Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 02/10/2001 AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING—FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT SATURDAY,FEBRUARY 10,2001 9:00 AM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road MODERATOR: Judge Allen Klein CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher, Ronald Case, Jan Mosman, and Nancy Tyra-Lukens CITY STAFF: City Manager Chris Enger; Director of Community Development and Financial Services Don Uram; Senior Planner Scott Kipp; City Attorney Ric Rosow I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER II. OPENING REMARKS III. PRESENTATIONS A. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION AND/OR INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION B. CITY STAFF 1. Scott Kipp, Senior Planner 2. Don Uram,Director of Community Development and Financial Services C. ZERO EXPANSION D. BARBARA HAAKE,FORMER STATE REPRESENTATIVE E. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE F. LOWER MINNESOTA WATERSHED DISTRICT IV. PUBLIC COMMENT V. ADJOURNMENT— 11:00 AM VI. CONVENE TO CLOSED SESSION C.H. ROBINSON COMPANY Law Department i ' o January 26, 2001 8100 Mitchell Road Suite 1200 Mayor Jean Harris Eden Prairie,MN 10860 Forestview Circle • 55344-2055 Eden Prairie, MN 55347 612.937.8500 fax 612.937.7840 Dear Mayor Harris: I am writing to let you know that C.H. Robinson Company ("CHR") supports the expansion of Flying Cloud Airport (FCM) and the extension of the main runway to• five thousand feet. CHR has been located in Eden Prairie since 1976 and employs many Eden Prairie residents. Our business utilizes FCM only occasionally now because of its limitations. Our use of FCM would increase when the runway is extended. In order to do that we need safe, convenient and state of the art facilities from which to operate. The recent economic impact study, commissioned by the Metropolitan Council, reveals that FCM generated an impact of 89.9 million dollars for this region. This impact will only be enhanced by the expansion of the airport. An enhanced FCM is a key Eden Prairie economic asset. We know that several groups have raised concerns over airport noise in opposition to expanding FCM. We believe that lengthening the runway will not • appreciably increase noise levels because the number of louder propeller driven aircraft are not affected by runway length. Lengthened runways and better facilities will allow FCM to accommodate newer, quieter aircraft. Stage III business jets are quieter overall because their engines generate less noise, they climb faster and higher, and professional pilots are aware of and follow noise abatement procedures and programs. Furthermore, a decision to modernize FCM is not a decision to allow commercial passenger or freight service. I strongly encourage you to support the expansion of FCM. Sincerely,-- -� �:-� , . . , .• • Daryl R. Verdoorn . President and CEO . DR/ris From: David Lindahl To: Janmosman@aol.com Date: 2/5/01 2:18:17 PM Subject: Re: Hartford Commons Councilmember Mosman: You ask a number of good questions regarding the Hartford Commons proposal that Rottlund will hopefully answer at the meeting tomorrow night. Regarding a Qualified TIF District: 95% of the units within this district must be sold to persons with incomes at or below 70% of the median income for the metro area-which is currently$45,590.According to Rottlund's mortgage consultant, Firstar Home Mortgage, assuming an 8% interest rate, a 29% payment to income ratio, and a 90$a month association fee . . . units would need to be sold at a price anywhere from $112,000-117,000 to be affordable at 70% of • median. Let me know if you have any other questions, otherwise I will see you tomorrow night? David L. >>><Janmosman@aol.com> 9:55 2/5/01 >>> The retail element is GONE,the green pocket parks are reduced by 50% in size, buildings look right into other buildings more than before,-We've • lost all charachter and are still asked to pay them to do it. What price would qualify for a Qualified TIF? I know DB says they cannot . build them for under the$134,500, I'm just curious. That would at least give us a way to rationalize the public money What about if the city spends $1,000,000 and buys 6 units at$160,000 or 7 at $134,500 and then sells them at a qualifying price or rents them out to qualified couples? Now don't fall off your chair laughing- I'm trying to figure out a way to make projects like this one work close-in where we all said we wanted them. Will it never work here because of the price of the land? I had asked the question of Mr. Palmitter last council meeting about the possiblity of selling some units at a high end price (with hardwood floors, fancy fixtures and appliances, big screen TV built into the wall type of thing, high quality carpet)where you can mark things way up, and bring a certain number of units way down in price. I guess I am thinking that this would just be numbers they would play with to make a profit, and not ask us to foot the bill. Do you feel like there is a chance of high-end units selling in this location? Lastly, the