �" � � � �. � � � .� �. - � .� ,�� .. b�. .. , . . � � � ��: � ��'�. � � . �.,. ' � . " + ' . . ' . . � ' . .. + .�. . � ' . ' • r _ ' • . • ... � . . . ., . . t. ' . ' ^ � � . . ♦ . - , . . • 't � ".r" � . : ' : "^...� .. •i : ,. Ns' • `. . . . • , r • " ��.; . . �' � . . . .l . . i . • _ , • , �4 .. „ • ' , � � ,,� � .. ' • ' .• �� .. . '� ' ��", , • r{,ti . `; . . . � .Y . . .. �,,,,,,,�� ` �. . . � . � : � . . � � . �. , . . '. :b , .. .� :i. - : ' � . . . �� . � ' 'r .. • t,�'M.�`;s•` ...�' � . . . • , . . ' . .. • 12 , : . • . . yr:' - , ,. . ' ` . • . ' • . . �"r . ,- . "".':,�-► . � ' • • . �. i:'. � .. ' � � t— ..��'++� � i � ♦ _ t. . : .� . • • .. . '. . . . , _ . ';Ay� w•r ,:r i5, ".f�.�' � . ' � • . . . , . ' ' i`' • xI� '' � . � " . . . . . • . . tls .� S13. � •� . . • . . . ' � . � �. . � . � "ii�M .i<' � '. r. � . . �� • . - � • , . .. . . . - • � - . •'+ . ' t'+: � . ' ..� ',� ` . � � , . i .. '. . � �• ' : .t ••,� . . .. • . , c _ ..a.I � • • •J „ . . , •• � , 'r. . • • •� ; : �.. . ♦ , . '� ' • , . . `'�, � • ' ^ + . • � �3�.r� ~ 'r� . 3 • � � . " . 'Y� • � , Li•. . . r,�• . . . . . . .. :' 'a. .;: � ~ ��' ' • . :s . s:�• . . � i .. .. ♦- ' •i•' . .+' . • � : ' ...r.�.�;s`i, •r, �' ;T,` . +`, �� , • .. � - •. , : . . . . ;2 'y.�"�. � r ' � � ' � • . . ' �' �•.i.: . - . . w,+Y' .�t ��r i w • • . . . ; _ �.1 �+. y . S . . . • . 21 . R . , � . i ef . . l � . ' - . • • ' , . Y . . .. -`y-'X'.,'. .�Y M: , .., ' • , ; - , . . '~ , , t , , •. • .. � •t 1 ' �'t: • - . . . '' 1 .. , � , . .%�� '. , • • . . '' : . .. • , � , • • , • r. . .. . •�. � ., • � , _ . --�`.,, �� ,,� � ��`� s'�.� � ...-:,;r. ��MP `, uS,�G �L��~6�751 ntia ly cam4a ,U`v ��:� � .�• � `� '� t �� ' Q°te 1 ble .t! t � � ; ./'1T� . • :�� 1 � 1,�, y .;=r. i r � t ` s ^` r ��:i: j :�. �-,.� .�:ti� �� .. a� �. _ ; ...� �t _. , � �oti ComP _ . SS �� . �,: y., s..,,, �' .. „�t-" � �y i . ;',;t1 ::'; � wt . � �- � �� i� -,, , ��S Snvrl '� ` ;:.� ' ,1, r 1''p��` � . , �� . �. _ .�..�.�:, � .� �, .' •1 � �'A: kiE�G , , �:+� '; y "` � 7 ` , '�..�Z. � _.s , t� � � 3: .��DO"�' : ..n:,w ; +�.,, �• .::. � �'�.�ff4 / � ,` . '� NM � J { y . Y%^`� !�.� *f� .+• , . ; : �/ ,� •' .• �� 1 ♦ S 1• • � • 1.` � � ,,,� a;9 .:�!'•fr/ • ; ` �.-. , . ,,� ;, • � t �. � � lsf�%%� �!'C''':.�fr•. /�: "h � 1' •�• � �,S li � - . ,,� �, , y,,:s- � �,-�F' t. ;' Z >� ..,, � �, •4%:' .� ... ( � ' � S ; .t 4 :1.;, � i • :.-.•' �` .. � v. �1j' "r � • - , - • ; � (^ �� r'�'L'''r •„`� � . .. , . ; • :i � - 1 • r !`.•' ' �,. •�4.,�� ,,,,,. • �j �s � `, �.�� :[� , '1 . �rt �� ,,, :.; t ' �, •P ,� � _ ,,.'"=-" . `�> �`) ��`%». ,_—'i �`'.—`,i✓"" � Gi`� �.'' �A 1 •.>: :. r ` ' '� :�R�p J ..;.r. t "� i.. � • � � � •,�,;,,T .� i "".`� rr%:,,'% ''�Il .; . j r � ..` j � • � .',• �! � �' ^'� ^' p '�'.� � � rre ��'� y�l,'�.�► '� . • � •l. t ;. �% • l. �' �� ' �,( ,� : '; � .� . �- • j;.' tiif _ � i.:r �.+., f;Y '� � tp� • } � S5� _ _ ,.+^ • . � . •'.�Y i 1 v ...:v'r>--^'� — �•rr/ %� L A� C.� �y, w�' `' a�' -�" �� - �TA 14tK,MIS 5 � � M�.. � `\ i� • � •� ;� � � � �°"�. �: �. _ �.. ..'� t, ,.��}� �,.. .1JE� � ry, t:.a . �a � `e� : � "� 1� • ��-[�''� ` . ,C�l��,,n -' ' '.,. M /.�..-�;�` . `ry ! ' i,i•..'�' _"' � � (`rUs��i�.w ' j � �� ' • •� • •i � t �«:p r � I . . . �1��; i��,s� �' :� ��;f,r,� . ��' ,r , . .. � , a��`t/ - � ? �^ ,rt,•. •: . V Y:,� ' �at � ��• .� :_ : - ; �` � � �,� ' P - i1 � Yt"';�� ._ ! ; ' Sa �►C4 �� '' �� t; �•1� � �� \� �' ° µ t , �i. ' �= `'�. _ `... _ t `i i,,: .i �} . � ;, �: ,: � � ';:�'� �'. , ,j' �. �.' � �.•.-. ^':~l � � l �`i i� //)�,�.�` �. .•� ,'r .• • ' • 'g�r�� ..e^. ��'r � � ' •� , � � .� � ...- • .1 �': rt ) � ; � � f 't�., `:`` .� �� .1� • { . � 1)i � �S .a• ' , � .� ,` •� � "'J SA1+F15M l��C "`�. ,f�.i:,•...�"�( ' '�e , .�� ..,. � -... � � � z �' 4 . •_�� .. ',f4ry rir • j ( ' �: 1'i' .J�. , � �� ' .' rT � Roa^ � : a�o �` . � � (+ �� • ...': '' ��('°•L. J� � , f . � � �1! • _ �.�� i �,�� ,","' . � . � ` � , � � . • , . i 1� _ .NI. ,;. 1. �, t , •, . �. � ��,�.»._.�: :�� .` � . � ; '. • . :; =��:..�`` ; ,/�/�y/}/�� .. _ • ' > 1 , •' , i � � —+.....�.;�,� �(/,//Q .i. ..a ~ �,.,�_�� '+'�. �+ � �� — �� . � � ,_�,y •,y��r .��• ��'+ l'�"�''�('{D� '� � . � � • �w� la�� y i , .� : •�!'� • •��• t' � � W! M�ttl G `, . \ � ,O /.:�t T ��. ��pN y.�vY� �1 ttrt�=�� ..;; � ' � �' � ��` ` I t' ..1 1 �, l . • )�11t:�YQ11J, �,'� : • �l./i : �'�`..� �� ' ,' ,,.'�/,� =.+...`� �� • �"�---...�Ara i1 �� fi •� 11..-. L+y .� •�`'t ,. , �. , � �--�"� - .ti. ', i' • +.,t •��l \ w� .. `,,.. �- J _ `' .. .� �, �� Y M� � � j� • ' `,� �Mw � i J� • . • ^Y. �s J`• y � • � � i �,',".. �s,.� � l�i �W ~' • v{$ � • " t ' ts�--� �. � \'�� '.r�' ` �. ' r��1 � yi i� ...1 M ' 1 • ♦ .: /� � i ��/��Y� 7 �,y�----:. ,; �� . _,,..,..... � ;_!� � �c ' -•;�;, , � � EAGAN �-. t .* � .,...�.,, � ,�'` � � i . . _ . ,'- �,,-__ �,../- ' ..:�.� j- ► �. �..�«�� . r '� � ' •+-" t : 1 _.-� . jV,�: �.N.. ' . i:t♦' ;r�,:, ,�.,..•: :?1 ' �rN � , � S ` a�vw •[ •� •• � /(��..++�� . � j i�i f 1' � . lY•�� . � � ti+�G'"'i : • t.•./NM �l 1� ' �,,I'•s, ✓, �l' '(t '• i' • �,,� •t ` � ; ' ,r�:. , � �.. �/'�� ,,. �� ,�� k. ' � ; ,�»• t✓ , ; � 1 , �.: ..- A "�x..x' ,9 �}t�iF ,[� • � � ` + %"'°' :� . � �, �} " � �w �k �. ,3 ,., �/ , 's•�`a ` � $� y ` , �, /J ♦ ��{ f N I•. • RI iiy�� , t0 �� +�....Ii:_l \ I � �� 9f •_ . � . .. t ... • _I...• • M.. J � , APPENDIX V - .. � APPENDIX VI �, CITY .OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOT� COUNTY, MINNESQTA RESOLUTION N0. 84-38 RESOLUTION REGaRDING AIR TRAFFIC PATTERNS WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights, through Land Use planning, has provided a corridor through the southern area of the City for the safe and unobtrusive operatioir-of aircraf t arriving and departing from the Twin Cities International Airport; and WHERE�,S, during the past three years there has been a continuing and increasin• movement of the departing tracks of aircraf t over well established residential neighborhoods, located to the north of the compatibly zoned land; and WHEREAS, the operations of departing aircraf t on runways 11L, due to heading turns out of the provided corridor, have resulted in an intolerable situation for the residents of the City; and WHEREAS, it has come to the attention of the City that at least a part of the condition is a result of the designation of a small residential area (specif ically the Timberline Addition in the City of Eagaa) soutit of che flight path by the FAA as a no overflight area; and Wi�REAS, the City of Mendota Heights has been provided with noise contour �.-,.,. maps from the MAC and Metropolitar� Council which indicate field operations should `�" be conducted in a manner that restrict the excessive noise to the non-residential Y�... corridor provided; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the MAC and the FAA Air Traff ic Control be required to maintain all departing aircraf t on Runway 11L to a compass heading of no less than 105 degrees or such heading as is necessary to maintain al]. traff ic in the corridor provided and shown in exhibit A attached hereto. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVID, that in the event that such operations cannot be accommodated and effective on or before July 10, 1984, that the MAC close Runway 11L to all departing turbo jet traffic on a 24-hour"�a day �basis until such ti.me as operations can be maintained in such a compatible manner. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this Twentieth day of June, 1984. � ATTEST: � „ � ��.�.�..• � thleen M. Swanson City Clerk h CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS BY / ��/d � �OZ-��-p� Robert G. Lockwood Mayor '' `� � 1 t$Z' /�.�°"."°"`" �C'iC4°"'�a "'� ., � '' .l ' � �,�.o�.. t�p��.� '� Z � � - �� The FAA has incorporated this pracedure into its ATCT order #7110.li�{see , �. , '.�a.tt. 3: P• 3�) and the results show improvements have been made to the lpreviously stated 5� shift from the narth parallel (see 19$1 report, p. 6) � ';where its close praximity to fesidential areas makes the naise problem _ '•most severe. (The installation of the permanent monitoring system, described i� ;earlier, will allow accurate recording of this process.) � < . ,- Discusssans with the FAA have led to improved departure procedur�s from �runway 11 L. Prior to this change aircraft were given headinas on departure i :that requiasiy took them near and over packets of residential areas i;, Men- �dota Neight::, specifically the Curley Addition and the "Friendly Hili�" area, �3St nF Rr1/�ar� 1�I.o G1tF,n��nl� tha�-a �}rIStS a S1eArl fnr tJrnc tn;.;a.rr rC�p�p �.oyc a. _ ,_ .._' _" _�' :on headings af 090° vpon accasion ta campiy with FAA aircraft separatian :criteria, mt�st of the time these turns were being given for controller conven- ,ience and ease of handlina. not because of a need to sec�arate runwav il L traffic •f�� that d��ar�irg cn rurway 11 R{see att. i}. � Ms a resu�t of discussians in the spring and early summer of 15$2, the �AH 'has agreed t� limit headinas of q90° to those times when aircraft secr�raCion is .� a factar, and have aircraft fty on runw�y headinc� whenever passibie. This oro- cedure nas ::'.sa �esn inccr orat�a inta ATLT orcier �"' �' - p rri � i 0•'* (see attach:-;ent j, P• 3�) . . I Tttt7tn � 7� nte rarnrric{{ f r(�r� ti�v �f�orto� �rP.�4 �1?1tP rirn� � ori t�rnm 71 ris�r i T� Ai�a �i • _• •July - Octaber, 1981 tsme-frame ta nine in the same period in 19f32. Although :� �complaints are a poor measure'�of the actual naise impact in an area for many �reasons, they are oftentimes the anly estimate af the saverity af the problem. T�ke.^. :•ri tF ct�vr s^:��ra;� �::.;.. suc� as �c„v�rsaL i ons w': t� res :�:.r�ts Lf th� ��.?.Gi,cv ci cc.� cii� iiiC.i'GcaScu �:.'vTij��airit`.S tiOiTi dt"cd5 aivi�y i�c ci�i.ci�ucu C.ciii.ci i iiic n� ti+c r,� .,-..,<- tS.., MAt' L.� t.. t,,.t L...� aL. ..� .....t..�..I ..L.......... 4.�... —. .,... ....^.:.v�r� ��.. r�+�v r�vo i+:.ei5vi� �v aia..�i2'V2 ��iot ��r2 }��Ga.�..uv�a� �,:roe.ya., r�oo �resulted in a significant, positive sMift in noise. 1 i- As a result of a compiaint voiced �y a r��ember of the pubiic at tF�e Augusi Metr�oril i r�n Ai r�raft Sc»�n� QhatPmant rni�nri � lMasAr� maat jnc� thp MAf: hac ma�ia a Clici��c iii � ��way C�OSWiE procedures. The complair�� involved tric Ni`�i`viCftlS tilcit resutt in nearby communities wF�en a runway is clased for an extertded period af - 4- , � PART III RI1'i�tdriY USE F�OGi'L�'K - �iQZSE ,�SAT.E�1'�IT 1'S..i � C,1 i4 T 7110.4_ CHG $ 1. PUR°Q�?. To deri.ae noise abate:aenc procaduxea for :iianeapolis Inc�rrazioaal �.i�ort perzaining ta all cu=bojecs and a11. aon-tur�ojec Gzoup IV and V aiscwait. 2. �C:G:OL^;D. fihe cQnt:oi of air crasfic in accordanc� with aircrsr_ noise abat�ent programs is secr�ndary only to cansidexarions of sasety. SLtC:l pragr�mc developed in the gublic interes= �ay, i.a some cases, cause operational. penalcies. In cooperatian with the �ir 2Ya.xssport �ssaciation, �lezropoLi�an aircr��c Sound ��ac�enc Couacil, �Iecrcpalitaa �irpc�zts Coamnission and the Federal �viatioa �dmizis�=�cion, this inzor�al ruawap use program was developed ia order to re- duce t:�e aircra=t noise probiem in r'�e Z�,ria Citie� Metropoliraa area. 3. :�CT?09i. The issuance of air Cxasf�c canCroi iasz�uc.ior� relating tc noise aisac�ent Ear aiZ curi�ojec aircrait and ail ather Group IV aad V aircwaz= shall be in accordznca with the folZowing pzocedurea: ' � s. t'ec�or arr�ving aircra=r ac 4,000 £esc :iSL or higaer uncil ince:c�pc�ng �che glide�ac:� unless a parz�cular situatz.on dictaze� ocher�ise. ' S. t�'henever the nox�al Ianding paCt�rn is over i�ig�Iand ar che sou=h :Sinneapal:.s area, a aoise sensiCive_message s�it�li be added tc che �TiS in- zor^...�=ioa. - ' c. t.'he:� che paralleZ runways are iu use far departing aircra=�, che zollowin� air carriers: Norzhwes�, Qzark, Concinencal, Weszern, americaa, and !:idvay snall use the south parallel L1R/29L co che e�czenc possible wit.'� ' e.�is 4 ing traf.� ic and airport conditions . d. d.s [rai:ic conciitiotss permit, aad i.a conjunct:.on with procadures sc�ced beiov� comply with the roiiawing runvay griaricy giving firs� priorii�y , of �:oise re3.iei co departure noise. � Takeo=-� Landins� � _ , , IlL and 11R 2� 2�L and 29R 4 29L and 29R 4 iIL and I2R 22 � * YOTE: ��hanges in Che nature of noi.se complainc� dic=ate gi�ring firsc ; Qr�or:�� oi ac��.se relies to depar�u�e noise. ' . � ' Page LO � � -• t . . . • ; �u��s � Ls , 1982 .� ;,_� - � . �izo.� . .• , " CHG 8 - (2} �ircraft south of Ruaway 29L localiz�er arriviag on 29L and 2?R sct511 be vaccored Co az least a 4 mile fi.aal. 'Wiiea issuing a visual approaca cle�r�nce co the�e arrivals, Che piloc shall also be advised to make ac leasc � a:• .-i1e, (i.e., "cleared visua3, approach Ru:tway 29L, make at I.easc a 4 miie �i^�L '�) �, �irc�azt depar�izsg on Ruziway 22 aad makiag a right tur�a sha31: {1} be i.nstzncted ta r�aiu on �nway heading uacil `leaving 1500 =eac (t�rL) . {2) no� be issued a heading greater thaa 350� unGil past che.11L lac�lizer cour�e. � - k. 3e�reen the hours of il:OQ p.m. aad 6:00 a.�. C4uies houxs}, the use oi Rurzvsy iIL for landings and 29R far degar=ures shal3 be avoidac3. {1} Due to the noi.se characteristics af the HE-18 �"T`Win Beech") and si.�ilar "noi.sv" types of aircrafz, apply chese procedures during quiec hours. De�art:are� wich noise c?�aracteristics .raay be issued a heading co rema.in aver the river bas in until leaviag 300Q £eet or fiigher before proceading on course. (::0'�: E:tamples oz similar noise characteristics tn C�e "TT•�rin Bescn:' i.nc�ude ci�e Lcdestar, Travelair, aad DC-3.) L. in=erse�zian Degar�ures -- '1"�rbajecs oaly. (1) Coatrollers shall ensure chat interseczion cakeo�:s, £or cur%ojec ai:c`ar�, sre not initiaced waen the departure pazh is over a noise sexrsitive area; i.e,, deparzing E�unway 4, 2�L, 29R, 4 ' �, ('�} Cantrollers may approve Yasth Cearra2 {tzaiaing £Iighcs) rez}uests scr a�n incersection depar=ura �zar¢ Zhe cargo caxivay and Runvay L1R for cheir DC-9s. �. Local Coacrol shall instrucr all turboiec aixcrazt deparLing Runway Z9L, thac will m�lce a le=t curn, co maintain runwav headins�. Local Cantrol shall issue che sssigned heading asLer the depa=ture is beyond the depar�cure end o� 2?L and prior co cransfer ai co�unicacions. a. C�ntrollers �re required tc be tharaughly knaviedgeabie cri.th'the pro- vis ions oi this Order aad co e.xercise cheir bes c judgment if chey encouncer situations not cavered by it. � - �. �ircraft departi.ng Runway 4 shall be issued headings thac avoid qver- Llying che Veterans" Adminiscration HospiCal as much as possible. p. �.ircraft �nQine Runun Pracedures - will be in accs�rc3ance with currenr `iAC Fieid fiules. e�ny deviacions =rom these rules shall be fozwarded co the immecii�te supezvisor Eor follow up. ' 2age i2 t CITY OF MENDOTA iiEZGIiTS DAKQTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION N0. $4- . RESOLUTION REGARDING AIR TRAFFIC PATTERNS � WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights, thraugh Land Use planning, has provided a carridor �hrough �he sauthern area of�the Cifiy for the safe and unabtrusive operacion of aircraft arriving and departing from the Twin Cities International Airpart; and WHEREAS, during the past three years there has been�a continuing and increasing movement of the departing tracks of aircraf t over we�.l establ3shed res3.dential neighborhoods, located to the north of the compatibly zoned land; and WHEREAS, Che operations of deparCing aircraft on runways 11L, due to heading turns out of the grovided carridor, have resulted in an intolerahle situaCian for the residents of the City; and . WHEREAS, iC has come to the attentian of the City that a� ieast a part of the condition is a result of the designation of a small residentia7. area {�pecif icaily the Timberiine Addi�ion in the City o� Eagan} south af Che f2ight path by the FAA as a no overflight area; and � W�REAS, the City of Mendota Heights has been provided with noise contour maps from the MAC and Metropalitan Council which indicate f ield operations should be cond�cted in a manner thafi restrict the excessive nai.se to the nan-residentia2 corridor pravided; _ � NOW THEREFQRE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the Citq of MendoCa Heights that the MAC and the FAA Air Traffi.c Contral be required �o maintain all departing aircraft on Runway 11L ta a compass heading of no less Chan 105 degrees ar such heading as is necessary to maintain all traffic in the corridor provided and shawn in exhibi� A a�tached hereta. BE ZT FtJRTHER RESt}LVED, that in the'event that such ap�ratians canno� be accomm,odated and effective on or before Ju].y 10, 1984, that tY:e MAC close Runwap ZIL to a21 departing turbo jet traffic an a 24-haur a day basis until such time as operatians can be maintained in such a compatible manner. ' Ac�opted by the City Council af the City ot Mendota Heights tnis Twentieth day of June, 19$4. ATTEST: � Kathleen M. Swanson City CZerk ' . ._ , CITY COUNCiL CZTY OF MENDOTA HEZGHTS ti . . . . . . . . _ . . . . By . Robert G. Locicwooci r�fayor � APPENDIX VII , 0 APPENDIX VIII ti a i . • MASAC Minutes —4— August 28, 1984 8. Mr. Roy Madgwick, HNTB: Status of Part 150 Pro'ect. � Mr. Roy Madgwick of HNTf3 presented the plan for the Part 15o program at the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport, and introduced the HNTB staff �, members who would be involved in the project. He elaborated on the ojectives, procedures, benefits, time.span allocated and MASAC's role. In the next 14 ' months, HNTB and.•MASAC will be working closely together on the p rogram. 0 :9: .','Report 'of Operattons Commi ttee �Meeti n�,��July ��26,�'' 1984.'� '� The minutes of the July 26 meeting were presented by Darrell Weslander. The Operations Committee proposed that the internal changes that the FAA tower has or will implement regarding the departure procedure on runways 11L and 11R are as follows: 1. It will maximize the use of VFR sep aration on departure to minimize the use of 090° headings. Controllers will not use the 15 separat criteria except when operational reauirements dictate otherwise (weather, controller proficiency. traffic volume); 2. �t will eliminate the restricted fliqht area qrid which is super- imposed on the radar scope map; and • 3. It will adjust headings on take-offs to make more consistent qround �' tracks keeping aircraft within the departure corridor. The proposal was seconded by Scott Bunin and a roll call vote was taken. The result of the roll call vote was: . . AYES: Ben Griggs, Northwest Airlines; Bob Johnson, Republic Airlines; � Martin Thon, Eastern Airlines; Steve Hoven, Ozark Airlines; Jack Spalding, � United Airlines; Ron Glaub, Minnesota Business Aircraft Association; Jeff Hamiel, �.� ': , Metropolitan Airports Commission; Art Tomes, Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce; ,,;:,,�,;;t, David Woodrow, St. Paul Chamber of Commerce; John Richter, City of Minneapolis; "� '� Dennis Schulstad, City of Minneapolis; Roylene Champeaux, City of Minneapolis; ; '•� Scott Bunin, City of St. Paul; Joyce Maddox, City of St. Paul; Martin Kirsch, � City of Richfield; John Cartwright, Cityof Richfield; Robert Mood, City of '. . Bloomington; and Walter Rockenstein, City of Minneapolis. • � NAYS: Tom Baker, City of Eagan. � '• ABSTENTIONS: None � , Staff is to monitor the progress of the changes•and report to MASAC at the end � of three (3) months which is the October MASAC meeting. . . . ; , . ' � . . . ' . • ; ;, • •� � �'�. . . .' ' � . M• . . ' • . . � 10. Report of MASAC Representative to MAC Meeting on August 20, 1984. :::�~. ': • . . �,, . - , Walter Rockenstein reported that the major discussion at the meeting was the ..-..... . noise problem in the vicinity which is getting worse due to the increase in operations, the decrease in passengers served and the "recycling" of the fleets. ' � ' �: • • • , • . . .. • , �t • � h..��w � � . . . � • . � - . '•i , . ... _ ;- , .. _ �- . .. . .. �. r .. � MINUTES OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING _ November 7, 1984 F � Charles Hanebuth called the meeting to order at 3�30 p.m. and the following individuals were present: Bob Cavill, Tom Baker� Scott Bunin, Bob Botcher, Bill O�ner� Jeff Hamiel and Darrell Weslander. Darrell Weslander was calted upon to review the July 26, 1984, Operations Committee Meeting and report the progress of the changes made in regards to the 11L/11R departures. Data gathered on October 11, 1984, was presented and discussed. It was concluded that the restricted use of the 090° heading has had a � favorable impact on Mendota Heights; however, it was suggested.that urther mon(toring be done, particularly in the Timberline area to ensure that the positive effect for Mendota Heiqhts did not create a nevative effect for Timberline. Monitoring will be conducted in the spring and summer when weather conditions are relative to Rreviously collected data. The other agenda item to be discussed was the Noise A�atement Plan - Yearly �'�� Report to the state that is due at the end of December. Darrell Wes}ander ' briefly outlined the contents of the report which will consist of several parts: Goals, Progress of the Operations Plan� Community Noise Mon.itoring and Major Accomplishments during 1984. The meeting was adjourned at 4:43 p.m. c ; Respectfully submitted: , Joan Vandersloot MASAC Secretary . � 0 .. . . � . . . . ... _ - . . •-..