Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFlying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission - 04/03/1996 APPROVED MINUTES FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION APRIL 3, 1996 7:00 P.M. City Center Prairie Rooms A& B 8080 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie COMMISSION MEMBERS: Kent Barker, Marge Bundgaard, Tom Heffelfinger, Peter, Keller, Rob Kilpatrick, Alan Nitchman, Gary Schmidt STAFF: Scott A. Kipp, Planner, and Barbara Anderson, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER Rob Kilpatrick called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Commissioners Marge Bundgaard, Kent Barker, and Gary Schmidt were absent. Roy Fuhrman from MAC was also present. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Nitchman moved, Heffelfinger seconded, to approve the Agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. II. OATH OF OFFICE FOR NEW COMMISSION MEMBER Heffelfinger read and signed the Oath of Office. It was witnessed by Kilpatrick and Nitchman. III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS MOTION: Kilpatrick moved, Nitchman seconded, to defer the election of officers until the next meeting because there were only three commission members present. Motion carried unanimously. IV. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 7, 1996 MINUTES Nitchman stated that on Page 4 of the December 6th Minutes it should state that he believed MAC had done everything possible to support and implement the noise abatement program, and he did not feel that correction was properly reflected in the February 7th Minutes. Kipp stated he would be sure that change was made. MOTION: Nitchman moved, Kilpatrick seconded to approve the Minutes of the February 7, 1996 Meeting of the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Heffelfinger abstained. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION April 3, 1996 Page 2 V. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Update on Long-Term Comprehensive Plan at Met Council Heffelfinger stated he believed that the Advisory Commission should meet more often than quarterly because he believed they should be proactive rather than reactive to the actions of other bodies, particularly the Metropolitan Council. He thought the Commission should meet to discuss the Long-Term Comprehensive Plan prior to the Met Council taking action on it, which would occur prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Commission. He believed there were some issues concerning Eden Prairie involved in this, and if the Commission did not have input for the City Council then they would be unable to communicate that to the Metropolitan Council. Nitchman stated that the motion before Met Council was what would begin the process which would get the information to the decision-makers so that they can make an informed decision. Heffelfinger stated that if they are not giving the City Council input they are denying the City Council the opportunity to know what the concerns of the Commission are regarding the issues which will be discussed by the Metropolitan Council. Kipp reviewed the progress of the Long-Term Comprehensive Plan by the Metropolitan Council and noted that it was presently tabled. The Governor's Office was now involved, and was unsure what the next step would be. He stated that he would find out what was going on and how soon the measure would be before the Council and let the Commission decide whether they wanted to meet to discuss those issues relevant to Eden Prairie. Discussion ensued regarding the pertinent measures which could impact Eden Prairie, and Heffelfinger stated he believed that the Metropolitan Council would take action on the Comprehensive Plan prior to the next scheduled meeting of the Commission. He believed that the Commission should work towards developing a compromise between the various factions concerning the airport expansion, which could then be communicated to the City Council and the other involved parties. He believed that a compromise should be the goal rather than resolution because given the positions of the factions, it was unlikely that any resolution could be achieved other than through the legal system. Kilpatrick stated he believed that this was consistent with how the Commission had perceived their role; as a clearinghouse for information to be given to the City Council so they would have a clear view of both sides of the issues which would enable them to better understand what was going on and enable them to make better decisions. Heffelfinger stated he felt the Advisory Commission should endeavor to have an impact and not just react to decisions made by other agencies. The Commission should have the opportunity for input into issues as they are raised and even if they only provide information, it is still valuable to the City Council. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION April 3, 1996 Page 2 Discussion ensued regarding the controversies of the citizens and the Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC) as well as the Zero Growth faction and the Metropolitan Council concerns, and the possibility of achieving some solution which could result in some sort of economic development cohesiveness for the community as a whole. The role of Flying Cloud Airport as a reliever for MSP air traffic was discussed. The Commission felt that the entire motion before the Metropolitan Council should be read and discussed. The fundamental impact on the area including such items as what the Flying Cloud Airport was going to look like in five years should be considered. Issues such as environmental impact, aircraft size and noise pollution needed to be considered. Nitchman commented that the general aviation business community needed to educate people regarding the benefits of having a reliever airport in the community. He added that the MAC has developed a system of airports which are reliever airports, and Flying Cloud Airport has been designated as a minor reliever which means that the runway cannot be longer than 5,000 feet. This expansion will not bring in commuter traffic or freight traffic, but will handle the corporate air traffic for which it is designed. It can actually reduce the level of airport traffic once it is completed. Heffelfinger commented that the legal and political issues are out there that need to be discussed and he believed there were compromises that could be explored. Nitchman stated that Ordinance 51 needs to be interpreted because he viewed