Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission - 10/08/2001 - Workshop APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP MONDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2001 6:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Heritage Room IV 8080 Mitchell Road BOARD MEMBERS: Ken Brooks, Frantz Corneille, Randy Foote, Vicki Koenig, Kathy Nelson, Susan Stock, Fred Seymour, Paul Sodt, Ray Stoelting STAFF MEMBERS: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner Scott A. Kipp, Senior Planner Danette Moore, Planner I I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Chair Corneille called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. Present: Commissioners Corneille, Brooks, Foote, Nelson, Seymour, Sodt, Stock, Stoelting. Staff: Franzen, Kipp, Stovring II. ITEMS OF BUSINESS A. AIRPORT ELEMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Kipp distributed a packet of information regarding Flying Cloud Airport, which included historical facts and a chronology of events and issues surrounding the airport. It also included the City Council's Position Paper on the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) proposed expansion of the airport, a summary of the Supplement Draft EIS on the airport expansion, State and Regional requirements for airports, and other supporting information. His presentation included a summary of the background information on the airport, MAC's expansion proposal to extend the runways and develop additional hangar area, and MAC's proposed repeal of the 20,000 pound weight restriction for jet aircraft known as Ordinance 51. Kipp also discussed the draft airport element stating that the City Council was still discussing the issues regarding the airport with its special legal counsel, and that the result of those discussions may involve changes to the airport element. Sodt asked if the expansion was to move planes from Holden field. Kipp said it was to provide an additional alternative for the corporate fleet from using Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Community Planning Board Workshop Minutes October 8, 2001 Page 2 Foote inquired whether MAC was obligated to work with the City on its concerns with the proposed expansion. Kipp stated MAC has the obligation to provide information in the Environmental Impact Statement on all possible alternatives, the associated impacts to those alternatives, and the proposed mitigation to those impacts on the community. MAC has not shown consideration of all options, such as an alternative ordinance. Impacts should be mitigated. Kipp explained that MAC has acquired the majority of the land necessary to protect the Runway Protection Zones and State Safety Zones. The City wants to be compensated for the lost tax revenue and infrastructure assessments due to the lost of this developable acreage. The Council will meet with MAC to discuss the issues identified in it position paper. Sodt questioned compensation for lost revenue and whether there was an indication of the value of the airport to the community. Kipp noted a cost benefit analysis was prepared with the Draft EIS. Also, the Metropolitan Council did an economic impact study of the Metropolitan airport system that showed a significant regional benefit from the airports. This dealt with primary, secondary, and tertiary returns. Kipp said the FAA and US Fish and Wildlife Service had concerns with the Draft EIS regarding proposed use restrictions and overflights of the Refuge, respectively. A supplement draft EIS was created a year later, eliminating all three alternatives which proposed use restrictions, reducing the number of stage two aircraft forecasted, and adjusting the percentage use of runways. MAC's schedule is to complete the EIS next year. Franzen asked why the south runway was extended by 1220 feet. Kipp said it was the primary runway and after extension the runway will be 5,000 feet, the maximum permitted for a minor use airport. Sodt asked if MAC has considered using the ball fields on the airport property. Kipp stated the City leases the land from MAC. MAC had shown this area as one possibility for the new hangar area. The City and MAC are aware of the political issues surrounding that possibility. Also, it would be very inefficient for MAC to use this area because it would continue to place all hangars on one side of the airport, which is very inefficient for a parallel runway system. Foote asked which directions do aircraft normally takeoff. Kipp said they use all runways, but generally aircraft takeoff and land into the wind. A greater percentage of the operations takeoff to the east and land from the west. Community Planning Board Workshop Minutes October 8, 2001 Page 3 Foote asked whether they considered expanding across 212. Kipp said a 1979 environmental assessment for the previous runway extension showed an option to shift highway 212 toward the east. It was discounted because of cost and impact. The Supplement Draft EIS shows the noise footprints for the expanded airport will grow somewhat from the no build option. DNL is an average 24-hour noise level; it is weighted on the noisier side since nighttime operations are calculated with a 10- dBA penalty. The noise contour for an expanded airport with noise mitigation shows the majority of the significant noise levels overlaying property purchased by MAC. The 65 DNL contour denote significant impact. The 60 DNL contour denote impact, but can be developed for residential uses with sound abatement techniques such as thicker insulation. MAC states in its noise mitigation plan that existing houses within the expanded 60-64 DNL noise contour that do not meet the external