--.. ... 1 APPENDIX IX � u 0 c � � � i � ; `,� � , �.. ,.. _. . oF eec�nn - 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454-81p0 September 20, 1985 Mr. Walter Rockenstein , Chairman, Metropolitan Area Sound Abatement Council 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 BEA BLOM9UIST nnav« THOMAS EGAN JAMES A SMITH JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER Counci Mempe�s THOMAS HEDGES CiIY Atlrfurysfratw EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE Ciry Clerk RE: EAGAN AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTSS RSCOMMENDATION FOR PART 150 ' STQDY Dear Mr. Rockenstein: In response to your request for community input to the Part 150 Land Use Compatibility Study process, the Eagan Airport Noise Committee has prepared three recommendations pertinent to the � study. The first recommendation concerns the definition of environmental capacity. The Committee requests that the Metropolitan Airports Commission direct its noise consultant to investigate and consider the noise rationing plan under joint development by the Town of Islip and the Federal Aviation Administration. The Committee believes that a concept which allocates noise values to the airlines will tend to encourage the use of quieter aircraft to allow high volume within a noise standard. The attached reprint includes a brief description of the concept of pages 6-7. The second recmmendation pertains to the operations which will � tend to abate noise impacts. The Committee strongly recommends I the reestablishment of controlled fliqht within the north Eagan departure corridor. The Federal Aviation Administration has . agreed to direct de artin aircraft on Runwa s 11L and 11R to assume an maintain a de ree de arture headin for a distance o ree mi es rom t e en of the runwa to avoid overfli hts of agan an Mendota Hei hts residential subdivisions. Citizen o servations ave indicated that this departure procedure �is not � being wel 1 observed an8 that aircraft stray far south of the corridor during the initial, full-thrust stage of take-off. Therefore, the Committee formal ly requests that the Airports Commission consultant investigate and consider the sound abatement impacts of strict adherence to the 105 degree departure , corridor, the three mile climb before turn, and-the two-stage take-off procedure, similar to that practiced by Northwest Orient Airlines. This recommendation is couched in the Committee's THE LONE OAK TREE...THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNIN � L ;; MR. RflCRENSTEIN PAGE 2 ' belief that certain curren� procedures wil 1 prove e£fective if - responsibly and properly fol lowed. In addition, it is nat ; necessary for the study to be compl.ete for this procedure ta be rees�ab]�ished. � The third recommendation is tha� the 105 degree departure heading be maintained for a distance of five miles fram �he end af Runways 11L and 11R. The additional altitude allowed by an extra �wa miles aver the largely industrial partions of Eagan and Mendota Heights wil 1 reduce the noise impact on many residential neighbarbaods east and south of the airport. Thank you faz your kind receipt of these recommenda�ions. The City of Eagan Iooks fflrward to �he results of the Part 150 Study. Sznc� ely, � ��r�� _, Thomas L. Hedges � City Administration � Enc. ' TLH/db V "i 0 August 4, 1986 Jeffrey Hamiel, Executive Director Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55�50 ��c._ " Dear Mr��iel: � - Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 291-6359 At its meeting of July 1�, 19��g5r; the Council's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Aviation Committee cont�d its review of the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines as contained in the Aviation Guide chapter. A specific concern voiced at this meeting by the cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights, was that aircraft departures from runways 11 left and right at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) do not remain within the established "Eagan Corridor." This presents a protilem to the communities, , since their comprehensive land use plans have been predicated upon_the continued effective implementation of the 105 departure heading as included in the adopted Noise Poliev Contour for MSP. It was also discussed at the TAC Aviation Co�ittee meeting that Measure No. 25, as outlined in the July 3, 1986 Draft of.the recommended noise abatement program for MSP, dces not adequately address the issue of maintaining aircraft traffic over areas where land use planning and controls are implemented to mitigate aircraft noise impacts. We pass on these comments from the TAC Committee for your consideration. The issue was also raised earlier, during revision of the Aviation Guide chapter. The neW chapter recommended that the co�ission continue, as part of its current MSP planning efforts, to evaluate key implementation measures such as, establishment of a standard in strument departure procedure for runrrays 11 left and right. This recommendation, or any other useFul procedure or technique, should be assessed prior to final preparation o� the land use portion of the rederal Aviation Regulation Part 150 Study. We appreciate your invitation to participate in th e final phase of the Part 150 Study and are willing_to discuss these matters further. � � Sineerelyy � Judith A. Pi e, Director Metro Systems Department JAP:mc cc: Thomas Hedges, Eagan Kevin Frazell, Mendota Heights An Equal Opportunity Empioyer RESOLUTION AIR TRAFFIC NOISEjCITY OF EAGAN WHEREAS, the Federal Aeronautics Administration, togeth�r wzth the Metrapoli�an Airports Commission, promulgated the use ax Runways 11L and 11R as primary �akeoff and landing runways for MinneapolisjSt. Paul Znterna�ional Airport, u�ilizing 105` headings, running ea�terly of the airport; and WHEREAS,the -105` headings pramulgated in 19�2 are not being adhered by aircrat� taking off and landing on Runways 29L and 11R, but no official ehang� has been adopt�d to revise the heading established by the preferential runway plan; and WHEREAS, the pref�ren�ial runway system impacrs e�isting and future development, the types of zoning and land uses currently � eYisting and proposed for the area, noise and sai�zy factors, and relat�d issues; and WHE��AS,the policies and procedures formulated by t.he pre�eren- ti�l runway plan and promated and� adopted by the Me�ropolitan Airports Commission, t�gether with the commercial airlin�s and the Mecro�olitan Airport Sound Abatement Council conc�rning takeorfs and landings from the Minneapolis/S� Paul International Airport, have been repeatedly violated, including flying at lower altitudes than designated in the regulations, and div�rsian from designa�ed corridors, and � WHEREAS, there are reasanable and viable corridor�for landings and takeoffs eas�erly from the airport; and WHEREAS, the guiet hour or restricted hour policy promoted and adopted by the MAC an� the FAA covering nightime and weekend hours is not being adhered to, causing unnecessary noise to `affected residences and businesses;. and WHEREAS, aircraft are flying diversionary patterns in�o and out of Runway #22, rather than following the prescibed Cedar Avenue corridor intended to redu.ce the impact upon affected residences and businesses; and ` WHER�AS, the City of Eagan and its residents receive the 'majori.ry of all takeof�s and landings during the nightime quiet or.curfew hours; and WHER�AS, ground rUnups at St. Faul Znternational Airport have repeatedly created excessive and unnecessary noise and ,violation of prescribed and accepted runup procedures; and WH�REAS, the air traffic counts taken during the� weeks af May l� �hrough May 18, i98�S, May 21 through May 25, 2984, and June 17 through June 22, 1984, indicate an excessive amount of the landings and �akeoffs accurring over the City of Eagan; and WHEREAS the Noise Abatement Runway Use Program, dated August 15, 1982, 3.I.(1), provides that Mendota Heights/Eagan procedures with departures on 11R and 11L shall be issued heading 105� - �which will ensure that aircraft will remain clear of the Mendota �Heights/Eagan noise sensitive areas unless minimum diversion hea�ings are needed to separate parallel departures not on the 'same route; and � WHEREAS an Eagan Noise Committee was appointed in the spring 'ot 1984, a number of ineetings were held during che summer of 1984 and a fact finding report presented to the Eagan City Council 'at the October 30, 1984, regular meeting; and WHER�AS recommendations to control and regulate air traffic noise over the City of Eagan �aere presented by the Airport Noise Committee; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Eagan City Council that the following conditions be considered for the purpose of regulating air tratfic noise over the City of Eagan: 1) Formulate an air traffic noise task force in several cities ' to further study the impact of air traffic noise over com- munities adjacent to the Minneapol�s/St. Paul International ' Airport and to specifically contact the cities of Burnsville _ and M�ndota Heights for the purpose of creating this task ! force. � �2) The task force will propose and submit through its local city councils, local legislators, appropriate legislation that will affectively serve to control safety and noise � issues created by aircraft flying over those northern Dakota ' County cities. ,. 3) Require that flight patterns over the 'City of Eagan be on an agreed upon predetermined course and further that flights be returned to the original flight patterns prior -to the two (2) year takeoff and landing experiment as imple- mented by the Metropolitan Airport Commission. 4) Special measures be undertaken to restrict r'unups during nighttime and weekend hours •and, further, to install all reasonable equipment to reduce the noise impact from runups at all times, including baffles, walls and other noise abatement�devices. 5) Impose reasonable penalties on pilots and airline commercial � carriers that do not adhere to appropriate guidelines and ' regulations required,for flights to and fronr the airport. -- 6) Request the FAA and the MAC to require a steeper ascent and descent of aircraft arid, in addition, to extend the 105' heading on Runways 11R, 11L, 29R and 29L for a distance of at least five miles from the end of the respective run�aays to minimize noise impact. I, Motion by: Wachter , Seconded by: Egan • � Members in Favor: Unanimous Members Opposed: Dated: November 26, 1984 ATTEST: � C � � � City Clerk CITY COUNCIL CITY OF EAGAN By . ��UiC " ��. �G�Y7' � �7 " Mayo"r I, CERTIFICATION I I, E.J. VanOverbeke, Clerk of the City of Eagan, Dakota County, ' Minnesota, do hereby certify •that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a R�SOLUTION adopted by the City Council of , the City of Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota on November 20, 1984. • , aty oF e� 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454-8100 n --- 0 January 9, 1986 LES CASE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 6311 34TH AVENUE SOUTH ,MINNEAPOLIS MN 55430 � Re: Eagan, Mendota Heights Departure Corridor Resolution � Dear Le.s : BEA BLOM9UIST Mayor THOMAS EGAN JAMES A SMITH VIC ELLISON THEODORE WACHTER Councd Members THOMAS HEDGES CiN Adm�rnmata EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk �Enclosed please find a copy of the resolution passed by t:�e Eagan City Council pertinent to the 3-mile departure corridor ,over the Eagan and Mendota Heights industrial areas. This matter has been discussed by the Governor's task force and based upon the discussions, it became obvious that a restatement of Eagan's position on the matter was necessary. Please review the resolution and pass along our concerns to your controllers. It is our �feeling that there is adequate room within the corridor to safely and efficiently depart aircraft using the parallel configuration if that is necessary. We would appreciate any and all efforts ',to maintain the letter and intent of the runway use rule concerning depar-tures in this area. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. If you have any questions concerning the resolution, please do not hesitate �to contact either myself or Mr. Hohenstein of our office. ' Sincerely, . � E��a . \ � Thomas L. Hedges � City Administrator , TLH/j j cc: Ray Glumack, Metropolitan Airports Commission Sandra Gardebring, Metropolitan Council Representative Art Seaberg Senator Howard Knutson - Representative Bill Frenzel .. Senator Rudy Boschwitz • � � Senator Dave Durenberger Governor Perpich Kevin Frazell, Administrator, Mendota Heights Enclosure THE LONE OAK TREE. ..THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWfH IN OUR COMMUNITY � CITY OF EAGAN RES4LUTION TO MAINTAIN TFiE THREE MTLE DEPA.RTURE CORRIDOR FOR PARALLEL RUNY7AY DEPARTURES OVER EAGAN AND MENDOTA HEIGHTS WE3EREAS, t;�e Ci�y of Eagan has provided a co,�=idor af land uses Iargaly campatibie with overflig�ts by aircraft Ioca�ed alang �he City's northern„,boundary; and � WHEREAS� the corrido� cor�es�onds wit� the Minneapolis- St, Paul Interzational Airpar` Runway Use Prog�am for Noise Abate- ment guidelines promulgated by 4ne Air Transpo�t Associa�ian, ble�ropoli�an Aircraf� Sound Abatenent Council, Metropolitan Air- "� por�s Ca�nissian and the �'ede.�ai Aviation Adninis�raLian; and t z� ai w.-�_''l" c?_.' T�7HEREAS, said gui.delines require that aixcaaf � depar•Lzng � i�ERLAS, the only qualifzcation �o such heading s:�all �e wh�n div�rging headings are nzcessary to safely manage succ�ssive or parellel departures in which case headi.ngs shall be giv�n• bet��een 90 degrees and '105 deg�:ees far Ruriway 11R and b�tween 90 d2g��es and 11.Q degre�s for RunV,ray 11L; and r7I3EREAS,. the guidelines _, require tha� all aircraf � main-- tain any suc:� depar4ure heading nntil aL Ieast thr�e niles f�a� �he d.��ar 4u� � end of the runway ; and tivHEREAS, these headings and requiremen�s w��e first pxomulga��d in 1972 and have continued in �force and ef�ect since t�.a � ':ime ; and .7HEREAS, the operatian oi aiyc�a�� outsi�2 ��e corrido� for any reasan results in an intole�able si�uation for Eagan resi- dents; and � I��-IEREAS, sa:�d regui�emen� is ane o� the �os�. e��cLive 'saund abatem�nt procedures avail.able at �he Mirin�a�o7.is-St. Paul International Air�ort when it is praperly used; and �' WHER£AS, i� has come to the a;:��ntion of the Ci�y of � Eagan tha�. cer�ain pa�ties have nad� and can�inue �o ma:,� e�for�s to eliminate �he three r�il� cli:�b on heading requiretner.;: for air- 'craft de�arting Runways 1.1L and 11R. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, �hat the CiL of La an op�ose any an a efforts to elininate the de arture t e t ree nile cliz�b an headinq requir�m�nt� o� the Runway Use__ ,.. Proqram for Noise A�atemen� for the Minn�apQlis-S�. Pat�l , nt�,;,= national Airport dated Diav 1,� 1984, and S ; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, �hat the F�deral Avia�ion Adnin- is�ration instruct depar�ure cantrollers to a�here closely to th�se r4quiyements for de�artures on Runways 11L and 11R by giving such aircraft only �hose heada.ngs prescribed by the Runway Use Program, Part V, 8ection 3,i and monitoring departur�s ta assur� a three nile climb on heading beiore turn, 0 e CSTY OF EAGAN � CITY COUNCiL By: At� MOTION MADE BY: Thomas SECONDED BY: Egan THOSE TN FAVOR: Al1 THOSE OPPOSED; DATLD: December 17, 3985 CERTIFICATION I, E. J. VanOverbeke, Clerk of the City of Eagan, Da;ca�a County, Minnesota, do hereby certi�y that the faregoing ,x�e'so'lu�ion was duiy passed and adopted by �hz City Council of :�I��'.'.City Gf Eagan, Dakota County, Minnesota, in a regular me��ing t'�"►efr�of •. ass�mbled this I7�h day o� Dec�mber, 1985 :t�, �`` ' • _ ' t � ,:,' �� ;� �`l: " �_,•� � ��) : . '. i • i .' ,� ril ; . � , � ) r.•�. , E . VanOver�eke, Cit�, �rjl.'�zK, • 1 �� ,�''� - .. City of Eagan j`''>>,,,�►i�►a»>i� �>>�•, . � 0 `. . : � • �• . , PART V RUNWAY USE PRC}GRAM - NOISE ABATEMENT I. PURPOSE. Ta defiae noise abatemenC procedures for Mtaneapoiis International Airpart pertaiaing to all turbo jeLs and all nan-turba�et Graup ZV and V aircraf t. 2. BACKGROUND. Tha cantrol af air traffic in accordance with aircraft noise abatement programs is secandarp only to considerations of safety. Such programs - developed ia the public 3nterest map, in some cases, cause aperational penalties. In cooperation with the Air Transport Association, Metropolitan Aircraf t Saund AbaCement Council., Metropolitaa Airparts Ca�ission and the Federa2 Aviation Administration, this informal runwap use program was�developed in ozder to reduce Lhe aircraft aoise prablem in the Twin Cities metropolitaa area. 3. ACT24N. The issuance of ai� traffic contral. instructions relating to noise abatement for aII turbojet aircraft and a11 other Graup IV and V aircraft shall be in accordance with the f allowing procedures: a. Vectar arriving aircraf t at 4,000 feet MSL or higher unLil intercepCing the glidegath ualess a particuiar situation dictates otherwise. b. Whenever the normal Ianding pattern is over Highland or Che south Minneapolis area, a noise seasitive message shall be added to the ATIS infomation. • c. When Che parallel runways are in use for degarting aircraft, the following air carriers: Northwest,�Ozark, Continental, Western, American and M3.dway shall use the south parallel 11R/29L to the extent possible with existing traffic and airport conditiaas. d. As traffic canditions permit, and in canjunction with procedures stated below, comply with the following runway priority giving flrst prioritp or noise re].iaf to departure noise: � Takeoff 11L and 11R 22 29L and 29R 4 Landing 29L and 29R 4 lI.L and IIR 22 , Note: Changes in the nature af naise comglaiats dictate giving first prioriCy of noise relief to departure noise. � (1) Runway conditions - clear and dry (i.e., there is na ice, slush, etc., which might make use o£ a noise abaCement runway undesirable), (2) Wind nelocity does aot exceed 15 knots. (3) Any crosswind component does not exceed 90° from eiCher side of the , center line of the runway in use whenever the wind velacity is five knots or '"�' more. , Page 25 5/1/84 r •� . . ii�r [1141 r .,.��.-�.. '„ Note: Best discretian shali be used ia determining traffic conditions. e. To accamplish the aoise abatement gzacedures, crass runwap operations are aften required. However, it is not requized when visibility is one mile or less and/or traffic conditions are detex�mined bp the person ia charge to be heavy. f. The preferential runway(s) in use sha1.I be the determining factar in approving or disapproving a touch-and-go, stop-and-go, or low approach. , g. Requests far a circling approach, by turbojet aircraft, for t�aining sha11 be denied bp the cantroller. ` h. A11 t�elicQpters requesting ASR appraaches shall be accommodated in accordance with preferential runwap pracedures, i. Mendota Heights/Eagan pracedures. (1) Departures on 11R and IlL sha11: (a) be issued heading lOS° which wili insure that aircraft will ,remain clear of the Mendota/Eagan noise sensitive aress unless minimum diverging headiags are needed ta separate successive or garallel departures not on the same raute, � (b) Whea diverging separatioa is in use, it shall be used based ugan the following criteria: , 1 Runway 11R - a heading between 090° and I05° only �Z �Runway IiL - a heading between 090° and runwap heading only (c} Pzoceed on Che heading assigned untii at 3east three miles from the departure end of ttze runway. (d) When requested by the piloC of a Group IV or V turboprop, be issued headings and turns which prohibit flight over these noise sensitive areas (i.e., river departures). (2) Aircraft south of runway 29L Iocalizer arriving on 29L and 29R shall be vectored to at Ieast a 4-mile final. When issuing a visuai approach clearance to these arrivais, the pilot shail also be advised ta make aC least a 4-�ile, (i,e., "cleared visuai appraach runway 29L, make at least a 4-mile final") ,, j, Aircraf t departing on runway 22 and making a right turn shall: (1) be instructed to remain on runway heading until Ieaving 1500 feet (M5L). (2) aot be issued a headi.ng greater than 350° uatfl past the 2IL localizer course. k. During quiet houzs (11;OQ p.m. til 6:Q0 a.m.) the use qf runways 11L for , l.andings and departures and 29A far departures is prohibiCed for�all types of .� aircraft, unless an emergency situaCion requires use of these runways. Fage 25 ` S l!.l S4 L�iSY AT[:"L" / l.LU.41i . .. < .� (1) Due to the noise characteristics af the BE-1$ ("Twin Beech") and� similar "noisy" types of aircraft, applp Chese procedures during quiet hours. Departures with naise characteristics may be issued a heading to remaiu over the river basin untiZ leaviag 3,000 feet or higher befoere proceeding on caurse. (Note: Eaamples of similar noise characteristics to the "Twin Beech" inciude the Lodestar, Travelair aad DC-3.