Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFlying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission - 02/07/2001 APPROVED MINUTES FLYING CLOUD ADVISORY COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2001 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER HERITAGE ROOM IV 8080 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Heffelfinger, Jeff Larsen, Laura Neuman, Gary Schmidt and Joe Smith COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Bauer MAC REPRESENTATIVES: Roy Furhmann and Chad Leqve STAFF: Scott Kipp, Senior Planner Richard Rosow, City Attorney Carol Pelzel, City Recorder CALL TO ORDER Chair Heffelfinger called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. He explained that the purpose of this meeting is to discuss alternatives to Ordinance 51 in light of the FAA letter received. Another letter from the FAA had been received today which is also relevant to Ordinance 51. Heffelfinger explained that a letter to the Commission had been received from the City Manager stating that the City Council does not expect that the Commission will appoint one person to speak on behalf of the entire Commission at its special public meeting to be held Saturday, February 10, with respect to options available to the City to oppose the expansion of the airport. Schmidt pointed out that MAC has been told that they will not be allowed to speak at that meeting. Heffelfinger responded that that does not mean that his perspective could not be heard. Schmidt said it was his understanding that only those people opposed to the expansion of the airport would be heard. Smith said he feels it is not this Commission's position to be opposed to the expansion of the airport. He indicated that a member of this Commission speaking at the public meeting might give the impression that this Commission is opposed to the expansion. Heffelfinger indicated that this would be discussed further under Item III C. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as published. II. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 4, 2000, MINUTES Neuman asked that the first sentence of the last paragraph on Page 2 be changed to read "Neuman questioned why Ordinance 51 was restricted to jets and not to all aircraft." She FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES February 7, 2001 Page 2 meant this to be a historical question rather than a statement. Smith asked that the first sentence in the first paragraph of Page 4 read that........they may not be able to take off on a runway........ rather than "they are not able to take off'. Fuhrmann asked that the second sentence of the last paragraph be changed to "MAC agreed ..." rather than "MAC decided". Fuhrmann also asked that the second sentence of the first paragraph on Page 5 read "Furhmann said he personally doesn't feel three additional aircraft types would significantly change the contour of the airport" rather than"... aircraft would significantly change the contour of the airport". MOTION: Neuman moved, seconded by Larsen, to approve the minutes as corrected. Motion carried, 5-0. III. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Status of Revisions to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Schmidt reported that a supplement DEIS is being prepared which will show two remaining alternatives —no build and proposed project. The proposed project includes runway extensions, building area expansion and land acquisition. Aircraft noise mitigation includes, among other things, voluntary aircraft use restrictions and MAC Ordinance 51 is dropped. Heffelfinger asked in light of the fact that MAC intends to delete Ordinance 51 altogether, he asked if MAC has any plans for future public hearings. Schmidt responded that a 45-day comment period will follow the review of the DEIS by the Commission. Heffelfinger asked when the decision was made to abandon Ordinance 51. Schmidt explained that MAC did telephone the FAA for clarification regarding Ordinance 51. The FAA indicated that they would not allow Ordinance 51 to remain as it is. Heffelfinger pointed out that MAC has a legal obligation to defend Ordinance 51 rather than abandon it. Schmidt pointed out that Ordinance 51 as it stands today is not defendable. There are several reasons why Ordinance 51 cannot remain unchallenged. The only reason the FAA has not had complaints thus far is because MAC has asked the various groups not to complain because MAC is working on a plan to their benefit. As far as a public hearing for dropping Ordinance 51, Schmidt indicated that MAC has not yet decided what process they will follow for Ordinance 51. Schmidt said they had planned to make a presentation this evening with relevant information regarding alternatives. However, if members of this Commission are going to appear before the City Council to speak in opposition to the airport expansion,he is not sure the presentation is meaningful. Schmidt indicated that they feel they have been acting in good faith but it is clear to them that the City Council does not care to hear what this Commission has to say. Heffelfinger said he is frustrated and angry with the FAA for controlling the process. If there is any litigation the FAA should be included and they also need to be involved in any settlement negotiations. Heffelfinger said the Commission took the position that they would pursue a negotiated remedy and FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES February 7, 2001 Page 3 the issue to be presented at the City Council public meeting on Saturday is whether or not this Commission can go forward in trying to seek a compromise. Heffelfinger said it is his hope that this Commission can develop and present to the Council a position statement that will be of assistance to them. Heffelfinger said he is suggesting that they recommend to the City Council that whatever else they decide to do, they ask that this Commission continue to seek an accommodation with MAC, the FAA and City Council. Rosow explained that the Council does not want to put the Commission in a bind of having to come to a position as a Commission. They are not asking members to come forward on behalf of the Commission but they