retail is normally a higher per square foot land price is it not? I really liked having that element built in and don't understand why it's gone. Cramming 26 more townhouse units into the space sure doesn't give it livable appeal. Thank you,Jan Mosman Mike Franzen-Re:Sunnybrook Page 1 From: Mike Franzen To: Janmosman@aol.com Date: 2/5/01 2:20PM Subject: Re:Sunnybrook The City has used density transfer for years to preserve wetland and trees. The degree to which units are transferred depends on the site plan on the net area. If you believe the site plan is too tight, you could direct the developer to reduce the number of units. The first plan had more units but that plan was not in the ball park so it should not be used as a reference. Economics should not factor into the Council decision. The review should be based on City Code. Two of the Planning Board memebers did not vote for the project because they felt the plan would be better with two fewer units. WE have asked the developer to have a backup plan throughtout the process but has not been responsive. The staff will prepare an alternative plan based on recommendations from some of the Community Planning Board members. >>> <Janmosman@aol.com>02/05/01 01:25PM >>> Mike-Leslie Stovring has been helping me understand the wetland issues on this little 7.71 acres. I also asked if we could as a council, say that we do not want small parcels like this, difficult as the site is, to be able to use all the unusable land when calculating units/acre. If the 2.4 is subtracted, they could put 13 units on that piece. do they already own the land? Is this financially unfeasible? It looks like a 16 hundred lb. pig in a bathing suit, and Leslie said it was more crowded before. So many buffering trees will be cut, and the listed wildlife will certainly have to move on. Would appreciate your thoughts. Jan Mosman j MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Senior Planner DATE: October 24, 2000 SUBJECT: Steps City has taken Regarding the Expansion of Flying Cloud Airport During the last few weeks I have been contacted by many Eden Prairie residents, candidates for City Council, and other interested parties with various questions regarding what steps the City has taken to address the airport expansion proposal. For the past 12 years,the City of Eden Prairie has been involved in a lengthy review process for the expansion of the Flying Cloud Airport proposed by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). This process has included detailed review of MAC documents, meetings with MAC, Metropolitan Council,and other agency officials, citizen input, numerous public hearings, and significant written comment. The following is a general description of the steps'the City has taken to address the proposed ..' expansion: • The City Council has adopted the following Resolutions: Resolution 88-299 -Finding the Flying Cloud Airport Master Plan incompatible with Eden Prairie's Comprehensive Guide Plan. Resolution 91-55 -Endorsing the Flying Cloud Airport Noise Abatement Plan. Resolution 92-124 - Opposing the expansion of the Flying Cloud Airport. Resolution 99-27- Supporting legislation to clarify the definition of a minor airport. • Publicly opposed the adoption of MAC's Long-Term Comprehensive Plan(LTCP) at numerous public meetings before the Metropolitan Airports Commission and Metropolitan Council. • Conducted a survey of jet aircraft owners showing majority would not use an expanded Flying Cloud Airport. • Provided detailed written comments on LTCP to the MAC and Metropolitan Council. • Provided public comment at LTCP public hearings. �, U E I I I 1 \, � •O Q) • L (� a1 O) te� _ U• 1 _ L``�' 3 E lit Air:iiiiiii... 1,.,. lir ::: ::. 0 Iliari..1:1:. Ec . ' oz a ,1 �u i L i 1I J U 43 NNN ( iI z`w�/�, r--.-Ito, : cz ...:,, cii . Wn. ti • •cz,_z, 0 Jor...,........ ..q4,,,, ,0„. .,:z.b.., ..: W• r L , (1fl cn j, ®�_ fr �n i' J o i IN i� u .... • sJ a .� a I 4111 0 ..-d i (. _.) elm 5 t :�ii,! f1►♦♦eta♦�♦E a,,,.(-3 .. a, Li", 1♦♦ELF , CO. .1 r iI� !r i ►♦♦h♦♦♦• Ul A - :1 /I i y� ►♦♦1 114 0 a2 df, Q.J\40 u , Ivoz P•4 ' >zP♦1r♦-14.•r♦♦♦��E • ►��� N 2 O E • a a_ .f%•l,��---`>�s!��i�i�0. e`� R�� < • j, 1: V 0- tAllt‘.••• V.e'iP 4 .1- 13.g i II CD O %/U//. ♦♦♦r•''• ♦ ..tom(► • Q' ♦♦♦♦v 4:ir. ate' Ab f1 Ii♦f♦♦♦♦0 ,✓ L .. ���1♦♦♦•♦�♦�- r n.mow+.om eftl, LL 0 _ TACH l I 0 The of Etkn Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road• Eden Prairie, MN 55344-4485•edenprairie.org•952/949-8300 ' ,,t` February 7,2001 Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission Dear Commission: ' At its meeting of February 6,2001,the Eden Prairie City Council clarified its expectations with respect to a presentation from the Flying Cloud Airport Commission at its special public meeting to be held Saturday,February 10,2001. The City Council does not expect that the commission will appoint one person to speak on behalf of the entire Commission with respect to options available to the City to oppose the expansion of the airport. The Council understands that not all members of the Commission hold the view that the expansion should be