} 1. Intersectioa Departures -- Turbojets only. , (I) Controllers�shal2 ensuze that intersection takeo£fs, for turbojet aircxaft, are nat initiated when the departure path is over a noise sensitive a=ea; i.e., departiag runwap 4, 29L, 29R. ' , {Z} Contzollers map approve Repuhlic (training flights) xequests for an intersection departura from the cargo taxfway aad runway 11R for their DC-9's. m. Local Cc�ntral shall instruct alI tutba et aircraft departing runway 29L, that wi11. make a Ieft tura, to maiatain ruuway heading. Local contral shall issue the assigned headiag after the departuze is beyond the degarture end of 29L and prior ta Craasfer of communicatians. � . ' n. Aircraft departing runway 29L and 29R making right turns sha12 be instructed ta remain on runway heading until leaving 1500 MSL {18qq when weather is belaw 1000-7) before turning to assigned heading. o. Controllers are required ta be thoroughly knowledgeable with the pravisious o� this Order and to eaercise their best judgment if thep encounter situatians not`cavered bp_it. � p« Aircraft departing runway 4 shall be issued headings tha[ avaid overflying Lhe Veterans' Administratiaa Haspital as much as passible. q. Aircraft Engine Runup Pzacedures will be ia accordance with current MAC Field Rules. Aay deviatians fram these zules shall be £orwarded to the immediate supervisar far followup. , Page 27 G •a. f E �� s • � �� ::� �i �� a�.� NU• JOINT RF50LIITION TO REQUIRE pARAi.r.�. RIINi�AY OPERATIONS CONSISTENT WTTH THT EAGAN-I�tDOTA HEZGIiTS CORRIDQR WFiEREAS, a concerted effort is being made ta maximize operations southeast of the airport to reduce the noise impact an more densely populated communities also adjacent to the airport; and , WHEREAS, the Cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights have provided a carridor of land uses alang their mutua2 bountiary which is largely comgatib3e with overf lights by turbojet aircraft operating at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Znternatianal Airport; and WHEREAS, area of compatib2e in use; and the Eagan-Mendota Heights Corridor provides an adequate land uses for operations, even when diverging separation is Wi�REAS, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) has expressed a com3nitment to the maintenance of the carridor as a part of its historical and lang-term noise abatement strate�y; and WHEREAS, the Federal A viation Administration {FAA} ��s repeatedly stressed the need for naise compatible land-uses as a means of accammodating operational noise generation; and WHEREAS, the Cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights are required by the Metropolitan Council to plan and execute their comprehensive Iand development --� on the basis of the noise zones developed in 1981 and contained within the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide {see Attachment i}, said zone� having been prepared by the M3.nnesota Department of Transportation using aperational assumptions, prajeetians and presentations provided by the FAA and the MAC; and � Wi�E2EAS, the corridor defined by thase noise zones was created and is maintained to aecommodate the disproportionate amount of turbojet traffic aperating southeast of the airport under the Preferential Runway System (PRS}, and WHEREAS, the Cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights have supported the PRS as a means af providing noise re 1 ief far the rest af �he airport's neighbors and consider compliance with the corridor to be a means of enhancing the viability of the PRS and in �o �ray intend ta restrict ar impair the capacity o£ parallel departures on 11L and 11R; and � WHEREAS, there has oecurred in recent years .a pragressive and intolerable pattern of deviations from the operational headings on which the corridor was based, under operational and weather canditians far which their use was prescribed, severely impacting the residential neighborhoods which were to be pratected by the development af the corridar and �he aocamadations of the PRS and its naise abatement measures; and Wi��REAS, changes in aperations have a broad impaet on the pZannin� assumptians af the regianal spstem and should not be undertalcen withaut first assessing such impact in cancert with the council of the affeoted communities .. and the Metrapalitan Council; , . - NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED Heights that the Metropolitan Airports Co� Abatement Council, Federal Aviation � Associata.on be required to maintain al i Runwavs 11L and 11R on cam�ass headin�s cc the Ci�ies of Eag �ion, Metropolitan nistration, and Evin�r and de�arti an and Mendata Ai ta fprmulate the naise zone plannin�contours af the Aviation Chauter oi the Metropalitan Development Guide developed in 1981 (Attachment I) and cease all deviations from such headings under VFR canditions except as necessary £or reasans of safetv; and . ' BE IT FURTxER RESOLVED that the Cities hereby request that the , Metropolitan Airports Commission and Federal Aviatian Aciministratian provide _, written notice ta the resgeetive Cities and the Metropolitan Council whenever , aperational changes of a germanent ar extended duration are under consideration that would act to shift operations to f ligh�G tracks that alter the noise zone boundaries on which the cammunities' Iand uses are based. CITY CQUNCIL CITY OF EAGAN � By: ts Mayo Attest: �..a�. '��.�.' Its rk �}$'�@: � • {� ♦ �� MOTION MADE BY: Councilmember Egan SECONDED BY: Mayor Bloroquist THOSE IAI FAVORz All THQSE OPPQSED: None CTTY COUNCIL . CITX OF MENDOTA IiEIGHTS / /, ' � ' � i � i� • : . • i Attest: ;�i�.L�i �ii� ��i�;�..-a� �u.'�-� I#is Clerk �ate: 7 /� = �b MOTION MADE BY: Councilmember Blesener , SECONDED BY: Councilmember Hartmann TH4SE IN FAVOR: ALL THOSE OPPOSED: NONE I . I • • • � ' • • ATTACFIME � ..! • NT I , . • �•►� � v � � � . ' . . RasaviJl� � � ' � ' dal i Filccn � en .� . •..,��... - Valley � F� D.� MlNNEAPOLIS,ST. AAUL INTEANATI�NA1. AIRPORT .� ' ' A�RCAAFT NOISE ZONES ' _ . . � • . `� . ' . , , , . . . . � . . , . , . Salnt Pau! . .. .-. . . ' , . . S � k i� } � Mltv�a�poUs . _ / � . . .� . • . , t • � `�.• • , • ' • •� �,,, � . : �� . ' ,� ' '`.. . ♦��'� , ' . `/ �-----• i • � • ; • . , � •�r� / �� ; . . . ', . , ��.. �`� ' � ; ' ' � , • � y� � �._. ` � D � wut . • • _( � � �• _... .�� - � 1 � �i.i�ydal� � � • SG• P�ul � Edina . � � ��' �� • . ','� .. • • •i . � � � • Mr�,�O� 1 � -' L� �+r►r�� r t %%�� . ` � �l7dC�i, ti - ••• • _S �1C t�/ /v ��. � �� eiqh � �ishi . � � �%' 13 � l�l / '�. �' -�`�. .; � �� ____4 �.f --�..---�,--- . �-� --�`.�� . --,-.-._, .i -� . . . �.� ♦ � . —. : � ) . � �j � �-� . � / j� .. � /�i/'' `� � � � / . V Bloo,n op� l � •� , . / � . • ', I " . � ` � F.agan ..1 . � ✓ , i i �— t Noisa Zona . � . �• � a�� Existing Aumnray � • 1 . ! , ' , . �� Existing AJtport Property i � �,------ - — —i— ; � � � , . i �� . ' .. . , _.: � ;-� . � , APPENDIX X a •i i j . ..- ,,�,�� . If ' , � • ': � US Dcpartment of Transportation � Federol Aviation � Administration a ` � .: Airport Traffic Control Tower 6311 - 34th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 � May 6, 1986 - Mr. Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator 3830 Pilot Knob Road P. 0. Box 199 ; Eagan, �i 55121 � Dear Mr: edges: , j .. This is in response to your inquiry of April 22, 1986, speaking to the � "south boundary" of the departure corridor. V , Historically the boundary has been defined as the extension of the runway ' centerline on the localizer.'• They would draw the same line across the surf ace. . The magnetic heading of the runway continues to change with the magnetic variation. In the early 70's, the magnetic heading of runway 11R was 115 and the assigned heading was 110 degrees. This was consistent with the definition of runway heading. The most recent figure shows the magnetic heading to be 117 degrees. Again this would draw exactly the same line across the surface of Eagan. With the changing variation, the 105 as- signed heading would, without any drift allowance, impact the Mendota. Heights area. Obviously this would have a negative impact on Mendota Heights which'is contrary to your stated desires or objectives. In the spring-of 1984 Mendota Heights requested some relief from those aircraf t overf lying their community as the result of a diverging heading : from the 105 heading. � The aircraft flying over their community had in- creased because of the drift created by a southerly wind in conjunction with the 105 heading. This request was made through the MASAC. At the direction of MASAC, the operations�committee met to see what�could ' be accomplished to reduce the noise impacted area caused by the 105 head= ' ing. The operations committee met on July 12 and�26, 1984. Their pro- ._• posal was formally submitted at the August 28, 1984 MASAC meeting. At �irx � - ..��. ..�..... .�� — �` iiu 50 Yers o/ Atr Tr+fHe Coatryl Excellena — A Shrdrd f�nr tha Worid — , ' _ .. .. . . .. �- . , .. .. , .. . , , .. ._ . j• _ . 2 that time the operations committee's proposal was voted upon and passed � (copy enclosed). As a follow-up on November 7, 1984, the operations com- mittee met to review the departure procedures. The findings were pre- _ sented at the December 4, 1984 MASAC meeting (copy enclosed). The intent of item 3 of the operations committee's prouosal was to permit the tower to keep the noisy aircraft within the corridor. This would be ' accomnlished by keeping the departures on or north of the extended runway centerline or localizer. This would b� accomplished by "playing the wind", consequently the 105 heading may or may not be used. I hope this has answered the questions you have raised reference your let- ter. The enclosed documentation and explanation substantiates my conten- tion that MAC is aware of the change. I suggest that you contact the ' MASAC office for further information. Please feel free to contact myself or staff at any time we might be of as- sistance. Enclosures ..: �� . � � Sincerely, �,� ` \ �� {��' �J ��.^� �(.. .. obert R. Bo�ch� .. Manager 0 • ;: � ' . � MAS,�C Mi nutes _3_ t3ecember 4, i98�+ aircraft r�oise in his area. He requested the issue.be placed an the next MASAC agenda, and was assured that it would be. . 6. ATA Petition for Federai Review of Locai Use Restrictians. WaTCer Roc4censtein briefly.outlined the pet�ttion stating that arsy restriction ar change that airports would adopt, or any change in the OQerations of air- cra�t would be reviewed by the Federal Aviation Administration,,who wauld . comment on whether or not it was permissable. The FAA would have the right to make the decisions as weil as the right to sue the airport praprietor. �:: , , , �� The question whether MASAC shouid take a position 'sn oppositian to this was ,. � raised. tt was moved by Marlc Mahon and secandecf by Scott Sunin that MASAC ap ose the asition of ATA and re uest additional time for comments. After IIIUCI"! G�lSCU5510tt� the motion passed with three 3 abstentions: Bob Johnson, . . '. Republic Airlines; Marty Thon, Eastern Airlines; and Jeff Hamiel, Metropoiitan . Airports Commission. 6a. Dick Bauer, Chief Pilot af Sun Cauntry Airiines. was again intraduced by , Jeff Hamiel. Captain Bacser discussed Sun Country's operations and reasans • they may, at times, operate during the nighttime restricted hours. He stated his desire to work with the MAC and MASAC and answered questions from the . council. . • _ _ �,i '�`�.%;Y;�;Operat�ions'�Commifitae Meetin9�;,.November'�7, 19$�+.? . . � . .. , . .. .. The minutes of the Novesnber 4perations Committee were presented by , Charles Ha�ebuth, Co-Chairman of the committae. Before the presentation,, Captain Hanebuth briefed the council of the July meetings which recommended a three (3) month review af the 11[, and 11R departures which affected various •; . communities in ti�,e Mendota HeighCs and Eagan area.. : • • . .. . . , ., ..�,.� . . . . , 8. Traffic Count Praject Results. After reviewing the background of the project, the traffic count charts were � presented by Jeff Hamiei, who answered numerous questions regarding the findings. He•assured MASAC thatithis summary was just the beginning af the data, and more wouid be presented periodically. The data coltected irrcluded ttse arrival and departure traffic per runway and the type af aircraft. 9. Budget: Noise A6atement. � , The Noise Abatement Budget was presented by Jeff Hamiei. .� ,� t4. Cap's tal, Emprovement Program - 1985. , , , -. , . . . - _ _ • _ � Jeff Hamiel a]so presented a draft of the Capital Improvement Program. lt ' . was suggested that an Executive Committee meeting be called by MASAC in order ' . to further review the draft and have an opportunity for input before the program �. is presented to the Comrnission in January. . - • , •. , . � . ' • . v ... �. .. . . . . . . -- ... _. . _ 0 1984 ies , he 11R on � The i �� inutes July 24, 1984 �i-t �of�y0perati�ons'Commi ttee Meeting, 'Ju1jr=�;i�L; ��1984:� . � ..,...•...:.,:... .. � rles Hanebuth, Co-Chairman of the Operations Committee, briefly outlined July 12 meeting. A second meeting of the committee is scheduled for � �sday, July 26, at which time current data regarding departure tracks off ' �ays 11L and 11R will be presented. • Case was called upon to explain the history of and etaborate on the depar- , : corridor of runways 11L and 11R, as well as the Cedar corridor or the 180° i off runway 22. ' ; • : •ation Traffic Count--Preliminary Results. • � ' � •• ' ; �ell Westander gave a brief background of the program and the persons taking , count of aircraft operations at the Minneapolis/St. Paul International ort. This involves four handicapped persons who are employed by MAC on a orary part-time basis. Each person works 20 hours per week. The individuals located at the 7th level parking elevator �amp and have a good perspective he runways. The tally is made by tabulating aircraft by runway and air- ,. t type. The program will continue through September, and the results wi11 ',changes from hour to hour, day to day and week to week. Several members ', questions on the design of the study and the procedures for releasing the `�rmation. • � �Hamiel, � �C4 � . i��l�'�ti • � •�w�.... ," =��' )O�ISj • � �l is; sch, e end � .. � '•� � ; �., . ; �� ' : . ' ' I the � in f s. ' ' 150 Update. NAC will be receiving a grant of approximately $115,000 for land use tability studies, and will be working with Howard Needles, a consulting ization, and Mr. Ray Madgwick who has worked with MAC previously on us programs. More information is to be presented at the August MASAC �ng when Mr. Madgwick will attend. - '. .v � . ... � , . . � . ' �F� . . 'ts of Nighttime Survey, 1984. � • :11 Weslander presented the prepared tables to the council regarding the Its of the nighttime survey conducted between t'he hours of 11:00 p.m. and a.m., July 8 through 16, and compared them to recent years. The survey ided scheduled carriers as well as charter, cargo, general aviation, iing flights and commuters. It was suggested that aspects of the survey �rther studied, and additional information was requested which will be �nted at a future MASAC meeting. ,t of MASAC Representative, Eugene Bohmert, to MAC Meeting, July 16, 1984. e Bohmert reported that the MAC and the City of Minneapolis will �study and ate the residential energy and acoustical insulation program. MAC has ned an acoustical consultant, William Kroll � Associates, for the project: � . ' � . .. - . . ._ . • i •`. •� ! � � ' �i .�:' . �. � i. • ' ' _ . ' .. • � .,,,.,... ...... ,._.. . . � , . , ..- F .,:. • � � APPENDIX XI i I ; ;. , . , - • . 0 � L � r ` � :'� ,: ,.' , . MS? ATCT 711Q.4C 9-30-85 PAR: V ' ' ' --.-_ � � RUtiW'AY � US£ PROGR�ti - NOISE ABATEMENT 1. PLTRPOSE. To define noise abatement procedures for M3.nneapolis International Airport pertaining to aIl turbojets aad a2Z non-turbojet Groug ZV anci V aircraf t. , 2. BACICGROUND. The conCrol af air traffic in accordance with aircraft noise abateaent pragrams is secondary only to considerations of safety. Such prograns , developed in the public interest may,'in sone cases, cause operational , penalties. In cooperation with the Air Transport Association, Metrapolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council, Metropol.itan Airports Commission and the Federal Aviation Administratian, this informal runway use program was developed in orcier to reduce the aircraft naise problem in the Twin Cities metropolitan ' area. . .• 3. ACTIOt1. The issuance of air traffic contral instructions relating to noise abatement foc alI turbojet aircraft and a2I other Groug Z�7 and V aircraf� shall be in accordance wiCh the fa2lawing procedures: _ a, Vector arriving aircraft at 4,OQ0 feet MSL or higher unti]. intercepting Che g].idepath unless a particular siCuation dictates atherwise. b. Whenever the nornal. 2anding pattern is over Iiighland.ar the south Minneapolis area, a noise sensitive message shail be added to Ghe ATIS infarmazion. . ' c. When the parallel runways are in use for departing aircraft, the ' Eollowing sir car:iers: Narthwest, Ozark, Continental., rr7estern, American aad ; Midway shall use t:�e sout:� para].Ie? IlR/29L to ti�e estent possibie wi�,iz esisting �. tratfic'and airport conditians. , - d. As traffic condi�ions permit and in conjunction with procedures stated '" below; cornply with the fallowin� runway priority givino first priority or aoise relief to departure noise: - • ' Takeaff , , 11L and 11R 22 29L and 29R 4 Landing 29L and 29R 4 . 11I, and 1IR .22 �. - Nate: Changes in the nature of noise comp2aints dictate giving first przarity af noise relief to�departure noise. ' . • '{�,) Runway conditions -- clear and dry (i.e., there is no ice, sl.ush, ,etc., which might make ase of a naise,.abate�enC xunw'ay undesirable). {2} Wind velaeiCy does ndt �.ceeed IS knats. (3? Any crosswind componeat does nat exceed 90 degrees from either side of the center line of the runway in use whenever the wind velocity is five knots or more. f• ' page 25 i , j . .. . . , . . .� � � � �•- � t • . . •.�: .. ,. 9-30-85 ' ' , • MSP ATCi 7'IlU ,4� . � _ Note: Best disc�cetion shall be used in datermi.ning traff3.c conditians.., e. To accompl.ish the noise abatement proceciures, cross runway opexations are aften req,uired. Hawever, it is nat required when visibilitp is one mile or less and/or traffic conditions aze deter�s3.ned by the person in charge to be heavy. f. The preferential runway(s) in use shall be the determining factor in approving or�disapproving a touch-and-go, stop-and-ga, oX I.ow approach. ., c. - . . . � • . . g. .Requests for a c�.rcling appraach, by turbojet aircraft, for training shaZl. be denied by the controller. - : . ».._. .� . h. All helicopters requesting ASR approaches shall be accommodated in accordance with preferential runway procedures. �'_ '. .. . � i.__Mendota Heights/Eagan procedures. --: . . � (I) Departures an 11R and lIL shall: �. - � } �.� ' (a) be issued tteading 1Q5 de;rees which wi11 in:sure that aircraft will remain clear of the•Mendota/Eagan noise sensitive areas unless minimum , diverging headings are needed to separate successa.ve or paral.lel departures not � on the same route. �� ' _•.�: ;,-. ` . : i.. , . . . . . • .._..... ... .. . .. _ � - . .. . � , _ .. . _ .�. " `- (b} 'When diverging separation is in use;�it shall be used based , upon the following criteria. , , - - • ' _ .: ,. . . - -� , � 1 Runway 11R - a ' `` `or a track on or north of the 11R localizer. •. . . . . , .. , _.,, - .. . � . . �. . • _ . . . „ • ' A 2 Runwa IIL - a headin� between 090 degrees and/oz a heading � which wil.I track on or nor�h of the iiit localizer: ... . ,. :.. �- :-, . . . ,. . ...__ r . _ ;. � {c) Proceed an the heading assigned�until at least three miles from ' the degarture end of the runway. � " : _ �; __. . : �__ � �c _� , _ _ � . . ._. . , .. _ , . ., . . : ,, • -: . , . . . _: _ :: .:.-.:._�_...�;. •: , _ _. .. . . . . _.:.,_�. �.� _� _.. .._: . . . . (d) When requested by the piloG of a Group IV or V turboprop,_be i issued headings and turned which proh3bit flight over these noise sensitive areas (i.e.;�`river departuras). .. . ' � . .... - .. - . - . ._ -�:,: . , ,. :_. _ . _ . ... . _. . • , . . . .,. _ • � .- . � _ , -. � .._ , ,.� - . • (2) Aircraft south of runway 29L I.acalizer arriving on_29L and 29R shall � be vecta=ed to at least a-4-mile��final. When issuing a visual approach clearance i to these arrivals, the pilot shall also be advised to make at least a 4-mile ; (i.e., "cleared nisual approach 29L, make at least a 4-mile final")« ' between 090 de es and 105 de�rees l j. Aircraft departing on runway 22 and making a right turn sha1l: i (1} be insLructed to xemain oa z-unway heading unti3 leaving 15QQ feet {MSL}. • - .. _ . (2) not be issued a heading greater than 350 degrees until past the lIL ' localizer course. • " i • : I, , > Page 26 ' . . . _ � _ _ . _ ._ .. _._ _-- --- _� � � M��' t1TCT 7II0.4C 5-12-8b - Change I m k. Duri.ng quiet hours {11:00 p.m. til 6:Q0 a.m.) the use of runways 11L for landings and departures and 29R for depa�tures is grohibited far a3.1 types af aircraft, unless an emergency situatian requires use of these runways. _ (I� Due to the noise characteristics af the BE-18 ("Twi.n Beech") and similar "noisy" tppes of aircraft, appl.y these procedures during quiet haurs. Departures with naise characteristics may be issued a heading to remain aver the river basin nntil Ieading 3,000 feet ar higher before praceeding on course. Nate: Examples of similar noise characteristics to tYte "Tw3n Beech" include Che Lodestar, Travelair and DC-3). , Z. Intersection Departures -- Turbojets only. .: �.. _ (1) Cantroll.ers shall ensu�e that intersection takeoffs, for turho�et aircraf t, are not initiated when the departure pa�h is caver a noi.se sensitive area; i.e., departing runway 4, 29L, 29R. _ -. �• - (2) Cantrollers may approve Repubiic (training flights} requests far an intersecti.on departure �ram the cargo ta�ci.way and runway lIR for their DG9 f s. .. . ,- _ _ , . m. Loca1. Control shail instrucC all turbojet aircraft departing runway 29L, that will make a left turn, to maintain runway heading. Loca1. Cantro2 sha11 issue assigned heading af ter the departure is beyond the departure end of 29L and prior to transfer of communications. , , .. . � n. Aircraft degart3.ng runway 29L and 29A making right turns sha12 be - ins�ructed ta remain an runwap heading un�il leaving 150Q MSL (2000 when weather is below 1000-7) before turning Co asssigned heading. ' o. Aircraft departing rux�way 4 shall be issued headings that avoid averflying the Veterans' Administratiori HospitaZ as much as possible. � ' p. Aircxaft Engzne Runup Procedures will be in accordance with_cuxrent MAC Fiel.d Rules. Any deviations from these rules shall be farwarded �to��the immectiate supervisor for followrup.