still want to hear from people who have been on the Commission with respect to the agenda item. Their intent was so that this Commission did not have to take a vote on a position. Schmidt said it is clear to him that the City wants MAC to continue to participate but yet it is clear that they want to file suit with justification. Schmidt questioned why MAC would continue to work on a compromise if the ultimate goal is to file litigation. Schmidt explained that when they started the Part 161 process they did have an alternative to get voluntary agreements in place with the operators. This is primarily the intent of Ordinance 51. Heffelfinger pointed out that this would not address the limits on size of aircraft. Also, if MAC chooses to not participate with this Commission in addressing issues regarding airport expansion, there is no future for this Commission. Litigation is an option but this Commission would not suggest that. They need to address procedures that could be pursued for using alternatives independent of litigation. Heffelfinger said his view is not for the option to walk away. They need to continue to look for solutions. The fact that the City Council is being urged by many people to sue MAC is no surprise. Heffelfinger said he wants to go to the Council on Saturday with a conciliatory message that there are options out there and there are people out there who want to discuss those options. Smith said he agrees with what Heffelfinger says,however, that is not what the letter received from the City Manager states. The City Council has clearly stated that they want to hear from people opposed to this expansion. This Commission needs to clarify that they are not being a party to that meeting. If this Commission is to stay together as a working body they have to be very careful in speaking to that regard. Neuman pointed out that the Council has an obligation to look at and gather information from all agencies. They are the City's governing body and representatives of the residents. They cannot be criticized for doing what is part of their function. Larsen said he feels the City Council wants to get ideas on what they should do in terms of legal ramifications. It appears that a majority of the citizens are against the expansion and if the City Council follows that, discussion is over and litigation will be filed. Larsen said he does not know what ideas this Commission can develop that will be better than those they have developed over the years. Heffelfinger explained that if this Commission took the position of opposition it would not express the view of all of its members. Regardless of that,he does believe it is important that this Commission express something to the City Council. He would like to come up with one common statement. Heffelfinger asked if it would be relevant and appropriate to say that as a Commission they do not and have FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES February 7, 2001 Page 4 not taken a position for or against the expansion of the airport. This Commission includes representatives with all views on that subject and that is what this Commission was established to do. As a Commission, their responsibility is to seek solutions to the issues surrounding the expansion of the airport that attempt to compromise the interest of the various groups. This Commission hopes the Council will support them in their efforts to continue to move in that direction. It is also this Commission's hope that the Council will ask MAC to continue participating as a member of this Commission. Schmidt pointed out that if the City does file litigation, it would be difficult for MAC to participate on the Commission. Smith said he agrees with Heffelfinger's statement and suggested that they include in the statement that this Commission would caution the Council against moving down the path of litigation and to allow this group to do their work. Heffelfinger said he feels they have to communicate to the City Council that this Commission believes there is value in continuing discussion for negotiated solutions. Heffelfinger said he proposes that this Commission draft a short statement that could be read at Saturday's meeting by two members of the Commission. Heffelfinger said he feels that the City Council has endorsed this Commission's attempts to broker an agreement with MAC. He feels it is appropriate for this Commission to make a statement. Larsen said he agrees that such a statement should be drafted even though it does not follow the Council's outline for that meeting. Heffelfinger said he does think at this point there is some value to continue to meet and try to reach some type of agreeable solution. Heffelfinger explained that he would be unable to attend Saturday's meeting and asked that Smith and Neuman present the Commission's statement to the City Council. Neuman stated that her preference is to submit the statement in writing because the special meeting has a very specific agenda. She does not feel this meeting is the place to submit this Commission's statement. Neuman said she would decline from reading this statement. Larsen said he would have no problem with presenting the statement with Smith and he feels this statement needs to be presented verbally. Heffelfinger said he would draft a statement to be distributed to all Commission members for their review and approval prior to Saturday's meeting. MOTION: Smith moved, seconded by Larsen, to prepare a written statement presenting the Commission's view on the expansion of Flying Cloud Airport to be read at the February 10, 2001, special City Council public meeting. The motion carried unanimously. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES February 7, 2001 Page 5 B. Alternatives Regarding Ordinance 51 Leqve briefly reviewed the contents of a presentation that MAC was going to make at this meeting regarding alternatives to Ordinance 51. Heffelfinger said they have FAA problems that are making Ordinance 51 a challenge and if this item goes to litigation he said he would not expect that MAC would send anyone to the table with the authority to bind MAC to specific alternatives. It his hope they would send someone with the authority to discuss alternatives or present ideas and information. If these solutions appear workable it is his hope that they go back and seek authority. Schmidt said he is sure there would be an interest in settling. Heffelfinger suggested that MAC talk to their General Counsel to see if they would be willing to draft an agreement that any conversation taking place with this Commission as part of a settlement or potential litigation cannot be used in litigation. Heffelfinger said he would be willing to recommend that the City enter into such an agreement with MAC. Heffelfinger said he feels they need to focus on different solutions and he is interested in a compromise that preserves the fundamental character of this airport without compromising and still allowing economic growth and while at the same time recognizing the changes in technology. Smith said he does not see the character of the airport changing with the proposed expansion. Viewing the expansion as an operator he sees the industry changing. Fundamentally, what has changed is the industry and the environment is what has driven this change. Smith explained that making this airport a hub for Mesaba or Federal Express is a character change. Neuman said as a resident, she feels that the character of the neighborhood is affected by the size of the planes, noise level and number of planes. Smith said he did consider the noise footprint as a means for measuring the character of the airport. He suggested that they look at the noise footprint as if Ordinance 51 does not exist and the airport has a 5,000-foot runway. Neuman said she would like to see the noise footprint extended beyond the 60 DNL so that the rest of the Eden Prairie residents can see how their noise levels will change with the expansion. Fuhrmann responded that some of this information is to be included in the supplement to the EIS and will be part of the presentation. Anything beyond community noise in urban settings can run 55+in DNL levels as well. They can go with 60 DNL with some degree of confidence. The model is designed to look at an impact at 65 DNL and when they go below 55 DNL the accuracy starts to decrease. Heffelfinger said he feels the City has to defend Ordinance 51 and MAC should be true to their commitment to defend Ordinance 51. Schmidt stated that MAC does have letters of intent from the operators on voluntary agreements and they are intending to follow through on those. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES February 7, 2001 Page 6 C. Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission's Presentation at February 10, 2001 City Council Workshop (See Item III. A. above.) D. Bearman's Bluff Development Proposal Kipp presented the plans for Bearman's Bluff Development on the west side of the airport. The developer is in the process of asking for approval and is scheduled to appear before the Planning Board on February 26. The development is proposed to include 29 homes. Smith asked if the City feels this is a compatible land use. Kipp said it is based on the City's comprehensive plan. Fuhrmann pointed out that there is some question as to whether or not the property owner is proposing the development to get MAC to move forward with acquisition yet MAC has a hard time to move forward until the Ordinance 51 issue is resolved. It does come into the safety zone under the proposed expansion of the airport. Heffelfinger said he is not prepared to make a motion on this development. Kipp reported that there is another project under construction on the northwest corner of Highway 212 and Pioneer Trail. This is a single story office/industrial building and will be compatible with the airport operations. Both of these projects have been submitted to the MAC for its review and comment. IV. NOISE ABATEMENT/AIRCRAFT INCIDENTS A. Noise Complaints for October through December, 2000 Leqve provided the Commission with noise complaints for Flying Cloud Airport from October 2000 through November 2000 and December 2000 through January 2001 for a total of five complaints. V. OTHER BUSIENSS A. Term Expirations Kipp presented a copy of the 2001 Schedule and Appointment Process for Boards and Commissions. He explained that Jeff Bauer's term as an airport business representative expires as well as Jeff Larsen and John Smith's terms as resident representatives. John Smith is no longer eligible to serve on the Commission because he has moved from the City and will need to be replaced. Joe Smith said Jeff Bauer will not be seeking another term and will need to be replaced. Jeff Larsen said he has applied to be reappointed. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES February 7, 2001 Page 7 B. Public Comments Floyd Hagen asked that MAC's noise footprint go out to 55 DNL. This would include a substantial number of residential buildings and sites in Eden Prairie and he feels it would be informative. Hagen said he is very concerned about the noise levels. Gary Demee asked if it would be possible for MAC as a landlord to charge more for airplanes that operate at night. This would be an indirect influence for daytime activity rather than nighttime activity. He also suggested that they have maximum ascent or decent during various times of the year. Heffelfinger explained that there is a noise abatement plan at this airport that does include some of the things. Schmidt pointed out that MAC does not charge a landing fee at the airport. This would require someone being out there to monitor the landings and they are not allowed to have discriminatory access restrictions. C. Next Regularly Scheduled Meeting Heffelfinger recommended that the Commission meet the first part of March. One of the issues to be discussed would be real estate leases and whatever arrangements MAC have with the tenants. He asked that one of MAC's real estate lawyers attend the meeting to explain the parameters of what they can and cannot do as landlords. Heffelfinger said he is interested in discussing whether or not MAC feels there are options available. VI. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Smith moved, seconded by Larsen, to adjourn the meetiniz. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.