Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFlying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission - 05/28/2009 - Special APPROVED MINUTES FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING THURSDAY, MAY 28, 2009 7:00 P.M. HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE Auditorium 13100 College View Drive COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Rick King, Vice-Chair Jeff Larsen, Commissioners: Judy Gentry, Greg McKewan, Mark Michelson, Jeff Nawrocki and Kurt Schendel COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None MAC REPRESENTATIVES: Bridget Rief, Assistant Director of Airport Development; Chad Leqve, Manager, Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs FAA REPRESENTATIVES: Glen Orcutt Carl Rydeen STAFF: Scott Kipp, Senior Planner; Carol Pelzel, City Recorder I. WELCOME, PURPOSE AND PROCESS Chair King called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. King welcomed everyone and thanked them for attending this meeting. He explained that this is a special informational meeting of the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission (FCAAC) and introduced the members of the Commission, elected officials, City Manager and MAC and FAA representatives. The purpose of this meeting is to provide the residents with an update on the construction projects that are occurring at Flying Cloud. King reviewed the Flying Cloud traffic count as reported by the Air Traffic Control Tower. He reported what the FCAAC does at its regular meetings including review of complaints. The Commission looks at the complaints and given the voluntary curfew at the airport, they discuss whether those operations could have been flown during hours when that voluntary curfew was not in effect. A majority of the flights occurring during the voluntary curfew time are medical flights. In that the curfew is voluntary there is not much that can be done to stop these flights from occurring. King explained the FCAAC also reviews helicopter operations and they have worked with the FAA and MAC in developing a new departure route so that helicopters fly over the most unpopulated areas. At the Commission's last meeting they received an update from FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES May 28, 2009 Page 2 the medical helicopter operator and were informed they are getting new equipment at the end of this year that will be considerably quieter. King reviewed a 2008 Quality of Life Survey conducted by a third party for the City. He compared the results of that survey with a similar survey conducted in 2006. One of the questions addressed airport noise and in 2006 ten percent of the residents surveyed thought the noise was very serious and 27 percent thought it was somewhat serious. In 2008 seven percent thought it was very serious and 13 percent felt it was somewhat serious. Through education and working with people airport users are more aware of the voluntary restriction. Noise reports have increased because of publicized reporting over the internet and telephone. King reported in March the FCAAC met with a MAC wildlife expert. Flying Cloud had 11 wildlife strikes with aircrafts since 1990 and MAC is doing a lot to alleviate wildlife danger. II. AIRPORT PLANS; LONG-TERM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Bridget Rief, Assistant Director of Airport Development,reviewed the Flying Cloud airports expansion plans and long-term Comprehensive Plan. She briefly reviewed the Final Agreement relating to the airport expansion entered into by the City and MAC in December, 2002 and explained the benefits to the City with this agreement. Rief reviewed the airport projects including extending the north, east/west parallel runway 300 feet to the west for a total length of 3,900 feet; extending the south, east/west parallel runway 1,220 feet to the west for a total length of 5,000 feet; construction of additional hangars on the south side of the airport; acquisition of approximately 280 acres of land to protect the runway approaches and for the new hangar area; and relocation of airport lighting and various visual and navigational aids. They are currently grading the safety area of Runway 1OR and constructing the VOR navigation facility across from the airport. Rief explained Phase II of the project will include removing a portion of the runway and grading along the runway corridor to widen runway pavement. At the request of the FAA, MAC will be constructing perimeter roads along the east and west sides of the parallel runways. As a result of the runway extension, some of the hangars in the south hangar area will have to be removed as part of that project. The new hangar area requires the relocation of the VOR building. MAC will not be constructing new hangars in the new development area since airport tenants lease space from MAC and will have to build their own hangars. Rief reviewed the construction schedule reporting the 5,000 foot runway will open in November 2009. Construction work on the bulk of the south hangar area should be completed by the end of this year. The VOR relocation will not be ready to be used until February 2010. Rief reported MAC is working on other projects including taxi lane rehabilitation on the north and some hangar replacement or redevelopment. Hennepin County is also working on the Pioneer Trail expansion and Grace Church is doing some grading work. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES May 28, 2009 Page 3 Rief briefly explained Metropolitan Council requires MAC to do a 20-year look ahead in the forecast of operations for based aircraft. MAC is in the process of preparing a document that goes out to 2025. The on-going expansion at Flying Cloud is considered existing facilities and will not be included in this document. The plan does address a deficiency of the cross-wind runway, Runway 36. The runway safety area and object free area for Runway 36 are deficient and they are looking at two alternatives to address those deficiencies. There will be a public involvement process in reviewing this document with the City, the Advisory Commission and the public. A public meeting for the general public, airport users and community businesses will be held on June 18 for further review of this document. III. ON-GOING EFFORTS TO ADDRESS COMMUNITY CONCERNS Chad Leqve, Manager, Aviation Noise and Satellite Programs, provided the audience with background of how they work with communities on noise issues. He briefly reviewed the 1990 Airport Noise and Capacity Act as it relates to aviation noise and the restriction of nighttime/early morning operations at Flying Cloud airport. In 2001 and 2002 MAC and the City of Eden Prairie negotiated an agreement amending Ordinance 51 and outlined several issues including development of an operational implementation plan. They cannot close an airport down during certain hours because of requirements tied to federal funding but they do what they can to keep aircraft noise as a high priority. Leqve presented an overview of MAC's website explaining there are a number of interactive applications on this site including Flying Cloud aircraft type count reports. The site also includes noise abatement procedures, pilot information and a Flying Cloud bulletin board. Leqve explained since 1992 MAC has had a very sophisticated flight track and noise mitigation system to monitor aircraft operations at MSP. This radar was located about 12 miles away from Flying Cloud and the data acquisition process for Flying Cloud was complicated. Also, the flight track data they received was through the FAA and the FAA restricts how they can use this data. This also resulted in delays in providing this information to the general public. MAC is now in the process of updating and upgrading this system at MSP. The new system will allow them to place as many sensors as they want and will be independent from the FAA allowing them to make this information immediately available to the public. The FCAAC asked MAC to also upgrade Flying Cloud's track and noise mitigation system along with the upgrade at MSP. As a result of being able to save money in the development of this system, they were able to include Flying Cloud with the same flight track integrity as MSP. They hope to have more data available to the general public at the end of July and feel this new system is a very positive development in monitoring noise at Flying Cloud. King pointed out the new flight track and noise system was one of the things the FCAAC has been able to do in partnership with MAC and the FAA. There was also improvement in lighting at the airport as was recommended by the Commission after a security review done in 2008. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES May 28, 2009 Page 4 IV. MODERATED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS An unidentified member of the audience asked how the Chair of the FCAAC is appointed to the Commission. King responded the City Council appoints Commissioners based on applications submitted by people interested in serving on the various Commissions and explained the process for appointments to those Commissions. The resident stated he has been told MAC is a private corporation and is traded on the stock market. Rief responded MAC is considered a public corporation and is not traded and is not public in that manner. They do not report to the State Legislature and they are not a State agency. However, they are appointed by the Governor and Mayors of St. Paul and Minneapolis. The resident questioned the survey that was conducted by the City and suggested they ask the people in attendance at this meeting how many are bothered by airport noise. Leqve talked about flight tracking and noise monitoring. The resident asked if they do anything with the information that is tracked and monitored. King explained the FCAAC receives information from MAC and reviews that information to determine if letters should be sent to those violating the voluntary curfew. They also visit the business operators to discuss the voluntary curfew and to make sure itinerant pilots are aware of the noise procedures. Helicopter noise had been a big issue when Life Link III started their operation at Flying Cloud. The Commission along with the FAA and MAC developed a flight track that takes the helicopters away from the larger areas of development. Bob Cody, 15562 Lilac Drive, questioned what is being done on the south hangar area to abate the noise. Rief responded they are working with the City on the landscaping of this area and they have been asked to construct a berm to diffuse some of the noise. Certain areas in Hennepin Village will experience some noise from the building area and they cannot stop that. Cody asked if they