�_ � .. ::.i' • ; •__ -_, ..._ . q. CantroZlers are requirad to be tharoughly knowZedgeable with the �� ' , provisions o� this Order and to exercisa their best judgment if thep encaunter � situatians not covered by it. :. �a..�. _ . . . . . . ... , .. .. _._ ._ ._ . ' , . -" -_.�- . ,. .. � i .. ..... . .. . .. .. . = - - _ .._. - . ; _ „_ . .. . '. ,. .. ._._:�.-• � ... __, .... '_ .. . _.... ,. _ ._ . , :�r .: •- � . : • .� : - :� . ..,.. .._. . _ -_= . .., ..�... . . _.. .:... .._. . . . , ; :.�'irtl :� .��- _ . " • , _ r - - • - � - • - . - . ...... • �__. . °� ; +.�_. . . ..�'...._ " ,. .._ Page 27 APPENDIX XII � r ,• �.�� - �f' :.,,, - . DEFINITION: BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF THE PREFERENTIAL RUNWAY SYSTEM AT TNE MlNNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUI. INTERNATIONAL AIRPOR7 7he Preferential Runway Sustem (PRS) is a system of runway use at Minneapolis/ St. Paul Ente rnatianal Airport {MSP} to reduce a'srcraft overflights, approaches, takeoffs, anct landings aver the most densely populated areas near tf�e airport, When the PRS was developed at MinneapolislSt. F'aul, it�was a new concept. The original program dates back to May 1968. MSP was the fi�st major airport to have a Preferential Runway System for noise abatement; today, most major airports use• a similar system. ` Whenever weather and traffic cand�tians per�nit, the air traffic cantrailers . direct aircraft to land on Runway 4 approaching over Bloomington and Richfield and takeoff on Runways 11L and i1R departirsg aver Mendota Neights and Eagan ar, in the opposite scenario, to have planes land on Runways 29L and 29R over Mendota Heights and Eagan and takeaff an Runway 22 toward Richfield and Slaamington. The diagram below shows the runway layout and the percentage of time each runway or runways were used during 1983. Co�sistent with the preferential system, aircraft were land- ing or taking aff the tar-gest percenCage af time over the Minnesota River Valley area to the southeast of� the airport. , � Aefcentage Use of Runways �1 �?83 j MINNEAPQLtS CRQSSTOWN A� ti� �Q w S Q U p a � � ��. ti O� ti 1 i NORTH (-•294 BLOOMINGTON The map and numerical figures abave show the average percentage or time that each runway was used during 1483. The arrows indicate the direction in which aircratt land or takeasi. For example, runways 29L and 29R were used 50qo of the time far arriving aircrah. 7hese same run- WdyS w@te uSeCI 18°ta of the time far deQartures. Runways 11L and 11R were in use 58 0 ot the time for departing planes and 22°'o af the time far di[IY��S. �t:-^Vf.?V 7? :•:s15 C'<nr) '`t1o+ e;f tF.a �.r+a snr �� 5T. PAUL HIGHtAN� PARK .. �\V �'q�,, S ry 0� S'�% �ryv � MINNESOTA RlVER J� MENDOFA NEIGHS5! / I EAGAtY Under the RRS, priority is given to designated rvn- ways for takeort and landings, thus increasing the usage of these ru�ways and the resulti�g air trat- fic over tertain areas. 3h"ss accounts for the wide variance in percentage time that each runway was used. It must be emphasized that the tigures presented are oniy the average percentages. The figures and actual usage may vary according ro weather a�d trafiic conditions trom week to ti�eek • � • ,. _ '.• STATUS: The PRS has been in effect since 1968•and has gained acceptance by pilots, air traffic controllers, and the public. An air traffic control document (MSP ATCT 7110.46) attached provides policy guidance for FAA controllers on the Preferential Runway System and other noise abatement measures. Whenever possible, the PRS i� used. However, as the number of flights at MSP has in- creased, the hours during which the system is workable have decreased. Airport Fact Sheet Number 102 explains the Preferential Runway System in greater detail. MAC Operations January, 1986 , CP�.c' . �\^ .. - • �,C ... • ..�c': - c�: . . '_ '. ........ , c i ' I � � , ' ' RUNWAY USE REPORTS � 1983, 1984, 1985 � . t � c Direction Departure Departure Arrival � From Runway and Percent of Percent of � Airport Number • Arrival Over Use l�se , ; ; 1983 � — � NE 4/22 Highland Park • !+� 2� F SE 11L,11R/ Mendota Heights/Eagan 58i 50°� ; 291.,29R F 51� 22/4 Richfield/Bloomington 20% 26°� ;;W 29L,29R/ South Minneapolis 18i 22q ; 11L,I1R . 1 ��sa 1�85 yE 4/22 Highland Park SE 11L,11R/ Mendota Heights/Eagan 29L,29R SW 22/4 Richfield/Bloomington y t•!�d 29L,29R/ South Mi nneapol i s 11L,11R � '�lE 4/22 Highland Park SE 11L,11R/ Mendota Heights/Eagan 29�,29R SW 22/4 ' Richfield/Bloomington _ NW 29L,29R South Minneapolis 11L,11R TOTAL OPERATIONS: 1983 — 307,801 1984 — 337,83$ 1985 — 373,437 1� 55% 24� 20% ti 4g9� 22°� 28 0 �� 55 � 21i 23� r t F , " L STATEMENT REGAROING NIGHTTIME RUNWAY USE AT MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT There is no written document which specifically describes the procedure � for having aircraft land and takeoff in opposite directions ("nose to nose" � ' � nighttime operation) over the Minnesota'River Va11ey area to the southeast � of MSP Airport. The Operations and Procedures Manager for the MSP Air � , � Traffic Control Tower summarized the general practice as follows: _ Whenever possible between the hours of 2300 and 0600 (when wind and weather allow), the air traffic controller.will direct air- craft to land on Runways 29L and 29R and takeoff on Runway 11R. Standard FAA aircraft separation and clearance criteria are applied at all times during the "nose to nose" operations based on the Air Traffic Procedures Handbook (7110.650). In general, the procedure is used in visual conditions (clear weather) and three miles separation between aircraft is pro- vided. � 0 1 MAC Operations January 1986 P . .. .. . ._ .. _ . . , . ... .._ .._ ., � . . • •�• . • • � +. ','� a; 5/1/84 MSP ATCT 7110,4B j . � " � -- - PART V - RUNWAY IISE PROGR�M – NOISE ABATEMENT 1. PURPOSE. To define noise abatement procedures for Minneapoiis Internationai Aizpor—t pertaining to all turbo jets and all non–turbojet Graup IV and V aircra�t. 2. BACKGROUND. The control of air traffic iu accordance with aircraf t noise abatement programs is secondary only to considerations of safetp. Such programs deveZoped ia the pub3.ic interest m.ay, in same cases, cause operational ' penalties. In cooperation with the Air Transport Association, Metropolitan Ai,rcraft Sauad Abatemeat Cauncil, Metrogalitan Airports Commission and the Federal Aviation Adminis�ration, this informai.runway use program was developed in ordez to reduce the aircraft noise problem in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. 3. ACTION. The issuance of air traffic controZ instructioxzs re3.ating to noise ab�tement for all turbojet aircraft aad all other Group IV and V aircraf t shall he in accordance with the foll.owing procedures: a. Vectar arriving aircraft��at 4,000 feat MSL ar higher until intercepting the glidepath unless a particular situation dictates otherwise. b. Wiienever the normal 1.andi.ng pattern is over High2and or the .south Minneapolis area, a noise sensitive message shall be added to the ATIS in£omatioa. c. When the paralie�. runways are in use for departing aircraf t, the following air carriers: Northwest, O2ark, Continental, Westem, American and Mic3way shai.l use the south paralle2 IZR�29L to the e�teat possibie with existing traffic and airport conditians. d. As traffic conditions permit, and in canjunction with procednres stated below, comply with the fallawing runwap prioritp giving first pxiority or noise rel.ief to departure noise: Takeoff Landing IlL and IiR 29L and 29R 22 4 29L and 29R i.iL and Z1R 4 22 ' � No,te: Changes in the nature af noise complaints dictate giving first priarity of noise relief to departure noise. (1) Runwap conditions – clear and drq (i.e., there is no ice, slush, etc., which might ma%e use of a nais� aba�ement runway undesirable). (z} Wind velocity does not exceed 15 knots. {3) Any crasswind comgonent does not exceed 90° from either sicie of the . center line of the runway in use whenever the wind veiocity is five kno�s or more. 5/1/84 M5P ATCT 711Q.4B,. � . Y f � i t� Note: Best discretion shall be used in de�ermining traffic conditions. e, To accomglish the noise abatement procedures, cross runway operations are often Xequired. However, it is not required when visibility is one miZe or Iess and/or traffic conditions are determined by the person in charge to be heavy. f. The preferential runwap(s) in use shall be the determining factor ia - approving or disapgroving a tauch-and-ga, stop-and-go, or Iow appraach, g. <Requests fax a circiing apgraach, by turbojet aircraft, far training • shall be denied by the contralle�. h. All helicopters requesting ASR approaches shal7. be accausmodated in - accozdance with prefereatial runwap procedures, . i. Mendota Seights/Eagan procedures. (1) Departures on I.1R and 11L shall: (a) be issued heading 105° which wil]. insure that aircraft will remain clear af the �Sendota(Eagan naise sensitive areas unless minimum diverging headings axe needed to separate successive or parallel departures naC on the same route. (b) When diverging separatian is in use, it shall be used based upan the following criteria: 2 Runway 13R - a heading between 090° and I45° azz.Iy 2 Ruzzway 11L - a heading betwesn 49t}° and runwap headi.ng anly ' (c) Procesd oa the heading assigned until at least three miles from the departure end of the runway. • (d} When requested by the pilat of a Group IV or V turbagrog, be issued headings and turns which prohibit flight over these noise sensitive areas {i.e., river departures}, {Z) Aircraft south of runway 29L Zoca].izer arriving an 29L and 29R sha2Z be. vectored to at least a 4-mile final. When issuing a visual appraach clearance to these arrivals, the'pilot shall also be advised to make at least a 4-mile, (i.e., "cleareii visual approach runwaq 29L, make at least a 4-miZe fina2"} j. Aircraft departing on runway 22 and making a right tum shall: {I) be instructed to remaia on runway heading untii leaving ISOQ feet (MSL). (2) not be issued a heading greater than 350° until past the 11L 3ocalizer course. � . k. During quiet hours (11:00 p.m. til 6:Q0 a.m.) the use of runways.11L for,_ �, Iandings and departures and 29R £ar degartures is prahibiteci far aiI types of aircraft, unless an emergency situation requires,use of these runways. • .� . - '��!I/8� �' - ,•; MSP ATCT 711Q.4B (1) Due to the noise characteristics of the BE-18 ("Twin Beech") and similar "noisp" types of aircraft, apply these procedures during quiet hours. Departures with noise characteristics may be issued a heading to remain over the river basin untiZ Ieaning 3,000 feet or higher befoere proceeding on course. (Note: Examples af simiiar naise characteristics ta the "Twin _ Beech" inclnde the Ladestar, Travelair and DC-3.} I. Intexsectioa 3?epartures -- Turbojets anip. {lj Controllers shall ensure that inCersection takeoffs, for turbojet aircraft, are no� initiated when the departure path is over a noise sensi�ine_ area; i.e., departing runwap 4, 29L, 29R. ' (2) Controllers may approve Republic (training flights} �equests for an intersectioa departure from the cargo tax..iway and runway 21.R far their DC-9's. m. Local Control sha1Z iastruct a1.I turbojet aircraft departiag runway 29L, thaC wiZl make a lef t turn, to maintain runway heading. Local control shall issue the assigned heading after the departure is beyond the departure end of 29L and prior to transfer of communications. ' n. Aircraft departing runway 29L and 29R maicing right turns shall be instructed to �'emain on runwaq heading unti2 leaving 1.500 MSI.� (I$00 when weatYser is below I000-�) before turniag to assigned heading. a. ContraZlers are required to be tharaughly knawledgeable with the provisiaas af this Orc3er and to exercise their best judgment if they encounter situations not cavered by it. p. Aircraft departing runway 4 shall be issued headings that avoid overfl.ping the Veterans' Administration Hospita]. as much as possible. q. Aircraft Engine Runuv Procedures wiil be ia�accordance with current MAC Fie1d Rules. Anq deviations from these rul.es shall be forwarded ta the immediate supervisor for followup. 0 l . .. .. . . .. . .. _ . .� .... _ _ . �'Q�+6��`.t�t�';.e�.'„-.�. ��X'�1F _�T�f'�Clc,i�^-�:.?1��i%"i�'`s..�R.''TcC�• ��"�Y.L��`7'r^�f��_�C�, i�t=�s "�'i�'':�:F� r."�e11?�C�'-:�;"n'q�i. t{�c` i'',,.:'.�i`•,-k%:;�E'�e�+='-,"t�ia�r`�`'• .G . `�`�t.�. �-,. ,� �-_'�,•,. � � ��` � � � � � � ` � � �t t�e Minne� olis/St. P�ul . p � In�ern�tion�l��ir ort p �� : ; � _'. -, '_ w' -; 5� , � ' :f - ..+ . Y .R . .. .. :.. ..:•. . ` . . , �, .� _ . . . This p�mphlet det�ils 17 actions taken to �bate noise at the Minneapolis/ St. Paui Intern�tional Airport. Parts of it correspond with Fact Sheet IOZ, � which explains the Preferenti�l Runw�y System. � �� L � � Introduction Until the early 1960s aircraft noise drew few complaints. The arrival of jet airplanes and dramatic increases in flights have since made noise_a major concern for most of the nation's large airports. As complaints from communities surrounding the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP) mounted,_ the Metropolitan Airports Commis- sion (MAC) in the late sixties began a serious search for solutions to its noise problem. In 1969 the Metro- politan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council (MASAC) was formed as an advisory body to the MAC. This group consists of representatives from the aviation industry and communi- ties around the airport. Since that time 17 noise abatement directives have taken effect. These policies represent the combined efforts of the MAC, MASAC, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and major airlines serving the Twin Cities to alleviate noise and at the same time ensure aircraft safety and efficiency. When an airport operator such as the MAC wants to install a noise abatement procedure, the proposal must first win federal approval from the FAA. Once an approved proce- dure is in effect, federal laws and regulations regarding aviation still override the operator's authority to enforce it. For this reason, the MAC relies heavily on the cooperation of everyone involved in airport opera- tions for the success of its noise program. Both the airlines and the FAA air traffic controllers work with the MAC in making sure that estab- lished procedures are followed. This spirit of cooperation has contributed considerably to the program's overall effectiveness. The FAA in recent years also has taken major steps against noise by significantly lowering the acceptable noise standards for jet engines and by banning the oldest and noisiest aircraft. Noise abatement procedures . have become standard practices at Minneapolis/St. Paul International, and the noise program now influ- ences many other policy-setting and administrative decisions. This pro- gram is a good example of what can be accomplished when serious attention is given to controlling noise. Detailed below, these actions attest to the MAC's continued commitment to serving the com- ' munity and fighting against noise. 1 The ('referential � Runway System The PRS or Preferential Runway System assigns each of the airport's runways a "preferred" designation for either takeoffs or landings. This system routes air traffic over open, industrial areas to the south and southeast and avoids densely pop- ulated areas to the northwest. The PRS is in effect whenever weather conditions are good, without low clouds or heavy winds. Airport Fact Sheet 102 explains the PRS in full. � Restricted Tr�ining � Flights In 1970 all of the scheduled airlines at MSP agreed to move their training flights for crew members to alternate airports in or near Minne- sota. The home-based airlines, Northwest and Republic, transferred most of their in-the-air training to Duluth, Fargo and Rochester. Be- cause these airlines house their fleets at the Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport, their planes still make their initial takeoffs and final landings at MSP. With most training activity relocated, however, the number of daily opera- tions (takeoffs and landings) at the airport dropped substantially. After this policy took effect, noise moni- toring equipment indicated a marked reduction both in the dimensions of noise-exposed areas and in the number of persons affected. �J qv� > �yf�_�±� �i.. 'y �- ,i% +,} �.`� �o�+�� 7 rw r�. y`' 4 ��,.r�.�9 � 1f' Dc _i Q'�• �;""rr � z':' :�i�� ! ; i �b - •�,� �.. �.xl�'�i,t- Li 'F• '�?�:��" ��:�J`�� t�,C�' i` ,r:J°�;t:;c:»'t:'.Y�"-,-.•�^"� i��"•�Pi!+�i�.'�,ii',{:;ii"i`Y�i"Tri'h;.iS�i3�+r��;ay�(`ri'i.7.�i?F� �..s�7.v' 1��'�1�R t .Yi-A�..,l�i,'. '"M'�..'J -i'?�' '�::1 �C+�iJrw� � MASAC � � Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council . . MAC '�' �: � • = Meuopolitan i • �i Airporu � ` . Commission �...��•`' �. Y R't+t. v,r' •�; •.> y P ti �`.f.�"r S�t' �:d t��'�'` •'. �� 7..'• ��'i��i�l��t.`:��t��r�-�.�� ' ��s`��`�1��.�'�.` �.�i r�t i�,t�?�3a.�f'"-• _:.��:ii�`'�i`,��'�:_t:r��'.r;•:_...,.,'Ffi �. �r `�;� a r : x, ...:,, 3 Voluntary Nighttime � Restriction The major airlines serving the Twin Cities entered a joint, voluntary agreement in 1970 limiting the number of-flights scheduled at MSP between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. to 27. That number, however, never has been approached. As of August. 1984, there were eight operations scheduled in the 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. time slot. Of these only two ��uere departures, which generally are noisier than arrivals. The airlines not only have respected this restriction but have decreased nighttime opera- tions even further, despite an in- creased demand for late night flights. This measure proved very successful in abating aircraft noise at a highly "noise-sensitive" time of day. 4. Tr�ck Modifications Working with the FAA, the Jv1AC designed specific aerial "tracks" or paths to route arrivals and departures over sparsely populated and com- mercial/industrial areas. The commis- sion designated two procedures for departing airplanes. The first re uires planes leaving on runways 11L an -� ...... _.. _ .. ... _............ ., ..— «:.. ,., � _ s nwa With the second procedure, minimum of four miles from the runway, similar to the three-mile track used for departures. � Noise Abatement � Takeoff Profile a lesser angle until the flaps and slats � used in takeoff are safely retracted. Once the landing gear and flaps are � up, the pilot reduces power until the � plane reaches 3,000 feet. This takeoff � profile considerably lowers noise � levels beyond the takeoff zone. . MASAC was in large part responsible pilots headed west, north or north- Departing planes account for a for the development of the "quieY' west off runway 22 stay on a straight, rr#ajor portion of all airport noise. takeoff procedure, subsequently •-' path to the southwest and delay The reasons for this include engine adopted by the Air Transport Asso- making a right turn until they reach a structure and a number of physical/ ciation arid most major airlines. � - minimum altitude of 1,500 feet. This environmental factors. Noise from • maneuver reduces noise over parts of planes that are taking off lasts longer G The FAA ��Keep-em- southern R�chfield by tracking than for incoming flights and is of a ■ departures over more noise-com- higher intensity. The problem is high'� Program patible, commercial areas near I-494. exacerbated when departing planes A track for arriving planes stay at (ow altitudes after takeoff. To In the mid-70s the FAA also es- provides noise relief for Mendota alleviate these effects Northwest and . tablished a program to keep aircraft Heights and Eagan residents by Republic Airlines developed a jet at higher altitudes as long as possible routing incoming flights over com- takeoff procedure or "profile" that as a way to abate ground-level noise. mercial/industrial areas. Arrivals put planes at higher altitudes with Under the "Keep-em-high" � on runways 29L and 29R keep a reduced power over residential areas. program guidelines, incoming jets . "straight-in" final approach for a With this procedure the airplane must remain at 10,000 feet up to 30 makes a quick, steep aseent to 1,000 � " �� .. -;�;:� • . . feet, then continues to accelerate at . � . - . . : . . . : . '::r: '':�. ' . , �`� + i l � :� tY 2 • _. . � � : ._ �� .. . ... '. :.. " .