it as a noise abatement ordinance and others interpret it as a gross landing requirement. He noted that noise levels from new Stage III aircraft are lower than the Stage II levels when Ordinance 51 was passed. MOTION: Heffelfinger moved to have a meeting prior to the next scheduled meeting to discuss the issues before the Metropolitan Council takes action on the LTCP. Motion died for lack of a second. Discussion ensued regarding the pros and cons of meeting to evaluate a compromise solution. Heffelfinger stated he preferred to have an open agenda for a meeting to discuss the comprehensive plan to allow the Commission the freedom to discuss options. Kilpatrick stated he would prefer to have some agenda so that something could be accomplished. Heffelfinger responded that two items could be discussed: (a) what the airport wanted, and (b) what the airport needed to be successful. He believed everyone was concerned with safety, so that was probably not a major issue needing resolution. He believed the players needed to be identified, such as the airport businesses, MAC, the private citizens which would be impacted and the City of Eden Prairie. The core issue was expansion versus no expansion. MOTION: Heffelfinger moved, seconded by Kilpatrick, to meet early in May to discuss a possible compromise solution for the proposal to expand Flying Cloud Airport, prior to Met Council action on the LTCP. Motion carried unanimously. Kipp stated he would find out when the Metropolitan Council was meeting on the FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION April 3, 1996 Page 2 Comprehensive Plan and contact the Commissioners to schedule a May meeting. B. Design Framework Manual for Flying Cloud Airport Kipp reviewed the draft Design Framework Manual for the airport and showed pictures of buildings which presently exist and examples of what the City would like to see at the airport as buildings are gradually replaced. He discussed the types of hangars and signage that hopefully would become uniform throughout the airport in the future. Nitchman commented that any manual should to be tied to MAC standards, and Kipp responded that he is unaware of any architectural design standards of the MAC, but is aware of MAC Ordinance 78, which controls the minimum standards for the uses of a particular business operation. Nitchman commented that affordability needed to be a consideration given the size of Flying Cloud Airport. Kipp stated that the framework manual would only be implemented for new construction, and exterior remodeling requests, and that the guidelines would not be financially burdensome. Kilpatrick requested that this item be continued onto the agenda for the next meeting. C. Pilot/Controller Seminar - March 28, 1996 Kipp stated he had attended the Pilot/Controller Seminar held on March 28th at Hennepin Technical College. At that meeting, MAC had discussed the noise abatement program, and Jack Eberline of the MAC discussed the Long-Term Comprehensive Plan. D. Development Proposal - Riley Creek Ridge Kipp noted that the City had received the Riley Creek Ridge development proposal which fell within the proposed Safety Zone B land and was scheduled for review by the Planning Commission in May. He noted the City has not authority to deny the plan review request just because it fell within a proposed safety zone. He noted that while MAC has indicated they would purchase this land, no offer has been tendered, and people have the right to develop their property. Discussion ensued regarding the disclosure issue, and Nitchman commented he felt this was a bid to get the housing plan approved before the Metropolitan Council and MAC had the opportunity to act on the LTCP. VI. NOISE ABATEMENT PLAN/AIRCRAFT INCIDENTS A. Noise Complaints for January and February, 1996 Fuhrman distributed the list of complaints received in January and February, 1996 and noted there were none. B. Noise Abatement SiiZnaiZe Implementation Schedule Fuhrman stated the perimeter signs were on the fence at the airport but they would need to wait until the ground thaws to install the rest. Kipp noted that he would FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION April 3, 1996 Page 2 hold off on sending a memo to the City Council on the signage project until the installation was occurring. The Eden Prairie News may be interested at that time to do a short article in the newspaper. At the beginning of June, MAC will begin noise monitoring operations at Flying Cloud Airport when they have an intern available. Nitchman discussed the Vicky Lewis situation and what had been done to assure her that 50% of the noise problem was resulting from the MSP airport. Fuhrman stated they will be monitoring this area to attempt to identify the aircraft and see if flight patterns cannot be varied to mitigate the problem for Mrs. Lewis. C. Noise Abatement Proizram Momentum - Kilpatrick Kilpatrick expressed concern that the Commission put a program in place to ensure that the Noise Abatement Program is continued and moves forward without stalling somewhere in the process. Nitchman agreed that it was important, and he was glad to have citizens who were concerned come out to the facility to see what was being done to mitigate the noise from the airport. Discussion ensued regarding how often noise abatement information should be placed on the ATIS recording to remind pilots of the program, and the consensus was that it would be very helpful to have the message played on an intermittent basis, perhaps during the summer and maybe a week or so in the fall. Heffelfinger commented that it should be done in the spring (April) and the end of June to avoid saturation of the airwaves, as intermittent broadcasting could be very effective. Kilpatrick commented that he believed noise abatement should be reviewed on a regular basis to keep it going. VII. OTHER BUSINESS A. Dissemination of Unbiased Airport Information - Nitchman Nitchman commented that he did not believe the airport had received any positive press coverage, and Kipp pointed out that the noise abatement signage issue will most likely be covered by the Eden Prairie News. Kipp added that last year, a large article addressed the business side of the airport issue from Tim Ashenfelter's point of view. There were also items included in the April packet which were positive coverage from the Eden Prairie News. VIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Nitchman moved, seconded by Kilpatrick, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.