couldn't put some type of barrier or a larger berm in this area. Rief said based on the elevation it wouldn't make that much of a difference. Cody asked if the plan has been changed or did they always expect to have that specific construction at this location. It appears to him that they are coming out further south than he had expected. Rief explained the size of the hangar area has not changed since 1988. The location on Charlson Road has not been enlarged. Rahil Hasan, 9647 Laforet Drive, asked what incremental increase in aircraft traffic the residents can expect with the runway extension and what can they expect the noise and frequency level to be. Leqve explained larger aircraft typically have bigger engines that are quieter than the Stage II aircraft. With regard to frequency, they will see more aircraft operations but he does not believe the growth in aircraft operations is a result of the runway extension but largely a function of the economy. The new runway will offer larger,better use and more effective use of public aircraft at the airport. The extended runway will offer some growth toward larger aircraft. The aircraft at Flying Cloud today have to hold back on the number of passengers or fuel because of the shorter runway. The longer aircraft will allow them to fill the aircraft and fly out with a full load of fuel purchased from the FBO's at the airport. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES May 28, 2009 Page 5 Floyd Hagen, 15721 Cedar Ridge Road, said he believes the only reason for the 5,000 foot runway is to bring in larger jets. The jets currently using the airport can land and take off from the existing runway. The larger business jets will be noisier. The new hangar area on the south side will be larger and only needed because of the larger aircraft as a result of the runway extension. Hagen suggested MAC install an automatic noise monitoring system. With an automatic system people would not have to call in and it would tell them automatically what the noise level is around the airport. Leqve said he does not agree with Hagen that bigger airplanes will result in the noise being worse. New larger aircraft in many cases are quieter than older, smaller aircraft. MAC does not have the capital to invest money on an elaborate monitoring system for noise. The way MAC deals with noise complaints was developed during negotiations of the Final Agreement between MAC and the City. MAC does not have the capability or authority as public use airports to restrict public access to this public transportation asset. Hagen said expanding the runway to 5,000 feet will result in larger and more aircraft using Flying Cloud and this will definitely increase the future noise level. If they cannot restrict aircraft from landing at the airport and had an automatic monitoring system they would know soon enough so that they could start closing their windows and insulate homes. Leqve explained they are starting the long-term comprehensive planning process and will be developing noise contours for that document. Every five years they revisit that document and develop noise contours. King pointed out a requirement of the Final Agreement that there be some noise monitoring after the runway expansion is completed and that will be done. Carol Beveroth, 11089 Mount Curve Road, questioned low flying helicopters in her neighborhood. She is not opposed to Life Link flights but did experience a helicopter flying extremely low over her house last year. King explained the Commission met with Air Methods, the operator that is flying the noisy helicopters and most frequently flying at night. The Commission stressed it is important that they fly the appropriate paths. Air Methods also indicated they will be replacing their helicopters with quieter helicopters by the end of the year. Jevgenija Spivak, 15603 Lilac Drive, questioned the hangar improvements and asked how much of the grant money will be spent on landscaping and if they are going to add landscaping to the fence and replant the trees they are removing. She questioned why they are extending the south runway instead of the north runway when they have more land on the north than on the south. She indicated at last year's meeting they had heard nothing about this proposal and she asked what changed since last year. Spivak asked how many aircraft are kept at Flying Cloud. Last year there were 416 and she asked how many are there now. With regard to the noise contours, she asked if they were a City planner would they have given permission to build Hennepin Village near the airport. Spivak explained that at MSP it appears that the planes fly routes that are similar to roads and questioned why this isn't the same with the smaller aircraft since it seems they fly wherever they want. Spivak said she is also concerned with the radiation level of the newly relocated VOR building. Spivak asked how the Commission feels about the ordinances adopted in 1997 and about Part 151. She also asked the Mayor to respond to declining home values because of the airport. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES May 28, 2009 Page 6 Rief explained with regard to hangar improvements, the hangars were all shapes and sizes. Some of the facilities are more public related larger hangars with pre-cast concrete and this is something they will see in the south area rather than the existing metal hangars. They do not plan to do any plantings along the fence. They know the fence is not attractive but it was built to specifically keep the deer out. The Boulevard trees along Charlson will help the look of the area a little more. Once grading is completed they will not be replanting trees except for the berm area. It will retain a similar look to what it was prior to construction. They will be removing a number of trees and additional trees will be removed as they expand the athletic fields as well as part of the Pioneer Trail project. Tree removal occurs with any construction. Rief also explained the VOR building is not radio active. The number of hangars and aircraft Flying Cloud is able to accommodate is approximately 500 aircraft including the new building area. Today they have 420 aircraft based at Flying Cloud. They are forecasting a decrease in the number of based aircraft for 2025. Leqve reported MnDOT puts forward a model zoning ordinance for airports and Hennepin Village is not included in those zones. MAC is currently in the process of developing a draft zoning ordinance looking at the model zoning ordinance and to look at the unique circumstances at a given airport. None of the model zones are an issue at Hennepin Village. In response to the question why aircraft at Flying Cloud don't fly routes similar to those at MSP is because MSP is a much larger operation. They can have from 1,100 to 1,200 operations in a day and it is a controlled environment. Flying Cloud is a much less sophisticated facility. Pilots at Flying Cloud fly under the visual flight rules. They still interact with the control tower but have more flexibility as the aircraft flies away from the airport. King explained all of the ordinances including Part 151 were in existence when the Commission was reformed in 2006. Also, with regard to lost revenue because of the airport, King explained the City has no control over airport property. However, there are 300 employees working at Flying Cloud airport. Steve Wellman, 9760 Picket Drive, asked Rief to expand on the additional land acquisition and tree removal west of Spring Road for the purpose of navigation lights. Rief explained tree removal would occur west of Spring Road. There are some trees on MAC property that will need to be removed and will likely occur between now and August. An unidentified member of the audience said it appears a lot of work has occurred since their last public meeting. She indicated she is concerned with the elevation of the aircraft and feels they are simply flying too low in the neighborhoods. She would like to know how the FAA becomes aware of an aircraft that flies lower than required and if they do anything about those that don't follow regulations. Also, she asked what happens to repeat offenders of the voluntary curfew and why the residents can't get an analysis of those offenders. King responded the Commission reviews the complaints and looks at the operators that are repeat offenders. She then asked if a complaint is submitted is the follow up only done on complaints for nighttime activity. Leqve explained their standard procedure is if an FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES May 28, 2009 Page 7 operation appears to be extraordinary at the airport they will investigate and follow up on it. If it appears to be a normal operation they may not follow up on every one of those operations. King also explained the Commission looks at how many violations the operator has had and how many letters were sent. They do talk to the operators and try to eliminate as many discretionary flights as they can. Carl Rydeen, FAA representative, reported the traffic pattern altitude is 1,000 feet above surface. If the controller sees someone that is extraordinarily low they would inquire and refer the flight to the Flight Standards District Office. Rydeen said he is not aware of any aircraft flying below the required altitude at Flying Cloud and if a controller sees something unsafe it is their obligation to report it. Devdatta Halbe, 9899 Switchgrass Lane, asked what size jets they can expect with this runway extension and what will the frequency of flights increase to and at what time of day will the frequency increase. Leqve asked Halbe to contact him after the meeting so he could provide him with specific information. Gary Demee, 9425 Shetland Road, explained he is a resident and business owner in Eden Prairie and was involved in some of the discussion and negotiations that occurred before the Flying Cloud Airports Commission was abandoned in 2002. He said he appreciates the efforts of the Commission and the efforts of the people that are trying to stop nighttime flights. He also appreciates what MAC is doing to work with the City to alleviate airport noise. Demee said he is concerned about the flights that go over the homes and suggested when they close Runway 1836 they request a minimal use runway flying directly south for take offs in the morning to reduce the number of aircraft flying directly over homes. Also, the longer runway heading west is going to be approximately 25 percent closer to the homes on the west side. He said it would be nice to have a name of an individual at the FAA to contact if jets are flying too closely to the homes. Demee said he is also opposed to the City being involved in asking for federal or other