opposed. Rather,the Council will entertain presentations from members of the Commission who wish to present to the Council options available to the City to oppose the expansion of the airport. The Council has allotted 25 minutes for presentation(s) from members of the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission. It would be helpful if you could inform the City Manager's office at 952-949-8412 by Friday which members of the Commission desire to make a presentation at the meeting. i erely, Christoph M.Enger City Manager _c.c`sUre Pape* MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, City Manager DATE: February 8, 2001 SUBJECT: Information Regarding Flying Cloud Airport I have attached the following items regarding Flying Cloud Airport as directed by the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission: 1. January 30, 2001 letter to MAC from the FAA clarifying its position regarding Ordinance 51. 2. February 7, 2001 memo to Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission on the status of the Environmental Impact Statement. 3. December 4, 2000 Minutes of the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission. 1 " o U.S. Department AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE Of Transportation 6020 28th Avenue South, #102 Federal Aviation- Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450-2706 Administration January 30,2001 Mr. Gary Schmidt,Director Reliever Airports Metropolitan Airports Commission • .6040-28th Avenue South • Minneapolis,Minnesota 55450 • Dear Mr. Schmidt: • This letter is in reply to your verbal request of.January 11, 2001 for a written clarification of FAA's letter of September 27,2000,from David Bennett to Mark Ryan regarding Flying Cloud Airport,Eden Prairie,Minnesota. Specifically you asked for clarification of the • . Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)views on the legality of the existing MAC Ordinance 51 and its consistency with your Federal grant obligations. • The FAA Office of Airport Safety and Standards reviewed Ordinance 51 for consistency • with MAC's obligations under Airport Improvement Program(AIP)grant assurances and . . • Federal preemption law principals. They identified aspects of the existing access regulations that appear to be, or have the potential to be,inconsistent with the obligation to • provide reasonable and non-discriminatory access to the airport. Their views are summarized as follows: 1. Ordinance 51 bans the operation of jet aircraft at Flying Cloud Airport,with the , . exception of jet aircraft weighing 20,000 pounds or less MTOW that meet noise emission levels of Part 36. A simple ban on jet aircraft has been found unlawful and unconstitutional in Santa Monica, Airport Association v. City of Santa Monica,481 F. Supp. 927, 943-944(C.D. Cal. 1979), affd,659 F.2d 100(9th Cir. 1981). The court in Santa Monica found that-a-ball-on-j-et. . —• aircraft is unjustly discriminatory, a violation of equal protection, and an undue burden on interstate commerce. The FAA dose not see any justification for the jet ban at Flying Cloud on either noise or safety grounds, and is of the opinion that the conclusion of the Santa Monica court would apply to Ordinance 51. 2. Ordinance 5.1 incorporates a weight limit as a limitation on aircraft noise. The FAA has not found that weight limits can never be used as noise limitations,but there is no evidence that the 20,000-pound limit in Ordinance 51 (or the 22,500 pound limit in the proposed Part 161 restriction)relate to any legitimate noise objective for Flying Cloud Airport. 3. Flight training in jet aircraft is prohibited. The ban on jet training could potentially be justified if such action is necessary for the safe operation of the airport or necessary to serve the civil aviation needs of the public,but to our knowledge MAC has not specifically developed a justification for this particular restriction. • To the extent noise control regulations are written in a way that they bar aircraft operations on a basis other than noise or if they are imposed without a factual basis,they will be considered inconsistent with the assurance of reasonable access. While the letter of September 27 was not intended to provide a final determination on consistency with the grant assurances,the issues identified in the letter will need to be resolved. As a first step,we ask MAC to furnish FAA with a plan for removing Ordinance 51, and to include the rationale for not removing the ordinance immediately.FAA will not consider any requests for discretionary finding at FCM until the ordinance is removed or • we have agreed on a plan for removing it. • We appreciate your interest in this matter and hope this answered your concerns. • • Sincerely, . • Glen Orcutt,Program Manager Airports District Office Cc: m ryan-mac Memo to Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission From: Mark J. Ryan, MAC Re: Remaining Milestones Date: - February 7, 2001 Present Status—Preparing Supplement DEIS showing two remaining alternatives- -No Build and Proposed Project. Proposed Project includes runway extensions, building area expansion