� � � � . . �� . . . ,, . . . ��`�� . . �� - . _. . . .� . . . . , _, > ... . .. . - �uK �(� �` a��,:,�x - Y . . ' 4 _ . . , �, , �.. . ,,. . , �, .: �.: ` ..'�;i�t�? •�-" il+F. '`�,'T a `fd� ...�"R:`h`^4' -�-�t7'�;�i:''��l. ' ['l,Y.<1�i5;1- ' T�.'.t�r� �"C. • ,. . � ..�.. ..� .� . , . , ; .. � miles from the airport and at 5,000 �''s feet unti! 15 miles from the end of the runway. Planes at T0,000 feet do not significantly aifect on-the-ground � noise ievels. At S,OQO feet, Ehe planes use steeper approach angies and lo�ver po�ver settings than previausly, � which also assures a quieter ap- proach. "Keep•em-higM' procedures helped to decrease the size of naise- exposed areas by alleviating overhead ,f noise in outlying metropalitan areas. 7. H�gh 1'rofile Descent The high profiie descent is another appraach procedure de- signed ta reduce noise from arriving flights. Adapted at MSP in 3977, it was based on a nationwide standard. The high prafile descent is similar io "Keep-em-high" abatement tech- niques. Pilots maintain a.gradual, 30Q-faot-per-miie descent fram cruise altitudes to the finaf approach altitude. They use pnly idling pawer sett'sngs untit the last approach stage, when more power is needed for landing. This procedure lessens no':se, increases fuel efficiency and affords a better way to channel in- ,� coming traffic into the termina! area. ��•� � Varied Turns � off Runw�y 22 A plan for abating talceoff noise over parts of B(oamington and Richfield was developed in 1982 and put inta effect far a two-year trial period. P(anes ieaving on runway 22 with destinations to the north, west and southwest musi reach an altitude of 1,500 feet before turni�g on their proper heading. Eastbound and southbourtd aircraft turn directly south aff that runway. They continue on a line, roughly para!!e! to Cedar • Avenue,..that puts them aver open and industrial spaces until they are past the heaviiy populated area southwest af the airpart. 7hese changes in the flight patterns of . departing planes provided noise reiief in highly susceptible areas of these two communities. �. ILS Giide Slopes Noise from incaming p(anes , causes fewer complaints when pilots �° ��; know iheir approach track lang The tnstrument Landing System (lLSj OVERHEAD VIEW THE ILS LOCALIZER BEAM KEEPS PLANES ALIGNED ON A STRAIGNT PATH ON THEiR APPRC7ACH TO N1SF. �� 51DE VlEW _ ..--- __— — �' =__.....---_"""�h.� 3� THE ILS A�.S{:} SENDS Gi.1DE SLOPE INF{�RMRTION TO PllOTS. GLIDE SLOPE ANGLES WERE RAISED FROM 2'/z° TO 3° AS A NOlSE RELlEF MEASURE. before beginning the approach so that they can prepare to use noise abatement techniques. The MAC instailed the Instrument l.anding System tiLS) as a way ta relay heading and glide slope information ta p'siats on their finai approach ta MSP (see illustration). Pilots are instructed to use a specific glide slape or path far descent ta the runway. Noise at ground level abviausly diminishes when planes are at higher altitudes. To keep planes higher on approach, glide slope angles were raised from two and t�ne-half io three degrees. The ILS beam, monitored in the cacicpit, enables pilots to stay at this angle and aiso keeps them on a streight path. Pilots use lower power settings, which also ensures a more stable and quieter approach. '� � Visuat Approach � Slope Indicator An alternate device for guiding appraaches is the Visual Apgroach Slope lndieatar (VASi}, 'Chis system was installed on the one runway not tLS equipped,�runway ilL. Vt�Sls perfarm the same function as the ILS glide slopes. They advise pilots when planes are toa !aw on ap- proach ta the runway and thus keep aircraft at a height that minimizes the noise Empact. 1 � . Land Acquisition Project MinneapolislSt. Paul Internationa! is somewhat unique among majar airpo�ts sn that a large number at neighborhoods border direct(y on airport property. In addition to the complications this poses for naise control, the cfoseness of residential areas to some extent limits possi- _ bilities far airpart expansion and improvements. To gain extra room for approach protection, the MAC purchased 53 homes in Eagan in the early 1970s. This allowed the cam- mission to equip the parallef run- ways, il and 29, with the Instrument Landing System. Along with the . advantages already mentioned, - instaiiation of the ILS resulted� in a more equitable distributian of traffic beE�veen the two runways. This ste� decreased noise Ievefs in several locations by dispersing air traffic ,. over a wider area. tt made an � appreciable difference in the num- ber of planes flying over areas of . South Minneapalis. � , . "� � ! Ground Noise . Attenuation l�toise abatement efforis are not limited to in-the-air procedures but also inc3ude controlling noise on the ground. Attenuation is the reduction in intensity that occurs when a .*��-�"%3��;e's'".;,Y,:'�j�� "�;`�!?;t��,�*.�ti.�=3�"�°''3�.�}L `i"`-�,'�x�' �* �' �..5�.�. •y-�f�..M R•ti :u .{�� <,rr i• .:.[=}�, � ti...,,,.. __ ✓lta',`Ki� �!* .7+�15y.f.. ��',v7�.S�YiA'�,��'�.��.ii�%�?:..�Y�� u-�� Y.�L� �.�yt.�. r'T% Mt, .��;. �v��`l'r3%1��'3_9!•.]'�^I%"li..y..v�I�� s:�'?,�:-.c�;�.'}»'::�-��-s��'�.�`'�'�t�'��t-.�b"�'�l<;?��L?�'�.�aa;�i�:.�.�r��'`�€�,Y.�-.'�s�.�;�:�:�';Y'�4:��.s' �;�;�r;`�.`�''.ec��;K�.�.,�+��'�;: sound is �Itered through porous materials, air or other physical means. A berm is a slop� of ground forming a natural wall or barrier. It is sodded and planted to enhance both appearance and attenuation effects. Two earth berm noise barriers, one constructed along East 70th Street in Richfield and another west of the Richfield Golf Course, help to attenuate or absorb noise for home- owners living very near to the air- port. A concrete noise barrier, completed in 1983, gives noise relief to residents living between 34th and 37th Avenues in South Minneapolis. 13. F�eld Rule for Engine Testing Because a good deal of aircraft noise emanates from the airport itself, the MAC and MASAC sought ways to limit noise due to on-site operating and maintenance proce- dures. An engine-run-up is a routine safety procedure for testing a jet engine at high power. Run-ups consistently violated acceptable noise levels at the airport, especially when conducted at night. As a result, the MAC banned this test between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. except during emergency situations. Run-ups are now restricted to daytime hours and further limited to one test per hour, not to exceed six minutes in duration. In addition, run-ups now 1: take place in only one area of the ` field, which helps to confine jet engine noise to airport property. 14. Gate Holding Although airplane traffic is heaviest around the terminal, noise here does not significantly affect nearby residents because of the terminal's profected, centralized location on airport land. Most ground noise heard in surrounding areas is generated on the runways and taxiways by planes that are leaving or waiting to leave the field. With a procedure called "gate holding;' the FAA control tower does not give an airplane taxi clearance until it has only a minimum wait before takeoff. All waiting departures are held in the terminal area in order to save fuel, avoid a lineup on the taxiways and contain idling engine noise on airport property. Gate holding thus spares neighboring � residential areas from prolonged periods of loud noise. It also cuts down on delays in the air and at destination airports. 15. Community Noise Manitoring Under MAC and MASAC direc- tion, an extensive noise monitoring and evaluation program was devel- oped to examine aircraft noise effects throughout the metropolifan area. Mobile noise units carrying spe- cialized equipment measure sound levels at various locations. The MAC's noise abatement staff, which includes a noise and environmental specialist, records and evaluates sound levels and provides the commission with information on noise-related issues. The accumulated data tell the MAC where aircraft noise is loudest and where noise "exposure zones" have shifted or changed. This information provides a base for the entire noise abatement program and also allows the MAC to evaluate the effectiveness of existing procedures. In addition, the MAC keeps civic and government officials informed about community sound levels and noise impact areas and encourages them to consider this information when planning land development projects. 1 G. Airfield Noise Monitoring „ In 1983 the MAC purchased a Remote Monitoring System (RMS), made by the Tracor Corporation of Austin, Texas, to measure noise levels at the airport itself. The RMS was installed to monitor engine run-ups. Three monitoring units are located near the runways, one sits on top of the MAC administrative offices on 28th Avenue South, Minneapolis, and another is in the run-up area. Because of their fixed positions, the RMS units are limited to monitoring noise on airport property and do not measure community noise levels. Mobile units are preferred for record- ing airplane noise in neighborhoods, because noise abatement staff members are available to gather additional information on airplane types and time of occurrence. � 7 � Noise Abatement Awareness The MAC and MASAC have a responsibility to make sure that all airlines serving Minneapolis/St. Paul International stay well-informed about the airport's noise abatement program. Airlines are asked to urge their pilots to use noise relief pro- cedures and to keep abreast of new developments in the airport's noise program. Airport publications provide up-to-date information on operating procedures and proposed noise relief policies for MSP. Runway signs requesting compliance with sound abatement procedures serve as a reminder to pilots and increase their awareness and sensitivity to noise problems. Finally, in coordination with the FAA, pilots are kept aware of noise-sensitive areas via the ATIS (Automatic Terminal Information Services) broadcast. Conclusion Minneapolis/St. Paul International has one of the country's most_ comprehensive and effective noise abatement programs, incorporating the most recent innovations in aircraft technology and proven noise abatement methods. Each procedure is the end product of extensive research and evaluation by the MAC, 'MASAC, the FAA and the airline industry. While noise control is an ongoing effort, the measures already taken have substantially reduced both the size of noise-affected areas and the amount of noise heard in exposed areas. More importantly, these efforts pave the way for future action, and they are evidence of the serious attention given to noise control at MSP. The MAC is committed to providing high-quality air trans- portation for the entire metropolitan community. At the same time, the commission remains sensitive to noise problems and concerns, and it will continue to expand and improve the noise abatement program. If you have questions or would like additional information, please call the MASAC office at 726-9411. ravc ; -� ,�• x.,;,; �:: ,.. .�s- � �� ,� . : . . 2:" � �lil:y�`!i%. 1',S'` :�i:_ 'i {%. tit ��R '� �'-�T��q7 :.►i _�r'',�� r s a t�. q.J i s f,'N� ci. 't':,� �`-.. :•f�. �a: . i, � . '—+e�irt.'il:i'}%xN:�-{�Y,}:o .e;a'f•.1c4 x;ri�+�.'u:'vcil :y:i.-c.�,� , ti7`i�u.�. � :,i': +. 2ri,l s::�;�.'�:�:Y''. r,,��.y,� �' a"y�."..tis. . i "-S'f� �!.f`34'�=ti.:i�; 4 Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council, 6040 28th Ave. So., Minneapolis, MN 55450 �� APPENDIX XIII , e 0 t i r' APPENDIX�3. AIR TRAFFIC 1. ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES. 1050.1D _ Appendix 3 a. Regional Offices. Responsibility for environmental assessment preparation of EISs and FONSIs may be delegated to field facilities or retained within the regional office, with assistance f�om the field � facilities. Regional offices and field facilities shall provide input an environmental assessment when requested by Air Traffic Service (AAT) other services. and to or s b. Headquarters. The office originating the proposed systemwide action is responsible for making environmental assessments and preparing the FONSIs or EISs. Input may be requested from regional offices and field ; facilities for an action originating within headquarters. � 2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OR FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. After completion of the environmental assessment (including noise analyses), the responsible official will determine whether the proposed procedure will require an EIS or FONSI or is categorically excluded. 3. ACTIONS SUBJECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS AND PROCEDURES. The following actions are subject to enviro�ental assessment and preparation of an EIS or FONSI. a. New or revised air traffic over noise LEVEL. air traffic control procedures which routinely route sensitive areas at less than 3,000 feet ABOVE GROUND -� b. Special use airspace if the floor of the proposed area is below •� =� 3,000 feet ABOVE GROUND LEVEL or if supersonic flight is anticipated at any � altitude. This airspace shall not be designated, established or modified `:� until: (1) The notice (NPRM or non-rule circular) contains a statement '� supplied by the requesting or using agency that they will serve as lead agency for purposes of compliance �,rith NEPA; (2) The notice contains the name and address, supplied by the requesting or using agency, of the office representing •the agency to which comments on the environmental aspects can be addressed (applicable only if an EIS is to be filed by the requesting agency); , (3) The notice contains the name and address, supplied by the requesting or using agency, of the office representing the agency to which comments on any land use problems can be addressed (applicable only if special use airspace extends to the surface); and .. � Page 1 � lUSU.l� � Appendix 3 I2/211$3 (4) T'he rule, determination, or other publication of the airspace action cantains a statement, suppiied by the requesting agency, that the requirements of NEPA have been met. c. The provisions af garagraph b. (1) through (4) are not applicable to special use airspace actians if minor adjustments are made such as raising the a3.titndes ar if a change is made in the designation of the ' controlli.ng or using agency. 4. CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED ACTIONS. - a. Determination under FAR Part 77,�"Objects ,Affecting Navigable Airspace" and determinations under FAR Part 157, "Natice of Canstruction, Alteration, Activation and Deactivation of AirporCs." � b. Procedurai actions to the extent cavered by a previousiq filed EIS or FONSI, when environmental circumstances have nqt changed. c. Actions taken under FAR Part 71, "Designation of Federal Airways, Area Low Rc�utes, Coatro2led Airspace and Reporting Points." d. Actians taken under FAR. Part 75, "Establishment of Jet R�utes and Area. High Routes"; FAR Part 99, "Security ConCrol of Air Traffic"; FAR Part 1Q1, "Moared Ballaons, Kites, Unmanned Rockets and Unmanned Free Balloons"; and FAit Part 1a5, "Parachute 3vmping." e. Establishment or madificatian of TerminaZ Cantral Areas {TCA} or Terminal Radar Service Areas (TRSA). f. Procedural actions dictated by emergency determ,inations. g. Procedural ac�ions requested by users on a test basis ta determine the effectiveness of new technology and measurement of possible impacts on the enviranment. � h. New pracedures that rautinely route aircraft over non—noise sensitive areas. i. Estab2ishment of helfcopter tracks that channel helicop�er activity over major thoroug,hfazes. • , �S$H 2 0 , t t R APPENDIX XIV , � �� U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration October 23, 1986 Mr.- Jon Hohenstein Administrative Assistant City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road P. 0. Box 21199 Eagan, �Iinnesota 55121 Dear Jon: � Air Traffic Control Tower 6311 34th Avenue South Minneapolis, P4N 55450 In response to your September 29, 1986 letter, the maps which you included are a helpful method for identifying the residential areas of Eagan with respect to the final approach course or centerline for runways 29 left and 11 right. As a newcomer to the question of noise in the metropolitan area, I continue to seek some of the history behind the procedures and definition of the easterly "corridor." In an effort to familiarize myself with the definition of the "corridor" I have had indepth conversations with Les Case, Jeff Hamiel of MAC and several members of irIASAC concerning this subject. These conversations, along with consultations with members of my staff, indicate to me that the' original noise program for noise reduction over Ea�an was and remains as follows: aircraft_ �.remain north of the extended centerline of runway 29 left when departing "runwa9 11 right and south of 090� when departing runwav 11 left for a distance :�of three (3) nautical miles from the departure end of the runwav in use. The :boundaries of the "corridor" are maQnetic bearin�s of 090° from the southeast 'A.,� .,f T,,.,wa� 11T./29R anrl 117.4° from the southeast end of runwav 11R/29L. A 105° departure heading was and still is used when traffic permits to provide a buffer to the south boundary of the corridor. =•Widespread •use of-'-this: .procedure worked very well until the effects of deregulation were f elt in 1983 and the increased volume necessitated fanning rraffic�when it began to affect the City of Mendota Heights to your north. In order to give Mendota Heights � relief, the 105° departure heading was adjusted southward and a heading assigned which would keep traffic on or north of the 29L localizer during the hours of peak traffic volume. Without this adjustment aircraft departing the north parallel runway and assigned a heading of 090° would, under most wind conditions, drift north of the northern edge of the departure corridor. Separation standards require 15° divergence between departures. Consequently, in order to keep departures off the north parallel within the northern limits of the corridor we must adjust departures off runway 11R southward. > _ � =o �� `��f.��°`� Edward Warren: First American Aloft � � �,r � 2 We can appreciate the impact a runway heading for 11R departures would have on the areas of Eagan which are very close to the southern limits of the corridor. However, if we do not make effective use of the full designated area we either push noise north of the northern limits into Mendota �ieights or we adversely effect air traffic system capacitq. .. During periods of light to moderate trafficYand when weather or other factors which effect s�andard separation exist I believe the use of the heading of I05° can and should be used. I fully intend to monitor the use of the full corridor and we will make efforts to insure that the _full extent of the corridor is not used indiscriminately. As always you are invited to contact me should you have any further questions. Sincere ; � c.�-'"' . _ ,� . . ..�' �.� - `�Dougl3g=F•:'�Powers �� Air Traffic Manager � � J � 0 APPENDIX XV , � � . , _. . .... .... . . i m � • ` � • • � � � ! October 24, 2986 Mr. Jon Hahenstein A�nistrative Assistant City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road P.O. Box 21199 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Dear Mr. Hohenstein: Thank you for your letter dated September 1.7, 198b on the mat�er af Ldn noise contours as they af£ect the ci�ies of Eagan and Mendata Heights. The primary question raised in your letter rel.ates to the difference between the 1977 Ldn cantours as they appeared in the 1981 Noise Abatement qperations Plan, and those in the 19$6 analysis of the change in aircraft noise, past, present and future, prepared in cannection with the development of a noise budget ardinance. The di�ference between the twa is due to use of different models. The 1981 calculations for a given set of aperational data utilized what is known: as the MITRE Model, an early model for the calculations of Ldn's. The 1986 calcuations employed the Integrated Noise Mode1. (INM) Versian, 3,8, several generatfons advanced „ from the MITRE Model. Improvements included better noise data and mare accurate al.garithms for the decay of side3ine naise. For the same operati.onal situation, the contours look somewhat ditferent. We elected to use the mast recent madel in our 1986 representation of 1977 noise since all of the other years used that model. This was necessary, as you will unders�and, to ensure comparability between the contours for the various years. The two cantours are bo�h "accurate", in that they were calculated using the best data avail.able at the time. The difference between between the two reflects improvements in the state-of-the-ar� since 1981. The matter of departure tracks in the Eaqan area is, as yau know, currentl :ian. we nel�.eve �edures and actua near future, and � Archttects Engineen Rfannets 1500 North Beaurcgard Streek Ala:andria, Ytrg3nia 71311. 703 998-3208 - Psrtners James F. Fnn PE. Paat t_ keineman PE, 6erard f. fox PE, Browning Crow PE, Charieg T. Hennigan PE, Oanie{ J. Waikins F£, Daniei J. Spigai PE. John L Cotton pE, Francia X Hatl PE, Robert S. Coma PE, DqnaW A. Dupies pE, William Love AIA, Roberi D. Mil�er PE, Jamea L 7uttle, Jr. PE, Hugh E. Schall PE, Ca+y+ C. Goatlman AtA, Gortlon h►, Slaney. Jr. PE, Harvey K Nammo�d, Jr„ PE Aasoclatn Daniel J. Appel pE, Roberi W. Aichards PE, Oon R. OK PE, Frederick H. StertreRz PE, Robert 8. Kollmar PE, Kendall T. lincoln CPA, Jack P. Shedd PE, RobeAa W. Smithem p� Richard D. Beckman PE, Harry 0. 