to internal noise reduction will be insulated by MAC. Kipp stated that the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission and City Council endorsed a design framework manual for the airport in 1996 as a tool to guide improvement to the visual aesthetics of new construction through the use of building materials, signs and landscaping. The framework manual was use when Executive Aviation was constructed along highway 212. Kipp presented the goals and objectives proposed in the airport section of the comprehensive plan. The City supports the airport remaining a minor use airport, as well as mitigation via land usesibuffering, and that MAC acquire safety zones to protect the approach corridors. There are air space limitations, which we support. The City would like to continue to work with the design framework manual. The airport section also addresses compatible land use and noise zones. The City's views on the proposed expansion are included. This is a work in process. Kipp indicated that staff is not asking for a recommendation on the airport section at this time. Council is working with special legal counsel to discuss its direction course of action with the airport. This may result in changes to the airport section of the comprehensive plan. Background information was provided to give the Board an understanding of significant issues surrounding the expansion. The aviation element defines the key goals and objectives. Seymour inquired about the proposed changes to Ordinance 51. Kipp said it was a proposed amendment developed by the Flying Cloud Advisory Commission. The City Council supported its review by the FAA. Stoelting inquired about the role of the Planning Board with this airport section. Community Planning Board Workshop Minutes October 8, 2001 Page 4 Kipp said to view the document as it relates to the policies of the City and how it was working with the airport; and to address compatibility. Stoelting stated it was likely MAC would not come to the Planning Board. Franzen said it was doubtful. A general notice would be in the paper for public hearings. MAC knows the City's position and likely would not appear at the Planning Board meetings. Stoelting asked whether new hangars would appear before the Planning Board. Franzen stated yes. Design controls would apply; it would be a site plan review. The aviation section could be reviewed for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The goals, objectives and policies in Chapter 6 are not that different from the 1982 Plan. It is a more modern version taking into context the City's legal position relative to the airport. If there are things the Planning Board would like to see differently they should forward their ideas. Nelson stated the number of flights between 1999 and 2010 were significant. The City Council should notify everyone in the increased flight path areas. Kipp stated notice of MAC's pubic hearing the supplemental EIS was sent to all property owners in the City. Nelson said the City should inform people where the lines of the flights would be. Sodt said the number of flights 35 years ago was twice what it is now. Nelson said it would be helpful to show people how their neighborhoods would be changing. Kipp said that's what the EIS is for. In addition, the City, MAC, and the Zero Expansion group have websites, which contain a lot of information on the airport. Nelson noted they would probably not go looking for the information. It looks like it goes right over Bearpath. Every home and neighborhood in the paths should be notified; especially those that go up to a thousand flight per month Franzen asked Kipp about noise levels over Bearpath. Kipp stated 50-60 decibel ambient noise level. This will change some based on MAC's forecasts. Nelson said those that are in a mile or two within the runways should be notified. Community Planning Board Workshop Minutes October 8, 2001 Page 5 Foote said airplane noise is a problem city-wide. Kipp noted that noise can be subjective; what may be objectionable to some may be quite acceptable to others. Sodt asked whether Kipp had heard complaints. Kipp stated he had had some calls from people who did not want the airport or who were moving into the area and heard the airport was expanding. He suggested they look at the environmental documents, and spend some time near the airport on a busy weekend to determine what one may expect. Stoelting said the September 1lth event may have impacted the MAC schedule. He asked if MAC had commented on this. Kipp stated MAC cut some capital improvement projects but would continue the environmental process. III. STAFF REPORT Franzen noted there were no public hearings scheduled for the October 22nd meeting. They could hold the workshop on November 13'h if the Board would like. Nelson said she would rather hold it on the 22nd at 7:00 p.m. Sodt asked whether Franzen anticipated a lot of changes to the Comprehensive Plan document. Franzen said perhaps in land use and housing policies promoting various types of housing. One goal was to have the Metropolitan Council acknowledge progress in various areas. He would put together a meeting by meeting summary with Board recommendations. The Board would discuss it and forward its recommendation to the City Council. Or it could happen under Planner's Report at the end of the public hearing. Nelson said she would prefer this so all of the members would be in attendance. Franzen said it could be handled as a Planners Report on November 13th. The workshop and regular meeting would be cancelled on the 22nd. The Board agreed with this recommendation. IV. ADJOURN Motion by Stoelting, second by Seymour to adjourn. Motion carried, 8-0.