government funds for expansion of Flying Cloud airport and does not feel it is appropriate to do so. King responded it is questionable but possible if aircraft using the longer runway will be closer to homes with the extended runway. They are looking at jets that will be climbing faster and higher over the houses. The planes that are at Flying Cloud now will still lift off before they get to the extended part of the runway. The runway will be closer to the homes but not the aircraft. The load of the aircraft will depend on whether or not they use the longer runway but in other cases the aircraft will take off in the same place they had prior to the runway extension. With regard to the City asking for federal money, that was investigated and spoken to by the City Manager and the record was made clear about what was talked about when visits were made to Washington D.C. King said he is not aware of City officials asking for funds from the federal government for Flying Cloud airport. With regard to Demee's suggestion for a minimal use runway, Leqve recommended Demee make that suggestion to the FCAAC. With the new character of the airport the Commission will want to once again look at the voluntary abatement program and as they move forward FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES May 28, 2009 Page 8 MAC will discuss this with the Commission. Leqve explained MAC also receives calls regarding low flying operations. When they receive a complaint they look at the data available and if something does look unusual they will pass that information onto the FAA and they will get back to MAC or contact the resident directly. Demee asked if MAC is in favor of expanding Flying Cloud to a 6,000 foot runway. Rief answered there is no proposal for any type of runway expansion so their answer would be no. Rahil Hasan, 9647 Laforet Drive, asked with the comprehensive planning process if there is any accounting between the City and MAC as to the impact the airport has on property values and if there are any federal funds allocated to address any potential impact to property values. Rief responded during the Environmental Impact Statement they found no documented correlation between property values and airports the size of Flying Cloud. Hasan asked if there is any mechanism to give citations or financial fines to violators of the voluntary noise abatement program other than a call or letter to those operators. Also, is there a similar mechanism that could be used by the air traffic controller to do the same. King responded all pilots are licensed by the FAA and if their flying activities warrant action the FAA may suspend the pilot's licenses. The nighttime curfew is voluntary and there is no way to enforce it. Juliana Allen, 9999 Pincherry Lane, said it appears MAC will be doing the absolute minimum with regard to landscaping. She asked how many trees will be removed and how many will be replanted. Rief said she does not have the exact number of trees being replanted but they do intend to plant along the berm. Allen said it appears to be irresponsible to take trees down and not replant them. Rief said there are a significant number of voluntary trees that they will be removing. It does not make sense to replant trees in the runway protection zone. There are specific areas where trees should not be and they will not be replanted. It is anticipated that some of the voluntary trees and shrubs will come back over time. The trees on the berm will not be saplings but will be one to three inch trees. Allen said she understands they can't plant in some of the areas where they are removing trees but they could plant in areas between the hangars and the berms and along the fence. Rief responded they want to minimize wildlife habitat and they don't want wildlife in the vicinity of low flying aircraft. Allen suggested MAC plant elsewhere in the community. Rief said this is not a consideration in this project. MAC is working with the City on erosion control measures and natural areas will be seeded. Allen said she has an issue with the fence and asked if there was anyway to make the fence more attractive. Rief responded the concept of the south hangar area has been in the plans since 1989 and precedes Hennepin Village. Some of the steps MAC is taking as part of airport construction are typical to airport construction projects and this type of fence would be found at other airport locations. MAC does care about the Hennepin Village residents but the fence also provides security for the airport. To place plantings along the fence makes it impossible for MAC to inspect the fence for holes and they are trying to keep the barrier a barrier that can be maintained. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES May 28, 2009 Page 9 Ken Johnson, 10034 Indigo Drive, pointed out a sound barrier constructed beside a home can affect values by 10 to 15 percent. He said it would be good if MAC contributed to soundproofing of homes and developed a residential sound installation program. Leqve explained a program such as this around airports throughout the United States is for 65dbl contour level properties. They have not seen big property value impacts around MSP. Flying Cloud is a smaller operation and developers want to do major developments like Hennepin Village next to the airport. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.