8ertossa PE, Ralph E. Robison PE, Cecil P. Counls PE. Stephen G. Goddard PE, Slanley I. Mast PE, Robert W. Anzia PE. Walter Shazka PE, James O. Russetl PE, Ross L Jensen AIA, frank T. Camm PE, Alexander F. Sitady PE, ,}ahn W. Wight PE. Ronatd W. Aarons AIA, H: Jerome Buller PE, Blaise M. Carriere PE, Michael p. Ingaraia PE Bemard L Prince PQ Stephen B. Ouinn PE. Saul A. Jacobs PE, James A Smith, Ronald F, Tumer AIA, Ewirg H. Milier FAIA. Oouglas C. Myhre PE, Cari J. MHiea PE. Daniei F. 8ecker PE, Richard L Faman AFA Offl�rs Alexandria, VA, Allanta, GA, Austin, TX, Baton Rouge, Lp, Boston, MA, Czsper, vVY, Charleston, WV, Chicago, IL, Cleveland, OH, Oallas. TX, Denver, CQ, Fairtietd, NJ, tiaasion, TX, tndianapoiis, IM, Kansas City, MO, lezington, KY, (.exington, MA, Las Angeles, CA, Miami, F�, Mdwaukee, WI, Minneapoiis, MiV, Newark, DE. New Yor1c, NY, Orlanclo, Fl, 4verland Park, K5, Philadelphia, PA, Phoenix, AZ, Raleigh, NC, Seattle, WA, Tampa, FL, Tulsa, OK Mr. Jon Hohenstein October 24, I986 Page 2 We appreciate your corcanents and look fozward to working with you and yaur sta�'f on the Part i5Q analyses over thexnext few months. _ Very truly yours, FiffriIAIARD NEEDLES TAMMIIV & BERGF�iIX�?FF - ��,�� , F. Roy Madgwa.c c� Planning Director FRM/at cc: Chauncey Case, Metropolitan Cotu7cil Nigel Finney, Metrapolitan.Airports Commissian Robert Beckman, HNTB, Minneapolis ti 0 oF ec�c�c�n - 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOX 21199 EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454-8100 Decembex 8, 1986 MR. EVAN FUTTERMAN . HOWARD, NEEDLES, TAMMEN AND 1500 NORTH BEAUREGARD STREET ALEXANDRIA VA 22311 BERGENDOFF Re: Differential Analysis of De arture Tracks in the Eagan - Mendota Heiqhts Area � �o�� Mavor iHOMAS EGAN JAMES A SMITH VIC ELLISON 1HEODORE WACHTER Council Memben 7HOMAS HEDGES Ctry Administraror EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE City Clerk Pursuant to our discussion of the 5th, this letter shall serve as a formal request to review the results of the differential fliqht track studv of the EaQan-Mendota HeiQhts Corridor at least ten days prior to the MASAC meetinQ on J anuarv 27. 1987_ I would �equest that all interested parties, includinq representatives of Eaqan and Mendota Heiqhts, MAC, FAA, and any other interested party be asked to attend an informational meetinq to review the -results._ In th�s way, all parties will be in a position to consider the results as they approach presentation at the January 27, 1987 MASAC meeting. I believe that this request falls within the time frame of completion that we discussed on the telephone. I believe that it is neither city's intention to force disproportionate traffic or noise impacts on the other. In fact the communities have prepared and forwarded a joint resolution to the MAC indicating the parameters of the understood corridor. The cities have in the past and continue to make land use decisions on the basis of the policy contours prepared by the Metropolitan Couqcil. It is my firm belief that it will be possible to develop an operational scenario which continues to focus traffic in this direction for the benefit of the entire metropolitan region while developing parameters which treat the residential areas of the boundaries of the corridor sensitively and equitably. Half of the Part 150 Study focuses on the provision of compatible land uses as a noise abatement strategy. As you know, the cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights have provided an enormous area of such land use for the use of the airport. Therefore, it is obvious that substantive noise abatement in the two cities depends upon operational accommodations which recognize the best means to utilize this corridor. � THE LONE OAK TREE. ..THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNIN Eagan-Mendota Heights Departure Corridor December 8, 1986 Page Two We believe that it is necessary through your differential analyses to compare apples to apples at the boundaries of the corridor. The City appreciates your work in this regard, Please let me know when a meeting to �eview results can be put . together. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, on Hohenstein Administrative Assistant cc: Jeff Hamiel, MAC Nigel Finney, MAC Kevin Frazell, City of Mendota Heights Chauncy Case, Metropolitan Council JDH/j eh , 0 �� rJF GC1C,�Cirt 383� PlIClT KNOB RQAD. P.O. BOX 21144 g�q gt,p�3� EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 Mavor PHONE: (612) 454-8100 T}sOMps EGAN .)AMES A SM�TH — VIC EIIISON iNEODORE WACHTER Cauncd t�temtiers January 27, 3.9$i THOMASHEDGES ,,, CiN Ptxmnutrator _ El.iiCENE VAN 4VERBEICi , City Clerk NIGEL FINNEY METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMTSSION 6Q40 28TH AVE S MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55450 Re: Eagan-MenBota Heights Carridor Differential Contours Dear Nigel. - �telative to our conversation of last Wednesday evening, I loak o�rwrard to your upcoming response to our request�or City anc� gency review 4 t e i erentia cantours prepared or the Eaqan-Mendota Heic�hts corricior. Let me know as soon as possible when such a review can take place. Thank you for your atten�ion to this matter. 5incerely yours, - _ �. ��„�,,�� . n Hohenstein Administrative Assistant � JFifmc , 0 THE IONE OAK iREE. ..THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWiH 1N OUR COMMUNIiY � 3830 PII.pT lCNQB ROAD. P.O. Bf?X 2I15+4 EAGAN. MiNNESOTA 55}2T PHONE: (612) 45A-8100 February 17, 1987 , _ MR NIGEL FINNEY METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION &0�0 28TfI AVENUE SOUTIi MINNEAPOLIS MN 55450 n Re: Review of HNTB Ditferential Contaur Analysis Dear Nigel: t � �--` j ��n S 8EA 8lOtA6itltS[ ��as� THO�AAS ECAP� JAMES A SMITH ViC ELUSON n�eoaoaE wac�a cau� �ernaea i}tQMAS HECSGfS GN ��rator EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE Ctiy Cs�rk This is my third request for an o ortunit for aIl interested parties to review �he Eaqan Mendo�a Heiqhts nifferen�ial Contour Ay�3.ayses which were prepared by Haward, Needles, Tammen and Bergendof. As you are aware, the noise contours which have been pravided to the cities to date for baseline conditions show that the greatest amount of the operatianal impac� is Iocatec� at the southern boundaries of the compatible lancl uses af the corridor. I am sure that a13. communities concerned, as well as �he agencies which are charged with enforcement af 1.and us� compa�ibility woul-d be mas"t interested in what this analysis cou3d reveal, I realize that you have been busy with other mat�ers but we have been more than two months without an official response on this matter. We are �rying to be cooperative in this matter, but it is very difficult to be so in the absence of any substantive in£ormation or reasonable expectations as to the availabil.ity of same. I believe that when we had earlier spoken, the HNTB staff expectea to have this analysis cample�ed by mid-January. Please inform aI1 partie� of the time frame in which we can expect to review this inEormation. � Sincerely yours, � �"��w�.� J n Hohenstein Adminis�rative Assi�tant cc: Kevin Frazell, City of Mendota Heights ' Bab Schaefer, City af Inver Grove Fieights Walter Rockenstein, MASAC Chauncey Case, Metrapolitan Council ' Dave Ke1so, MFCA JDH/jeh THE LONE OAK TRE�. ..TNE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNIN 0 1�� t�F �C�C�t11'i_ a83C7 PILOT KNOB I'20AD, P.O. BOX 21194 EAGAiV. MIfVNESOTA 55121 PHONE: (612) 454-8100 March 18, 1987 MR NiGEL FINNEY METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMM bQ44 28TH AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS MN 5545Q � BEA BLOM9UIST �at�G THOMAS EGAN JAME5 A SMITH VIC £lC1SdN � THEOD�RE WACHTER Councd MemDerx TtiOMAS HEOC7ES Ciry A�7mmistratcN EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE Gty ciera Re: Differentia3. Analysis of Eaqan-Mendota Heights Cflrriaor IIse Dear Mr. Finney: This is my fourth rec�uest for same type af response regarding the differen�ial analvsis of the naise impact of particular packages of headinqs within �he Eaqan - Mendota Heiqhts Corridor. As you are wel 1 aware, it has been the assertion of the Ci�y of Eagan throughout the Part 150 process that na effor� has yet been undertaken ta address means of focussing the worst of the naise impacts at the middle o� the naise compatible area between Eagan and Mendota Heights. Since the Part 150 �tudy is an excellent opportunity to address both land use and operational considerations, it seemed the perfect opportuni�y for such an analysis. I have been led �.a believe by individuals at your office and HNTB that such an analysis was under way. I know tha� other communities as well as �he Metropalitan Council and the MPCA have indicated their interes� in such an analysis as well. Since the Federal Aviatian Admini�tration stresses the need for a compatible land use and the cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights have made an effort to provide such land use, it is essential that some effort be made to determine haw best to use the area so provided. It is within yaur capacity to make an e£fort to do this. To fazl to do so jeopardizes the integrity of the document you are working so hard to complete. � Please correspand with me in this regard at your earliest opportunity, Sincerely yaurs, � g�.��:� on iiohenstein • Administrative Assistant GC: Hall Greenwaod, MAC Chairperson , ,, Jef� Hamiel, MAC Executive Director ,., ,_ __ • Kevin Fraze2, City of Mendota Heights � Chauncey Case, Metropolitan Council Dave Kelso',�MPGA THE LONE OAK TREE.. .THE SYMBOI OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNIN JHD/jeh a L APPENDIX XVI M e a sure �4' 2�' �EYSEW UEPARTURE TRACKS OY£R THf EAGAN CQRRIDQR AND EVALUATE MEANS 4F U9TAINING BETTER COMP�IANCE MITH THE PRESGRIBED PRdCEDURES• Descrsption: A survey vas canducted to thtck the tompifance �f deperting aircraft vith the Eagan corridor (betveen the extended runvay ceaCerlinee}. 4f 78 fli¢ht� snrve_yed. Ib ver� directed by ATC aut oE the corrldor on e 90' hcadinR ofE Runvay 11L. The reason foc il af chese headin�s vas to pravide divecRtnQ paths betveeri simultaneou� Runvay iiL and t1R devartnces: thie is art ATC reaulation. The other � diverRent aircraft ve_re_ Eighteen percent of aircraft vere obserred to flq out�idc af thc corridor, moat a£ Net C hang@ them to meet AYC eafety regulations. The devient flights lnrgely overflev Hendota in COmmuntiy Heights; the flighta coa2d overfl� other arean (Sauth St. Pnul) but 2a�d u�t NOise and considerations ittdicate that impacte are Iesa over Hendata Neights. Deviacian from O vertlight �he establlshed corridoz by � aircraft wax apperentlq no[ necesaary, and etricter compliance by ATC cauld reduce auch lncidents. 'The tmproved compliance vould apply to deviatian boCh to the north and soath of the established corridar. ` TC cou etcer coor inate use of t e corridor vithout loss of airfield capacity. AirpO�t 2nd �ett traffic Feve2s are IfghC and aimultaneovs departures o» Runvays 11L and TIR are ATC not required, use oE heading� on Runvay 11L of 110'� and on Runvay 11R of 090'-110' Operational ghould be specifled. Nhen ATC avitcheg ta aplit local controllers {one each for Runway F1L and ilR), increased coardinatian betveen controtlers vill be required. Considerations . � ' EffeGt On Strfct adherence to thc corridar at a21 timea vouid result in increased delays to AirCr�ft aircraf[ aperating a[ the alrport when Runwaye 11L and 11R vere tn use, �ince O perators gircraft could noG conduct atmultaneoue departures oEf both runway ends. EffBCt Ott Siightly Ionger flightt3mes tsnd de2ays would result if compliancs vith the eorridpc f]ualiky Ot vere to be required at all tlmes. Air Service � Capit�l COStS None» � at impiementation tmp(ementatian �C would request ATC to emphasize use oE the corridor vhenever traffic petmits. Factors - 1 LegB! Legal issues a�sociated vith thfs nreaaure apgear to be nil; however. asauring strict FM conpliance vith the Eagsz� Corrldor procedurea may legally be difficule to ITpIiCBtiOn3 enEqrce. 2hete is potential benefi[ from mare etriet complience vith the prescribed procedure. Conclusion and ATC should be requested to follov it more cloeely,.,; ;,�; ;X„ , ._ ,.. ., _ - • r t li 2 0 CITY OF MENDOTA REZGHTS MEMQ - April 1S, I987 T0: Mayor, City Council and City ��l��tor � . FROM: Klaytan H. Eckles Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Sewers, Water, Streets Park Place Job No. 8625 Impravement No. 86, Project No. 12 DISCUSSIdN: The pl.ans and specifz.cations for the above project are being com- pleted and a fu11 set will be available at the meetin.g Tuesday evening. The sidewalks have been deleted fram the project, at the request o£ the Developer. If the plans and specifica�ions are appraved, the bids can be opaned and awarded at the May 19th meeting, RECOMMENDATTON: . • 4 Staff recommends that the Council apprave the plans and specif ications and authorize s�aff to open the praject for bidding: ACTIQN REQUIRED; - If Council concurs with the staff recornmendation, they should pass a motion adopting Resolution No. $7- , RESOlUTION APPROVING FINAL PI,ANS AND SPECIFICATIpNS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE PARK PLACE SUBDZVISIdN {IMPROVEMENT N0. $b, PROJECT N0, 1.2) � City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Mi.r►nesota RESOLUTION N0. 87- RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORSZING ADVERTISEMENT E4R BIDS F4R IMPR4VEMENTS TQ SERVE PARK PLACE SUBDIVISIQN (IMPROVEMENT N0: 86, PR0,7ECT N0. 12) , WHEREAS, the Ci�q Engineer reported that the proposed impravements and construc- �- tion �hereof were feasible and desirable and further reported on �he proposed costs of said impravemen�.s and construction thereof; and WHEREAS, the Ci�y Council has heretof ore clirected that the City Engineer proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications thereof; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for said im- pravements and has presented such plans and specifications to the City Council f ar approval. NOW TIiEREE'ORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Cauncil of the City a� Mendata Heights, Minnesota, as fallows: 1. That the plans and specifications for said a.mprovements be and they are hereby in all respects approved. 2. That the City C1erk with the aid and assisCance of the City Engi- neer be and is hereby authorized and direc�ed to advertise f ar bids for said irnprovements a11 in accordance with the appliGa.ble Minnesota S�atuCes, such bids to be received at the City Hall af the City of Mendota Iieights by 10:00 o'clock A.M., Tuesday, May i9, 1987, at which time they will be publicly opened in �he City Council Chambers of the City Hall by the City Engineer will then be tabuiated, and wili then be cansidered by the City Council at its next regular Council meeting. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heigh�s this 22nd day of April, 1987. CITY COUNCIL CIiY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor ATTFST : Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk , � CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO April 15, 1987 T0: Mayor, City Council and City �i�i�ttator � FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: The Ponds of Mendota Heights ,. Final Plat Appr.oval Case No. 86-20 DISCUSSION: Council approved The Ponds of Mendota Heights preliminary plat at its September 16, 1986 meeting. Since that time, the Developer has petitioned for public improvements and staff is currently preparing the plans and specifications, they should be ready for Council reveiw at the first meeting in May. Grading of the site is scheduled to begin April lOth. After the public hearing for the plat several of the lot owners along Callahan Place who are adjacent to the pond and maintain lawns down to the pond asked if they could purchase the area they presently use. Mr. Kurtz worked with them to allow that to occur however only one ended up buying the land (Lot 13). Mr. Kurtz has also agreed to file scenic easements (example attached) f or all the pond lots. The a rea affected_will be the area within 20 f eet of L-he pond. During staff review the following deficiencies were noted: 1. The block number are omitted. 2. South Lane is called South Road. 3. An easement for private utilities is needed through Lot 13. Mr. Kurtz was made aware of the omissions and his surveyor is making the corrections. I have also attached a copy of the previously approved Developer`s , Agreement. ' RECOMMENDA�ION: Staff has reviewed the plat and subject to the corrections being made and the conditions agreed to in the Developer's Agreement being complied with we recommend approval of the plat. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council desires to implement the staff recommendation they should pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 87- , RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT FOR Tf� PONDS OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS. 0 CITY �F MENDOTA HEIGHTS Dakota Coun�y, Ma.nnesata RESOLUTION N0. 87— RESOLUTIQN APPROVING FINAL FLAT FOR THE PONDS OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS WHEREAS, a final plat far The Ponds o� Mendota Heights has been submiCted to the Caunci�.; anc� - WHEREAS, the City Gauricil has reviewecl said final plat and finds the same to be in order. NOW THEREFQRE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Ci�y Cauncil of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the final plat for The Ponds of Mendata Heigh�s submitted at this meeting be and the same is hereby appraved. 2. That the apprapriate City officials be and thep are hereby authorized to �xecute Che fa.nal plat on behalf of the City of Mendota Heights. Adopted by the City Council of the City o£ Mendata Heights this 22nd day af April, 19$7. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By CharZes E. Mertensotta, Mayar ATTEST ; Kath2een M. Swansan, City Clerk , � DESCItIP?TC?N OF SCENIG EASEMENT THE RESTRICTIQNS HEREBY IMPOSED UPON ?'HE LAND, the acts which the Grantor covenarzts to refrain from daing upon the tand, and �tte righis irz and to the land qranted to the City of h4endota Heights, Minnesota, by the Grantor Copperfield Assaciates are as foltows: , I. The generaI purpose af this Scenic Easernent is to retain the tand and water predominatIey in thefr naturat, scenic, apen or wooded condition, or as a suitabie habitat far fish and wii.d Tife. 2. The tand shaii not be used far pubiic utiIfty purposes, ather tnan is necessary for drainage impravement which conneci to the pand througit the scenic easement. 3. Struciures permanent and temporary, trailers, fences, advertising signs, roads, hard surface impravements are prahibited. 4. Dumping or pZacing af soii ar other substance or materiat as IandfiIl, or durrtpirtt� or pIa�ing of trash, waste ar unsightly or affertsive materiai is u prohibited. 5. The tapograptty of the tand and water Iine shaiI be retained in it's naturai "' condiiion, and no grading alterrtations, excavation or topogra�ahic changes shaiI be made unless authorized fn writing by the City Administrutor of Mendota Heights, Minnesota. 6. Vegetatian may be pZanied on the Iand thai is indigenous to the Iand and a��ropriate to the naturaI pond edge environment. Yegetation within the easement may be maintained to prevent disease, maintain scenic views nnd maintain variety of naiurat ptant species. T. Actzvities detrimentaI to draina,ge, flood controt, wuter cortservation, erosion controI or� soii canservation, or fish and wiid Iife habitat Areservation are prohibited. This eusement shaZI not be constructed as gi-anting the public any right to enter or use the Iand for any purpose, nor shatZ this scenic easement affect any regular use of the tand by the awners of Lats 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and ?, BIock 6, Copperfieid Additian except uses inconsistent with the restrictions 1-T expressed in this Scenic Easemertt. - --- -�_. ..., . --• . - _--�� r:.-.-.-,^.-.��,¢,�-,,,,..�.��,:�� .�,--.; LEGAL DESCRIPTION . ST'ATE OF MZNNES{�TA ) ) COUNTY 4F DAKOTA ) The foregaing instrument was aclalowledged before me this day of ,_ 1985 � by ` , ?'andem Corparation and � , Lyman Lumber Company, partriers � in Copperfietd Associates a Minnesota Partnership, the Grtzntar named therein, . on behaif of said partnership. � Notary Public VELOPER'S AGREEMENT CONCERNING SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON THE 23 ACRES LOCATED IN THE NORTH PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 25, T28N, R23W, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MIlVNESOTA This �Agreement, made and entered into this �� day of d CGI�I �J; 1986, by nd between the City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota, (hereinaf�er called the "City") and Michael Kurtz, William St. Marie, Marcel Eiben Stei�ner, 3490 Lexington Avenue, Suite 100, Shoreview, Minnesota �. 