and land acquisition. Aircraft noise mitigation includes, among other things, voluntary aircraft use restrictions. MAC Ordinance 51 is dropped. Preparation of a joint state and federal Supplement DEIS is underway and should be completed in March or April 2001. Supplement DEIS will undergo review by the Commission, i.e., through the P&E and Commission action process, and then circulated for public comment. A 45-day comment period will follow. Following close of the comment period, the SDEIS will undergo review and amendment in response to comments. The joint state and federal Final EIS will be prepared. Again the FEIS will undergo MAC and FAA review, and a Final EIS will be printed and mailed to the distribution list and commenters. Notice of the availability of the FEIS will be published in the news media, EQB Monitor and the Federal Register.A 30-day comment period then follows. Following close of the comment period, MAC and FAA will review and respond to comments regarding the adequacy of the FEIS. The FEIS will then be sent to the MAC (possibly November) for approval and then onto the EQB for its determination of adequacy. The EQB will make its determination of adequacy to complete the state review process The FAA then completes preparation of a Record of Decision (ROD). Once FAA signs the ROD, the federal review process is complete. (February 2002) APPROVED MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING FLYING CLOUD ADVISORY COMMISSION MONDAY,DECEMBER 4,2000 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER HERITAGE ROOM III 8080 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Heffelfmger, Jeff Bauer, Jeff Larsen, Laura Neuman, Gary Schmidt, Joe Smith and John Smith COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None MAC REPRESENTATIVES: Roy Furhmann,Mitch Killian, Chad Leqve and Mark Ryan STAFF: Scott Kipp, Senior Planner Richard Rosow, City Attorney Carol Pelzel, City Recorder CALL TO ORDER Chair Heffelfinger called a special meeting of the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Heffelfinger explained that the Commission did adjourn their November 1 meeting with the likelihood of a special meeting being called to discuss any action that may be necessary as a result of conversations between the Metropolitan Airports Commission(MAC) and the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA). I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Heffelfinger asked that Item IV. Noise Abatement/Aircraft Incidents be removed from the agenda since this is not a regular meeting. Heffelfinger explained that this meeting is not a public hearing and the Commission will not be taking public testimony on the issue being discussed this evening. The public will have an opportunity to comment and ask any questions they feel appropriate at the end of the meeting. MOTION: Schmidt moved, seconded by Larsen, to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried,7-0. II. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 1, 2000,MINUTES Joe Smith pointed out that the third sentence in the third paragraph on Page 5 should read "This weight-based restriction..."rather than noise-based restriction. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie December 4,2000 Page 2 MOTION: Schmidt moved,seconded by Larsen,to approve the November 1,2000, minutes as corrected.Motion carried,7-0. III. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Status of Part 161 Study Heffelfinger explained that this meeting is in response to two letters received from the FAA regarding the Part 161 Study. Considerable discussion regarding these letters was also held at the November 1 Commission meeting.At that time it was clear that MAC had not formulated a position in response to those letters.Heffelfinger explained that this Commission asked MAC to meet with the FAA for clarification of their letters and what impact this would have on the work this Commission has done. Schmidt responded that what started this discussion was the fact that Ordinance 51 was not palatable. Schmidt explained that MAC and the FAA spent a great deal of time talking about the weight versus noise issue and that from a technology standpoint it is not directly related. Ordinance 51 is no longer appropriate because of the technology changes over the years. With new aircraft and technology,there is not a correlation between weight and noise of the aircraft.Because of the proposed additional restrictions in Ordinance 51 for Stage III aircraft,that Ordinance was submitted to the FAA as part of the 161 Study. Schmidt said that the FAA would not back off of their positions stated in both their September 27 and October 13 letters. In their opinion, Ordinance 51 is not based on any fact. The FAA feels it is a discriminatory regulation. If MAC is not in compliance, they will be in violation of grant assurances. In response to a question from Neuman, Schmidt explained that once a grant is accepted they must be in compliance with all grant assurances and this applies to the entire Airports Commission in general and not for the specific airport receiving the grant. Schmidt also explained that if they are not in compliance at Flying Cloud Airport, all other airport grants would be affected and this obviously becomes a very significant issue for MAC because of the work being done at MSP and other airports. Schmidt explained that MAC's counsel in Washington indicated that if they left Ordinance 51 as is the FAA may or may not come back to it. However,this does not preclude them from coming back some time in the future and challenging the ordinance as being discriminatory. Schmidt said he anticipates that in the future someone who wants access to the airport will file a complaint. Neuman questioned why Ordinance 51 pertained to jets and not to all aircraft. Schmidt explained that the Airport Noise Capacity Act prohibits them from adopting noise restrictions without special circumstances.He further explained that there was a tradeoff in the industry that commercial carriers agreed to get rid of Stage II Aircraft FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie December 4,2000 Page 3 for quieter aircraft in return for not having piecemeal restrictions. If they did try to adopt a new ordinance to add other aircraft that would definitely be challenged. Heffelfinger asked what would happen if they left Ordinance 51 intact. Schmidt said that is an option,however,he feels it would be challenged as part of the EIS process or when someone from the outside comes in and challenges Ordinance 51 as being discriminatory. Schmidt said he does not think the EIS will be approved if they continue to uphold Ordinance 51. Part of the mitigation was to amend Ordinance 51. When Part 161 was brought forward for analysis,the FAA thought it appropriate to review Ordinance 51. Furhmann explained that they also requested an airport restriction proposal to have a ban on nighttime activity of Stage II aircraft in addition to a higher weight base limit then what was in Ordinance 51. Their initial read from Washington was because they were proposing a lessening of a restriction, that wouldn't fall subject to Part 161 and they felt an amendment to the existing ordinance would be more beneficial. Schmidt pointed out that they went to Washington for approval of the Part 161 Study and to receive a compromise to Ordinance 51. They did caution us and we decided to go ahead with the process hoping the FAA understood what the local issues were. They are now saying that they are looking at the national perspective and are not willing to carve out a niche for Flying Cloud. The FAA will not allow the restrictions to stay in place. Furhmann distributed to the Commission charts showing jet aircraft that meet the existing Ordinance 51 limitation at their maximum takeoff weight;jet aircraft that meet the Draft EIS 22,500 pounds basic empty weight recommendation but cannot currently operate at Flying Cloud fully loaded because of Ordinance 51; and,jet aircraft that do not meet the proposed draft EIS 22,500 pounds basic empty weight recommendation but are within the runway bearing capacity at Flying Cloud. Furhmann pointed out that overall,there are three types of aircraft that fall into the category of higher weight but are within the runway bearing capacity at Flying Cloud with an extended runway. One option that could be considered without being discriminatory would be a weight limit or restriction based on the pavement of the runway itself. In response to a question from Neuman,Furhmann explained that Ordinance 51 currently restricts any aircraft exceeding 20,000 pounds from using Flying Cloud Airport. In looking at lessening the restriction and increasing the weight limit by amending Ordinance 51, they do use the weight bearing capacity of the runway,which is 30,000 pounds single wheel or 50,000 pounds dual wheel. Heffelfinger pointed out that this would allow all of the aircraft listed on the sheets previously distributed and they would be permissible under a 50,000-pound dual wheel bearing restriction. Joe FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie December 4,2000 Page 4 Smith explained that even though most of the aircraft are permissible under the 50,000-pound limit,they may not able to take off on a runway that is only 5,000 feet in length. Schmidt cautioned that in looking at runway strength,they need to look at how the runway is designed. The length of the runway may preclude certain airplanes from using the runway. Heffelfiner explained that the Commission's biggest concern is the potential expansion of Flying Cloud Airport into an air carrier or scheduled passenger hub. In response to a question from Heffelfinger, Schmidt explained that in order for commercial scheduled carriers carrying up to 30 passengers to use Flying Cloud Airport, MAC would have to upgrade the crash and fire rescue services. For these planes to land, the airport would have to have a 139 Certificate and Flying Cloud does not meet the design criteria to qualify for that certificate. John Smith pointed out that realistically, any airport with a maximum 5,000 foot runway would not be an acceptable airport for any kind of operation on a scheduled basis. Neuman asked if there is