55112, (hereinafter called the "Developer"). W I T N E S S E T H: WHERFAS, Developer proposes a plat for a single family development in Mendota Heights to be known as The Ponds of Mendota Heights, consisting of 22 single�family lots on approximately 23 acres in the northeast quarter (NE 1/4) of Se�ction 25, in Mendota Heights; and WHEREAS, public services are needed by the Developer from Mendota Heights in order to proceed with said.development; NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the two parties as follows: 1. Developer will petition the City for needed public improvements (Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer, Watermains, and Streets). Developer agrees to pay $3,300.00 escrow to the City as per Ordinance 1503. _ 2. Developer will provide at no cost to the City all needed temporary construction easements to intall said improvements and those per- manent, right of way and easements, necessary for said public improvements. 3. Mendota Heights will proceed as expeditiously as possible with hearings or 100% petitions and such additional proceedings as may be required to cause public improvements to be installed. 4. Developer will proceed immediately to commission a registered land surveyer to place enough lot corners so that street centerlines can be located by City staff. 5. Developer agrees to grade site according to the grading plan dated August 28, 1986 and protect the environment by the use of good erosion control methods. Minimum erosion control require- ments will consist of top dressing, seeding and mulching of dis- turbed areas within 30 days of site work completion, as well as the use of a sump area followed by a double row of staked hay bales or silt fences where concentrated surface water runoff takes place (per grading plan). 6. Developer acknowledges that there will be a park contribution due to the City as per Ordinance 301, Section 6 as ammended by Resolu- •. ,• tion 80-16. That contribution is to be $600 per lot or $13,200 and is payable before the City will sign the final plat. , f �- f � 7. Develaper agrees to preserve a na�ural area araund Warrior Pond by means of a scenic easement. This easement will need to be ap- praved by the City Council befare the City will execute the final plat. CITY OF MENDOTA i�EIGHTS - � - - �i�i��j-rrc,'c��` 0�� . Robert G. Lockwood, Mayor � � Kevin D. Frazell, Cit Administratar E •• • e � ' y . zTl.iam St Marie CITY QF MENDOTA HEIGHTS � April 2, 19$7 T0: Mayar, City Council and Ci�y Ad�yh��c� : FROM: James E. Danielson � Public Works �irectar SUBJECT. Business Park Street Lights Feasibility Study Job No. 8624 Improvemen� No. 86, Project No. 11 INTRqDUCTION: United Properties recently peti�ianed the City to install decorative street lights in their Business Park area. Larry Lee has also indicated that he wants street lights in his developmen� at Trunk Highway 114 and Leacington Avenue. Cauncil, at their January 6, 1987 meeting, approved the United Properties request and passed a resolutian suthorizing staff to prepare a feasibility study ta address the financial and technical aspects af it. DISCUSSION• '� - " The City does nat have lighting experts in house so we have utilized the expertise of a lighting supplier and a lighting contractor in preparing the proposed layaut (see attached drawing} and cost analysis. I. LAYOUT We recommend that lightiing standards be unifarm in a11 the Cifiy's Business/Commercial areas and have grouped �he City into three segarate areas that could be lit now: A. Developed area west of Trunk Highway 55. - B. Developed area �ast af Trunk Highway 55. , C. Yorkton area at Trunk Highway 110 and Lexangton Avenue. Some areas remaining to be lit in the future: A. M.A.C. site. B. Mendota Heights Road - Lexington Avenue to Dodd Road C. Langer site�at�T.H. 55 and Mandata Heights Road. The style of light that is proposed to be used is a 400 Watt high pressure sodium bulb in a Sterner Executive type fixture and mounted on a 3S foot po1e. The entire pole and fixture will be dark brown and will be identical �a what is already inplace in United Properties' parking lots now with the exception that �he parking Iat lights are an 20 faat poles. The pale spacing will be about 210 feet. II. COSTS � There are two types�of costs involved; construction costs and ongoing maintenance and energy costs. A local electrical con�racting firm gave us an estimate for the construc�ion costs.-He broke the cas�s dawn into the three areas we idenCified earlier. A. West af Trunk Highway 55 = $253,000 B. East of Trunk Highway 55 = C. Yorkton = (Engineering & Overhead @ 30%) TOTAL ESTTMATED COST = s$,oaa 42,500 $353,5Q0 IQ6, 050 $459,550 I contacted NSP to deter�ine the angairig ma�ntenance and el�tric costs. They said that there are Cwo options: 1. NSP wauld do alI the ongoing routine maintenance and provide the power for•$9.00/fixture/month. $9.00 X 12 months =$10$/per year/per fix- ture. 2. The secand option would be to have NSP grovide the pawer only at 3.42 cents/kwh. 482 watts/fixture X 4160 hours/year X$0.0342 =$68.5$ per year. III. F"UNDING There are two funding considera�ions to be made for this project, assessmen�s f ar the capital construction costs and a taxing district for the ongoing maintenance and energy costs. 1, Assessments 'Fhe Cityts normal assessment rnles do not seem to apply in the case af stree� lighting so we have developed some new rules as fallows: Assessment = Franta�e X Area X � {F'rontage X Area) Praject Cost � Frontage Adjustments A. Fartially 5erved Lots For partially served lots assessments would be for frontage on the served side only. B. Carner Lot For corner lots assessments would be for the entire narrow side " plus 25� af a11 ather sides abutting a street. C. The maximum assessed frantage shall nat ex�eed 4Q% of the total 2ot perimeter. Using these guidelines cambines both frontage and size of affected parcels and the resulting assessments seem to abtain a reasanable distribu- �ion af costs. We have tabuiated the costs using �hese guidelines far each affected lot and written the results an the at�ached project map. 2. Tax District Staff propases ta f und the angoing maintenance and energy costs by means of a taxing district. In order to establish a taxing district the City needs to be petitioned by a minimnm of 1S� of the affected landowners by area and 15� of �he taxable value, The City then needs �o conduct a public hearing �ar creation of the district and adapt an ordinance. United Properties owns in excess of 15% of the land area and has submitted a petition. They currently own aver 6% af the taxable value and have promised ' �ta ob�ain the required petitions from property they have transferred to ather names (ie. Cray Research). Once these petitians have been received the City will have the required 15� of the land by value. There are 76 lights proposed for the area west of T.H. 55 so the annual ongoing maintenance and energy costs �o NSP would be $1Q8 X 76 lights = $8,2Q$ if we select NSP Alternat.e No. 1. We alsa need ta add costs for City administration and overhead�estimate =$2,000. At this Ievel a levy af 1/2 mil a� today's valuation would caver the casts. As the business park de- velops and the valuation increases the Ievq will be able to be reduced accordingly. 3. Municipal State�Aid (MSA) I have contacted MSA staff and they have informed me that if the City desires, because Mendota Heights Road an the MSA system, MSA wou].d pay a � portion of the street lighting costs. IV . IN�'ORMAL HEAR II�IG After preliminary studies were compZeted, staff sent notices to a11 affec�ed landowners and held an informal hearing to see what the reaction to the project woulc3 be. My interpretation of the general opinion af both those who attended the meeting and those who called in, is that no one except Ryan (owners of Che Sperry Building at Lexington Avenue and Mendota Heigh�s Road) were oppased to the project. Severa2 stated that they were not particularly in favor of the project but that they would not oppose it if it went ahead. RECOMMENDATION • Staff feels that to install street lights in the Business/Commercial areas is a financially and technically feasi.ble project and we recommend that it be ordered to be constructed. ACTION REQUIRED: � If Courrcil desires to implement the staff recommendation they need to make the following decisions; _ 1. Do we use NSP to do the maintenance or do we hire a private contractor. 2. Do we use MSA funding to reduce the costs for the project. and then pass motions adopting Resolution No. 87- , ACCEPTING REPORT AND CALLING FOR THE HEARING FOR STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS and Resolution No. 87- , RESOLUTION CALLING HEARING ON ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT. ' � u l e � City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RFSOLUTION N0. 87 - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND CALLING FOR HEARING FOR STREET LIGHT IMPROVEMENTS (INIPROVEMENT N0. 86, PROJECT N0. 11) WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted his report to the City Council � with�respect to the proposed construction of the following improvements to serve Mendota Heights Special Service District, to-wit: The construction of street light system including appurtenances - and incidental thereto, in the area hereinafter more particularly described. WHEREAS, the area proposed to be assessed for said improvements is situated within the City of Mendota Heights in Dakota County, Minne- sota, and is more particularly described as follows: Mendota Heights Industrial/Business Park and Yorkton Centre Pointe South. WHEREAS, in said report said City Engineer reported that the proposed improvements and construction thereof were feasible and desirable and further reported on �the proposed costs of said improvements. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the report of said City Engineer be and is hereby received. ' 2. That a public hearing on said improvements be held on Tuesday, May 19, 1987 at 7:45 o'clock P.M. at the Mendota Heights City Hall 750 South Plaza Drive in the City of Mendota Heights. 3. That the City Clerk,' with the aid and assistance of the City Attorney, be and is hereby authorized and directed to prepare a notice of said hearing and to cause said notice to be published and mailed to the owners of the property situated within said area, all in accordance with applicable Minnesota Statutes. - Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 22nd day of April', 1987. ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk CITY COUNCIL � CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor � CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA .RESOLUTION NO. 87- RESOLUTION CALLING HEARING ON ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT WHEREAS, the City has authority granted by the 1986 Minnesota State Legislature to establish a Special Service District within said City; and WHEREAS, the City has'received petitions from at least 15% of the owners of�the�recorded land areas, and 15% of the taxable value within the proposed boundaries of the District as shown on the attached E�ibit A. ,' NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights holds a public hearing on the establishment of said District at 7:45 o'clock P.M. on Tuesday, the 19th day of May, 1987, and that the Clerk publish notice of said hearing in the official City newspaper for two successive weeks prior to said hearing, and that � notice of such hearing be mailed to the owner of each parcel within the area of the proposed District not less than 10 days prior to the hearing date. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 22nd day of April, 1987. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS _ , gy Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor , ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk MEMO CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS April 14, 1987 To: Mayor and City Council _ From: Kevin��, City Administrator ' Re: Use of CDBG funds for Northend Street Improvements At Council direction, I have written our legislative delegation expressing our dissatisfaction with the HUD ruling the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds cannot be used to create a lien against the properties of benefiting households. This ruling prevents us for providing interest free loans to pay assessments in the Northend Street Improvement Project, and requires instead that the monies be given as grants to eligible low and moderate income households. Attached is a letter of response from Senator Rudy Boschwitz, accompanied by a letter from the HUD Washington office. As you can see, HUD takes the position that its ruling is based upon statutory language in the Housing and Community - Development Act as amended, and it cannot administratively waive that requirement. At last week's meeting with Congressman Vento, Councilmember Witt and I raised this issue. Vento sits on the House committee that is currently marking up a new Community Development bill. Although we have made our feelings known, it is not known whether any changes in the bill will be made. It seems there is little else we can do at this point to change federal law or regulations. If we intend to provide CDBG assistance for the Northend project, it will have to be as grants. We currently have an allocation of $80,000 for the project. As you can see in the attached letter from the Dakota County HRA, approximately 40 - 60 applications for assistance can be anticipated. With an average assessment of around $1,200 -$1,500, adequate funds should be available. ACTION REQUIRED This item is for Council information and discussion. Unless Council wishes to change its position on �roviding this type of assistance, no further Council action is required. Applications for assistance will be processed around the time of the assessment hearing in the Fall. _ y .-.�„-� .�._ . _ , __ � _, __�_ - RUDY BOSCNWITZ MINNESO7A �.1 C�rf e�t .�f af e� .�e�cxf e WASHINGTON. D.C. 20510 e March 23, 1987 COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS: AGRICULTURE 8UL7GET FClREiGN REIATiQNS SMALL BUSiNESS Kevin Frazell ` 750 Sauth Plaza Drive :. Mendota Heights, Minnesata 55124 Dear Kevin: Thank you for your letter concern' se of HUD's Community Develapment Block Grant (C G} funds or speeial assess�ents in sligible low and mod rate ir.come eighb�rhoods. I apgreciated hearing from yau. I took the Iiberty bf forwar ing Your Decem r 3e�ter to the U.S. Department of Housing and Ur an Development and am enclosing its response. I hope his informatio will be helpful. Again, thanks for providin me with the ppor�unity to assist you. Please eantact me ith any oth cancerns yau may have in �he future. Rsf sss Enclosure n � - Si�cer�yiy, .. �y Bc�schw�tz ited Stat s Senator •`""'�°' U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ,-'�•�'��'�� M� WASHINGTON, D.C. 20410-7000 i I i `��'�' otv� °f, :�;��,�; 1 7 19UT f��:f► � 3 �� , . 10E OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY 1„ � ��j . .�R COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Honorable Rudy Boschwitz - • _ United States Senate ` Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Boschwitz: Thank you for your letter dated February 5, 1987, requesting our review of the proposed use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to pay for the special assessments on a public works project in a low and moderate income area. As described in the letter you forwarded from Mr. Kevin D. Frazell, City Manager of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, the CDBG funds would provide low and moderate income households with no interest loans to be used for the special assessments with repayments due at the time of resale of the property. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has determined that this type of subsidy program is not in compliance with Section 104(b)(5) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as revised by the 1983 Amendments. This section requires the grantee to certify that it will not attempt to recov�r any capital costs of public improvements, assisted in whole or in part by CDBG funds, by assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied by low and moderate income persons, unless CDBG funds are used to pay the assessments for these persons. The statute provides one exception to this requirement: the grantee is not required to pay the assessments for moderate income persons if the grantee certifies that it does not have sufficient block grant funds to pay the assessments for those persons. The statute does not provide for anything less than full payment of assessments levied on low income persons. Using CDBG funds to pay a special assessment for a public improvement project converts the project into one funded in part with block grant funds. Using deferred loans to fund the special assessments, as proposed in the case described in Mr. Frazell's letter, involves placing a lien against the property and, thereby, impairing its value. Accordingly, this method cannot be construed as constituting the full payment of the assessment with CDBG funds as required by law. I have enclosed a letter to Senator Kasten, dated November 19, 1986, addressing this issue more fully relative to a case in Wausau, Wisconsin. We recognize, as Mr. Fazell pointed out, that the use of loans in these cases would enable "reusing" the funds for other eligible projects once the loans are repaid. However, this option is not permitted under the statute as currently written. Enclosure 0 Very sincerely yours, � , ��t-- � � Stephe May Assistant Secretary , NOV 1 9 1g86 F3onozable Robert 1P. Rasten, Jr. United 6tatee Senate 1�aahington, DC 20510 . Dear Senator Rasten: Thank you for your lettez of l►��tobez 7, 1956, to Secre�ary Pierce concerning a prot�l �.Q_ tTie City of �ausau is ex�eriencing in connection with thb Community Development BIocY. Grant (CDBG) program. It has beer� referred to thia 6ffice for zesponse. ` The prroblem involves the rulek r,,hich apply W'zen CDBG func�s are usec to pay special assessmenta on behalf of low and noderate income pezsons. To a limite3 �xtei�t� the following discussion of t'his matter repeats inforration prc►vided in the enclosed Ietter to you fzo� Assistant Seczetary Stap��n May. 'That letter was in furt:�er zesponse to your lettez oi August 13, 19g�, an? followe� an intezim zeply date8 Septe�be= 8� 1ggE_ Because of the City's stron� objections to HUD's.�interpzrtation of the special assessr�ent rules, this letter is intende� to provide you �aith a fulle: discussion o� the issues. These are the essential facts in this case as we un�erstan3 t�e�. The City has annexed an ared in whicY� a majority of the zesidents are low and moderate in�n�e persons. Bonds have beer. issuec: to pay constructior_ costs aasociatec with p*avidin� city utilit�► service to homes in the anr,eaea azea. A portion of the funds requizea to retire the bonds will come fror: special assessmer,�s levie� on propert}� ownezs. Z'h� City ha= de=id�:' tc 115� CP�^ f12r7�� t.Q a�S15t ' 101n 3I1G' T:C>ue�a �E I Il^0�1£ '�o�eawne: £ 1T1 paying the assessmer_ts. Th� City wants to provice t'�e a�s:stn;�CEE ir, t?ze for� of de�errec, no intereft, no install�ent loans t'�at are due upon transfe: of title to the property. 1 ?zis arranae�e:�t raise= t�+o 1S5'.lE�. Fizs`., ooe= C.'L'�=' Z�•£: S�aT10E lT: pGjr+i1= S��ic� assessm�n.`.£ C.:+:1\'?' � 'C�iE' '1:2.�.1 1 C h"�►�!:� grc•�ect ir.tc one fu��e^ in p�rt M:t', C7B•3 fun.:s, t':ezeb;� tria�erina a? I a�p'_ica�le Fe�ezal zecsizea:ents? I.` t�e ans�►•e: t?�e fir=t aues=io:: is ye�, t?�er the se=on.�. a�e:tic:. is: �.�at o::�right grar�s b= use� Lo pa}• I0� pezcea: o•` �:�� sre�:a: assessrent� levie�� or: prope:ties oM•aea a:�� oc=ur_ie� by lo�: a.^.�' m�e: ate income pers�ns if the Cit? c:�oosz= ��- u`� CnD� Fun�� d551�t 3:Ij' �'lOfft.`Oi�I'1Er 1F! ��'1i1� SUC�': assessmer,ts.' 1 to t^ �' -� . `.� r � ' With respect to the first issue, HUD's position is that using CDBG funds to pay a special assessment does'convert the public works project into one funded in part with CDBG funds. We - cannot ignore how funds collected through the special assessments are used. The fact is those funds are used to pay for public improvements. �Use of indirect financing techniques cannot have the effect of avoiding Federal requirements. • If we could ignore how the funds collected through tiie ' special assessment are used, a new issue would have to be faced: Under what provision of the statute would the payment of special assessments be eligible? While paying special assessments or any other costs for low and moderate income persons would benefit them, not every ty�e of benefit to suc2� persons is an eligible use of CDBG funds. To be eligible for CDBG assistance, an activity must meet all of the conditions for eligibility described at 24 CFR 570.200 and must be included within the descriptions of eligible activities found at•24 CFR 570.201 through 570.206. Special assessments are not included � within those descriptions. They are considered eligible for CDBG assistance only because they are viewed as a means of financing eligible public improvements. Paying a special assessment without regard to what the funds are used for would be the equivalent of making income payments, an activity which is described in 24 CFR 570.207(b)(4) as ineligible for CDBG assistance. Since the payment of assessments is an indirect way of funding public works projects, and since CDBG funds will be used to pay assessments, all CDBG requirements must be met by the project.. Included in these requirements is the certification bn special assessments required by Section 104(b)(5) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, which was added to ti�e Act as part of the 1983 Amendments. This section requires tY�e grantee to certify.,�hat it will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements funded in whole or in part with block grant assistance, against properties owned and occupied by persons of low and moderate income, unless block grant funds are used to pay the assessments for the low and moderate income persons. , This leads us to the second issue described above. HUD's position is that if the City chooses to use CDBG funds to assist any homeowner in paying an assessment resulting from the project, the City must make outright grants to pay 100 percent of the � Adininistrative dffices ; !