any sense of mitigation should Ordinance 51 no longer be in effect. She pointed out that the only mitigation currently taking place is the voluntary restriction and that does not seem to be happening at this time. Also,the US Fish and Wildlife is opposed to directing any traffic over the river valley. Schmidt explained that the FAA letter refers to factual basis for the restriction and the aircraft that would potentially be eligible to use the airport probably would not use it because it would not be practical because of the runway length. Heffelfinger asked what MAC's intention is for Ordinance 51. Schmidt said they recognize that there is a change in technology and Ordinance 51 is not palatable to the Airports Commission. Ryan pointed out that the EIS will have to have some significant revisions made based on the analysis incorporated in the FAA letter so it is consistent with other comments processed to date. Neuman said she feels they should almost start over with the public process and with public input since the changes are so significant and in light of the fact that the letters from the FAA were received after the public hearing. Heffelfinger said there are significant revisions that need to be made to the EIS and if they strip Ordinance 51 some alternatives must be made available. Without any alternatives there is basically unlimited access to the airport. Schmidt explained that their analysis shows that they need to open up to additional aircraft and they are probably talking about an insignificant number of operations because of the design of the aircraft and the ability to operate in and out of an airport with a 5,000 foot runway. Fuhrmann said he understands FAA's issues with restriction.MAC agreed to go ahead and walk through the 161 process. They now see FAA's position on Ordinance 51, however,they would like to go through the process even though they may end up working with voluntary measures based on analysis of 161. They need to adjust the FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie December 4,2000 Page 5 EIS to reincorporate some of those options discussed. Furhmann said he personally doesn't feel three additional aircraft types would significantly change the contour of the airport. Heffelfinger explained that Ordinance 51 has been in force for 22 years and has guided MAC and the City. There are legal reasons why that ordinance would be upheld.He asked if MAC is prepared to defend Ordinance 51. Heffelfinger said he would not support a resolution that does not involve maintaining the impact of the law. To say the configuration of the airport will only increase the volume may be fine for today but what will it be next year. He questioned what would happen when the hangars are moved back or the runway is expanded to 7,000 feet. Heffelfinger said there is a point when one has to say enough is enough. He said he does believe that the representatives of MAC who are members of this Commission have been very up front with the Flying Cloud Advisory Commission. Heffelfinger suggested that they explore alternatives through this Commission that maintains the spirit of what has been done as a Commission. Joe Smith said they all share the same frustration with the issues raised by the FAA. When they went to Washington the FAA did say that Ordinance 51 as it is could be challenged. However, one thing regulated by law is the length of the runway. The Legislature did set the length of the runway and the length of the runway is the basic premise that will limit the airport. Neuman stated that maybe what the public is looking for is a binding contract that says MAC will stop at a 5,000-foot runway. Perhaps one way to put mitigation into effect is the length of the runway. Joe Smith explained that Flying Cloud is changing as a whole because the industry is changing and that industry is very attuned to noise. Neuman pointed out that they are not only concerned with the level and character of the airplane but also the frequency of landings and takeoffs from the airport. That also changes the character of the airport. The public does not view the expansion by the types of planes using the facility but that traffic will greatly increase. Bauer explained that the public needs to know that the new aircraft cost$23 million and there are not a great number of those airplanes being used. The increase in traffic will be by those airplanes that are currently using Flying Cloud. Neuman asked if MAC would be willing to limit the length of the runway. Schmidt responded that the State statute does not allow them to upgrade beyond a Minor use airport without Legislative action.He indicated that for the past few months, discussion with this Commission has involved compromises and they had agreed that if the FAA would not allow nighttime restrictions or runups they would try to enter into voluntary agreements. Schmidt said this is something they may still be able to do and they need to investigate it further.Neuman said she was under the impression that FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie December 4,2000 Page 6 there is a voluntary curfew in existence and it does not appear to be working. She asked if the public is dissatisfied with a voluntary curfew and a mandatory curfew is not possible,what type of assurance can MAC offer the public that Flying Cloud Airport will not be turned into an airport like MSP. Neuman suggested that they limit the length of the runway and limit the types of planes that come in. This would result in fewer flights. Schmidt explained that the length of the runway does not relate to frequency. He also stated that MAC may not be willing to limit runway length since this is part of a pool transportation system that everyone relies on. With regard to mitigation, Schmidt said it appears that the only thing left is to enter into voluntary agreements. Additional analysis is needed. Heffelfmger asked what MAC is going to do with Ordinance 51. Schmidt responded that short-term, Ordinance'51 would stay as it is. When they go through the EIS process they will probably determine that Ordinance 51 is outdated and it will be repealed in some fashion. Schmidt said they have been trying to compromise and thought they could get the FAA to accept a lesser restriction and recognize local circumstances but they will not. Heffelfinger asked if there are ways to enhance FAA's willingness to adopt a version of Ordinance 51 that will accomplish the Commission's original goals. Schmidt said it would probably force them into runway strength. Neuman asked, in light of grant compliance,if there was any other way that MAC could finance this project without applying for grant money. Schmidt asked if she is proposing a tax. MAC does have taxing authority. If MAC were required to use internal discretionary funds,they would not be able to afford the project. Neuman asked that MAC consider a runway length limit. Schmidt explained that he is concerned about binding future Commissions. That is what they are faced with today. Bauer said he feels that limiting the length of the runway may be a negative in the future. They do not know what technology will be in 20 years and MAC may need to lengthen the runways to get quieter aircraft into the airport. Heffelfinger said if they don't have weight limits as a way of defining the character of the airport,why could they not do that with the length of the runway. He asked why they could not have a 4,500-foot runway rather than a 5,000-foot runway. Joe Smith explained that 5,000 feet is the basic bear minimum number. Anything less than 5,000 feet will greatly reduce the utility of the airport. Heffelfinger said he did not think they are going to reach a compromise yet this evening. There are several issues that need to be addressed including the length of the runway. He said he agrees that they need to find ways to compromise. Heffelfinger said he understands that MAC would like to complete the EIS but they need to make some major revisions to that document in light of what was presented to the public. The information was based on Ordinance 51,which may now be stripped. Heffelfinger pointed out that the Commission is scheduled to meet on February 7 and he asked if FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie December 4,2000 Page 7 there would be any need to meet prior to that date. Ryan responded that they will be working on revising the EIS to incorporate all of the comments made at the public hearing and the FAA's input. Heffelfinger said he wants this Commission kept informed as to what is happening with regard to this issue. They need to think about the runway length and MAC needs to think about Ordinance 51 and what they are going to do with it. Schmidt said the question is not whether or not Ordinance 51 survives but whether they can reach an acceptable alternative.He indicated that they also want to hear from the City as to whether or not they are preparing a lawsuit with regard to this issue. If they are,this group is wasting their time trying to reach a compromise. Furhmann asked if this group does reach a compromise,will the City bring forth a lawsuit. Heffelfinger said this Commission can not speak for the City. This Commission was assigned to reach a unanimous compromise. Motion: Schmidt moved to ask the City Council if they have directed staff to work on a lawsuit with regard to this issue as to determine whether or not they should work towards a compromise. Rosow explained that he is attending these meetings only to help him better understand what is going on and to better address any questions raised by the City Council. Schmidt withdrew his motion. Heffelfinger said he would like to have two issues included on the February 7, 2000, agenda. The first would be to review a redlined version of the proposed changes to the EIS. Neuman asked if it would be possible to ask MAC to allow public input on the revised EIS and to make that revised document available to the public. Heffelfinger suggested that this Commission not ask MAC to provide a draft EIS to the public without consulting with legal counsel first.Furhmann did indicate that they would attempt to prepare a redlined version of the EIS for the Commission's review prior to the February 7 meeting