�... CITY OF MENDUTA HEI�HTS December 34, 1986 Senator Rudy Boschwitz � 210 Bremer Bldg. 419 North Robert Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Dear Senator Boschwitz: v r�.� The City of Mendota Heights participates in the Community Development Black Grant program, thraugh the entitle�nt alloeatian of Dakota County. Ap�roximately $80,000 from 1.985 and 1986 funding cycles has been dedicated to assi�t in the rehabil- itation of streets in the far north end of our City. An income survey of the area done by the Dakota Caunty Hausing and Redevelopment Authority revealed this to be a low and moderate income neighborhoad as defined by i3UD guidelines, The City has planned to use the CDBG funds for direct a�sistance ta low and moderate income hameowners, by providing them with a no interest loan for the special as�essments, wi.th the loan to be repaid at the time af resale of the property. Dakota Coun�y HRA Executive Director Mark Ulfers has informed us that the Washington office of F3ausing and Urban Development (HUD) has recently ruled that CDBG funds can not be used to provide deferred loans involving property l.ien� to help lawer _ incolne hauseholds pay spQcia2 a�sessments. This ruling was in respanse to a program in Wausau, Wisconsin, highly similar to ours. ' Needless-to-say, we are extremely disappointed by HUI7's ruling. With ever declininc� federal'financial assistance to lacal governments, we �'eel it is �.mportant ta use our CDBG entitlement in such a wa�r that it is "•recycled", sa that monie� cami.ng back from the no interest I.oans can later be made available to provide �i�ilar assistance t� ather Zow inccme hou�ehalds. rJ;'s rulir.g, a£ caurse, makes this impossible. We would like to add our voice to that oi other communities who-may be objecting to this ruling, and respectfully request your assistance in pursuadinq HUD to change their mind. , Sincerely,� _ ��,,� �� Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator KDF:madlr 750 Sauth Plaza Drive • Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 • 452-1850 � ' assessments levied against properties owned and occupied by low and moderate income persons. This position is based on the fact that the statute does not speak in terms of partial payment or deferred payment, but simply says that recovery of capital costs is impermissible unless block grant funds are used "to pay" the assessments for the low and moderate income persons. Arguments on both side.s can be made as to the wisdom of this requirement, but.based on the statutory language, we must require that assessments be fully paid for low and moderate income persons. The argument supporting the current requirement is that an- outright payment of 100 percent of the assessment results in no burden being placed on the low and moderate income persons by a project qualifying for assistance on the basis that it will benefit such persons. In contrast, a deferred payment loan due upon transfer of title to property reduces the value of the property in comparison to neighboring properties which do not have liens placed against them. This is true even though all of the properties in the neighborhood increase in value as a result of the public improvements. We believe the major argument opposing the current requirement is that it requires too deep a subsidy. A lesser subsidy per household (e.g., a deferred payment loan ratizer than an outright grant) would permit available resources to benefit a greater number of low and moderate income households over time. If consideration is given to amending the statutory language _ on special assessments, I hope the Department will be provided the opportunity to join in discussions regarding this complex subject. I also hope that you will find the•fuller description of the issues in this letter izelpful. �� ) . Enclosure Sincerely, GL� �/�D �'/� � /_� . t, jU � t.- t.c.��Q ack R. Stokvis General Deputy Assistan� Secretary 1 �OLTNTY Serving People and Communities April 9, 1987 Mr. Kevin Frazeli, City Administrator City of Mendota Heights 750 South Plaza Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 RE: Assessment Abatement Dear Mr. Frazeil: x D�U rA cu uN i Y HOUSING & REI}EVELOP�I�IEIYT AI;rTHORITY 2496 - 1451h STREE7 WE5T , R45EMOUNT, MINNESOTA 55068 bi2-aza-asoo �APR � � 1987 � As you requested, we have prajected the number af eligible applicants the City might expect far assessment abatement assistance, based on the survey done of area residents in 2985. TF�e survey resu7ts were as foilows: 1, Households surveyed 2. Respanse rate 3. Low income households �, Moderate incame households 5. Incame. eligible households indicaing thai they would apgly for assistance 107 59 ar 55� 20 or 34% 26 ar` 27� - r• . ,�•. Based on these results we could project that 36 households would be eligible for fu11 assistance {lower incame} and 29 househaids would be eligibie for partial assistance (moderate income), depending on the amount of funds available. If only 60% of ihese eligible househalds aFR�Y� a total of 39 appiications would be received, No attempt has been made ta take the response rate into account in making ihese prajections. If yau have any questions or comments, please call me. Sincerely, �J��, U Lee Smith Community Development Specialist LS/bs , "AN EQUAC OPPC?i2TUNITY EMPi.QYER" CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS � MEMO � ' APRIL 13, 1987 To: Mayor and City Counci - - FROM: Kevin D. Fraz 1,� Administrator' SUBJECT: 1987/88/89 Target Issues and Priority List Attached is the list of target issues, prioritized by level of importance. These are as determined by the Council at the workshop on April 11. ACTION REOUIRED: The first Council action should be to review the list as typed up, and determine whether any changes are made. To give this list some "standing", I would then recommend that Council pass a motion adopting the list as its prioritization of target issues for the next 2 1/2 years. KDF:madlr attachment , � a TARGET ISSUES: 198?/88f89 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MEND�TA HETGATS APRIL, I987 TARGET ISSUE --------------------------- l. Parks Development -------------_.f_ � � r i 1 - Reassess program, priorities, j and direction � - Secure location for athletic ( complex � - Reschedule date for re�erendum � 2. Southeast Area Plan Amendment � 4. 5, - Adoption af noise ordinance - Complete Plan appraval by Met. Council and adoption - Consider parks implications - React to develapment proposals - Construct public improvements City Hall - Bldg. Committee completes �chematic plans - Architects draw up P1. and Specs. - Let for bid and construct - Arrange and approve financi.nc� - Consider policies for aperation - MQVE IN ANI} ENJOY ! 110/Dodd Area Redevelapment - Work with MnDot on 149 improvements - Work with Mendota Plaza new owners for redevelopm�nt - Determine future of S. Plaza Dr. - Clean up entire area Airport Noise - Became more active in issue - Resolve corridar is�ues wi�h Eagan - Adopt naise attenua�ion ordinance �a t STATUS 6. Hwy. 55 Corridor Study - City Planner completes background - Meet with neighbors and owners . , - Focus direction and policy - - Identify funding sources . - Implement preferred plan � 7. Zoning Code Amendments - Planner completes background work - Workshop with Pl. Comm. to discuss amendments and set policy - Draft ordinances, hold public hearings, and adopt revisions -------------------------------------------+----------------- HIGH PRIORITY 8. Infrastructure Replacement Policy - Inventory existing status and establish replacement schedule - Adopt policy on standard for reconstruction - Set policy on City financial contribution - Continue to build sinking fund - Consider County turnback program 9. Street Lighting/Sidewalk Policy - Develop policy for new and existing neighborhoods - Adopt financing policy 10. Commissions _ - Clarify relationship to Council - Develop recruitment effort - Develop training program - Define Planner/Staff role � - Hold periodic �oint workshop . 2 0 11. Financial Management - Review investment of idle funds - Review insurance coverages . - Review external audit � - Consider need for Council guidelines and goals - Role of Treasurer - What to do after Larry 12. Drainage Ditches and Holding Ponds �� - Review maintenance program and j beef up as needed � I 13. MSA Street Program � - Review and reconsider priorities 14. Economic Development - Consider need for more proactive Cit� role in attracting desirable business - Structure City program � -------------------------------------------+----------------- MODERATE PRIORITY 15e Sanitary Sewers - Work with MWCC to get accurate meter readings - Agree on temporary method of measurement - Decide on correction of identified I/I �roblem areas - Identify and react to other problem areas ' 16. Elections - Review needs and options � - Review optiscan system - Review precinct boundaries - Lobby County for needs . 3 0 17 . 18. Equipment Replacement - Inventory existing stock and establish replacement schedule - Establish reserve fund, weaning off equipment certificates - Include parks equipment Use of "Garron" site - - Focus on desired future use - Resolve conflict between Comp. Pl. and current zoning 19. City Code Codification - Determine need - Recodify existing City ordinances 20. City Image - Adopt slogan - Adopt logo - City Hall planned to reflect - Employee service 21. Recreation Program - Survey needs, present and future ' - Assess current program - Plan to meet future needs -------------------------------- LOW PRIORITY I --------+----------------- 22. MAC Property Sale and Use - Review status of sale to United - Work with developer on use 23. Hwy. 110/Lexington Intersection - Redesign and upgrade of roadways - Redevelopment of existing use - Future commercial uses 24. MIS Review - Review effectiveness of current uses - Consider additional applications 4 25. St. Paul Water Agreement - Reconsider City objectives - - Ne�otiate and enter new agreement with St. Paul 26. YTax Increment District - Review and prioritize remaining projects - React ta specific requestsjproposals for TIF assistance - Schedule remaining projects and plan for termination af district 27. Counci2 - Staff - Commission Retreat - Study and anticipate the future - Pian and organize to react appropriately - Conszder need for professional assistance 28. Comparable Warth 0 - Review City Administrator j recommended pragram � - Ado�t a program � - Begin implementation by 8j1/87 j � -------------------------------------------+----------------- L4WER PRIaRITY 29. Housa Moving �rdinance - Amend current ordinance to requira developer's agreement with timetable 30. Snawplawing - Review current snowplowing procedures and determine whether to amend ta increase effica.ency 31. Relatianship with Mendota/Lilydale - 2dentify im�ending issues - Review provzsion of services - Resolve storm water runoff problems 5 ` , 32. Police Department - Review �roblem of high percentage af seniar affic�rs - P�an for future turnover %33. Fee Schedules - Review existing fee schedules (i.e. Parks dedica�ion, Planning, etc.} - Modify as deemed appropriate 34. Cable Televisian - Cablecast of City meetings - Design in new City Hall - Plan City programming 35. Employee Benefits - E�ansion of cafeteria plan - Review possibility af fitness plan � -------------------------------------------+----------------- BOTTOM PRI4RITIES 36. RR Crossing in Industrial Park - Review s�atus and decide when and if to buiZd 37. CDBG Projects - 5urvey potential uses and implement 38. Intersection abstructions _ - Review prablem af abstructions from tree, bushes, etc. - Plan to remedy as necessary 39. Senior Citizens - Housing - Recreation - Transportation 40. Watershed Management Organizations - Review status and e�fectiveness 6 ' r .. . , .. .. ��_ � . _ . . � 41. Housing Policy i � - Maintenance of existing housing � - Senior housing � "I - Moderate cost housing i � - . I � I - I I l � y r� CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO APRIL 17, 1987 TO: Mayor and City Council - FROM: Kevin D. Fra l,��Administrator SUBJECT: Reco endation of Appointment to Receptionist , Position City Clerk Kathy Swanson, Code Enforcement Officer Paul Berg and current Receptionist Kim Blaeser have interviewed candidates for the receptionist position which was included in the budget and previously authorized by Council. I conducted follow-up interviews on two finalists today. I presume that b� the time of the Council meeting Tuesday evening, we will have decided upon a recommended candidate, and reached an agreement on salary and date of appointment. A recommended appointment will be provided with the add-on agenda Tuesday evening." KDF:madlr , 9 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Y� 4 � April 15, 1987 T0: Mayor, City Council and City A is�� _ FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: North End Street Project Job No. 7843 Improvement No. 79, Project No. 3 DISCUSSION: At the last Council meeting Councilman Hartmann inquired as to when the North End Street Project would be started. I called Pine Bend Paving, the contractor, and they told me that normally asphalt plants are started up about the first of May, however because of the warm spring, they may start earlier. ACTION REQUIRED: None. For information only. a � k � r E m CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO April 15, 1987 � TQ: Maycir, �ity Council and City i��ator FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Callahan Lot Filling Job No. 8315 DISCUSSION• Councilmember Witt mentioned at the last meeting that she had notice some �illing taking place an the Callahan lot and wondered what was gaing on. I called Mr. Mike Mickel.son the current Develaper af the si�e and he informed me that he thought that he had Z'E..'Ct3VG� �7C'I'II13SSS14I! to do fi.11ing. He said that the fi1.1 that is there now is all tha� he intends ta do for the time being. I then researched the files and found tha� approximately one year ago the Council had agreed Co alZow Mr. Mic%elson to go ahead wi.th his project � subject ta the �erms of a Developer`s Agreement (see at�ached minutes and Developer's Agreement}. The changes called for the May 20, 198b meeting have been incorpora�ed into the attached agreement. Note: Mr. MickeZson has already camplied with many of the terms of the agreement. � l. He has submitted a$3000 letter of credit, 2, I�e has had Brady High execute the required easement. 3. He has signed a pe�.�ion for the public improvement project and is currently helping the City ta get bids f or the project. �AGTION RE(.�UIRED : Sign amended Develaper's Agreement as agreed to at the�May 20, 1986 meeting and give staff any further guidance an handling the matter. DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT CONCERNING IAT 2, WILLOW SPRINGS ADDITION, SECTION 24, T28N, R23W, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA _ This Agreement, made and entered into this day of , 1987, by and between the City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota, (hereinafter called the "City") and Michael J. Mickelson, 2502 Taylor, White Bear Township, Minnesota, 55110, (hereinafter called the "Developer"). W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, the Developer proposes a lot division for single family dwell- ings in Mendota Heights to be known as Willow Springs consisting of three lots on approximately 1.46 acres located in the Northeast corner of the intersection of Marie Avenue and Dodd Road presently known as Lot 2, Willow Springs Addition; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Developer to cause filling and grading of the lots, and to make the area ready for sale as single family lots. NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the two parties as follows: 1. Grading and Filling Developer agrees to fill and grade the platted area in accordance with " the Grading Plan as prepared by Griswald and Associates dated May 14, 1986 (revised July 28, 1986) and attached hereto. In the grading and filling of the area, measures shall be taken to prevent any deleterious results on adjacent property. Topsoil shall be placed on all disturbed areas upon completion of grading. Seeding or sodding shall be accomplished to estab- lish a cover of vegetation as soon as possible after grading. The developer and his agent shall use extreme care during the grading process (which includes proper timing of restoration, seeding and erosion control) to protect and maintain existing: a. Private land characteristics; b. Pub�lic land characteristics; c. Public investments such as sewer, watermains and street surfacing facilities. Erosion control measures, as directed by City staff shall be used to prevent the erosion of any of the fill from entering the creek. Any deterioration of adjacent property or the creek due to erosion, silting, soil deposition or degradation shall be corrected immediately upon direction from the Public Works Director. �-• 0 2. Setbacks Setbacks, as recommended in staff report dated February 2, 1984, for both wetlands and front yard, will be adhered to unless changed by apgroved City Council variances. 3. Timetable The Developer shall submit an escrow despasit or a 1et�.er of credit in the amount of $3,OQ0 tp be retained by the City to insure gaod iai�h performance. The escrow or letter of credit will be released to the Developer one year after final grading has been completed and a final inspection has been performed by the Public Works Direc�.or and any faults corrected. 4. Easements Easements as indicated on the grading and drainage plan will be dedicated at no cost to the City. All easements will be dedicated prior �.o commencement of any work.' 5. Public Improvements The Developer continues to want to have the City complete the s�orm sewer work. Developer and/or Qwner w:i.11 sign �he agpropriate pa�itian for work and waiver of public hearing. Upon receipt the City will proceed as exgeditously as possible to complete the work, 6. EnQineering Costs _ � The past costs for engineering w3.11 be paid for by the Developer, and , casts to be merged inta the public improvement costs. 7. Park Dedication A park dedica�ion for this project has been calculated at $1,200.00 and payment is due at the time of Iot division approval. Michael J. Mickelson CITY OF' MENDC}TA HEIGHTS , Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor Kevin D. Frazell, City Administrator Page Na. 2513 May 20, 1986 allaw the DNR deer hunt as request�d. Councilmember Hartmann �ecanded the mation. �yes : 5 :�ays : 0 �pUBLI�' COMMENTS - Mr. �'oe Trader, 564�Hiawatha, expressed his concern and that af his neighbors over a lot on Chipp�wa Avertu.e which was excavated far a basement months ago. He stated that the hause which was moved to the lat is still. standing can wheels and that the �`ence placed araund the excavation is on newly excavated ground and never stand. Mr. Trader asked what the City can do i� the contractor stalls all summer, and whether the Ci�y can farce the contractor to fill the hole if the excavation was done,before a permit wa� issued. After di�cussion, Council directed sta�f to contact the contractor to require a tentative �chedule for completion, to noti�y him that unless completion occurs within a certain period of time tha City will take action. Staff was also directed to make a stattzs report to the neighbors. FILL PERMIT-REQUEST _ The Gouncil acknowledgec2 a report �ram the Public Work� Director regarding a wetlands permit approved ' in March, 1984 for the Callahan praperty on Marie ' Aventze at Dodd Road and a request �rom Mr. Mike Mickelson, af Mickelson Specialties, for appraval of a plan:for the filling of the property under the 1984 wetlands permit. Mr. Mickelson, present �or the discussion, reviewed the proposed plan and stated that he would like ta grade the property for walk-outs, easing the grade from the street to the creek. He stated that the structure of the developer!s agreement is such that there will be a gradually sloping grade, continuing the grade from one Iat to anather starting at the Rushs' lot. Mr. Mickelson stated '�hat he is currently requesting confirmation af the wetlands permit for the entire parcel naw and that he wili apply for subdivisian at a future date. Public Works Director Danielson stated that he believes the ariginal wetlands permit approval shouZd apply as long as the deveioper maintains the flow elevations and setbacks contained in the � developer's agreement. He pQinted out that Mr. Mickelson would like to have mare than a year to