so that the changes may be reviewed at that meeting. The second issue Heffelfinger would like discussed at the February 7 meeting is alternatives to the grant structure or compromise. They need to know where the FAA is coming from and they need to discuss the fundamental character of the aircraft. Heffelfinger said he feels they need to get past with what has happened with the FAA and start to focus on the future. Schmidt asked what this delay would do to the EIS process.Ryan explained that it is his intention to proceed with making changes to the EIS and incorporating the changes discussed. Heffelfinger said he would be happy to call a special meeting of this Commission should they want to move forward prior to the February 7 meeting. Schmidt also questioned whether or not they would have enough time to develop alternatives. Furhmann responded that at this point they maybe able to take a look at runway length as an alternative along with weight bearing capacity. He is not sure how FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie December 4,2000 Page 8 many other alternatives they can look at.He suggested that if this Commission is looking at some specific alternatives he would like them to forward them to MAC so that they can put some focus on those. Heffelfinger said he thinks they should all be thinking about alternatives and to come up with some ideas and to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of those ideas. John Smith suggested that they look at what this Commission has done over the past two years. Over that period of time they have gone through just about every alternative. Heffelfinger asked that this Commission receive a draft copy of the EIS prior to it being submitted to the Metropolitan Airports Commission. This will give them an opportunity for input prior to it being submitted to the full MAC. John Smith said he could probably do an analysis on what kind of range profile an operator would have with this airport. This may show that a 5,000-foot runway is really restrictive. Heffelfinger suggested that he do an analysis using a 5,000-foot runway and a 4,500- foot runway. Ryan pointed out that they are looking at runway strength of 5,000 feet and not at 4,500 feet and he feels they have to hold to that. That is the position in the EIS at this point. MOTION: Heffelfinger moved, seconded by Schmidt, to discuss at the next Flying Cloud Advisory Commission meeting the status of the revisions to the draft EIS reflecting public comment and FAA's comments and to brainstorm with alternative compromises in view of FAA's expressed resistance. The motion carried unanimously. Vicki Pellar-Price, a resident in the audience, explained that she had read about a legal opinion that the FAA had in regards to noise that said that existing ordinances and laws could remain in effect and could even be strengthened. She said she did not understand how they could say that in one instance and then in this instance take an ordinance that has been in effect and void it.Heffelfinger responded that this discussion goes to that very point. He said there are some members of this Commission that feels there are good legal arguments and others feel there is no way to save the ordinance. An unidentified person in the audience stated that there are three classes of aircraft that may come into the airport as needed and he questioned if there is a benefit in spending the amount of money that MAC has to acquire land and to build a runway.Ryan responded that there is a cost benefit and such an analysis is included in the draft EIS. The EIS assumes an increase in activity that relates to the cost of the improvements to the airport and costs to the user. Additional analysis will be required if Ordinance 51 is repealed.Furhmann added that one of the reasons for the land acquisition is the encroachment on non-compatible types of uses of land onto the airport. The land currently being acquired is that which protects the existing runway and approaches in addition to the proposed expansion. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie December 4,2000 Page 9 Joe Holmes, a resident in the audience, said that everyone is focusing on Ordinance 51 and weight bearing limits.He explained that the objection to the airport expansion has to do with noise. He pointed out that currently there are two aircraft that leave at 5:00 a.m. every day that have loud engines. Under the current situation,there could be 100 of those types of airplanes flying out of that airport daily. Holmes said if they stick to Ordinance 51 they are not addressing the question as to whether or not it is going to be quieter for the people around the airport and if it is going to be safer. Holmes said he feels the runway length has nothing to do with the noise and the safety. There are certain airports around the country which have restrictive noise requirements and he asked why they could not address it from that perspective rather than weight. VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION:Neuman moved, seconded by Schmidt, to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:17 p.m.