Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFlying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission - 03/14/2001 APPROVED MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2001 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER HERITAGE ROOM H 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 7:15 p.m. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Schmidt asked that prior to discussing alternatives to Ordinance 51, the Commission listen to a presentation made by representatives from MAC regarding noise impacts and footprints. Heffelfinger suggested that City Council appointments to Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission listed under IV.A be moved to the front of the agenda. Kipp asked that two items be added under Other Business. The first would be an update on Bearman Bluff and the second item would be the Community Survey. II. OTHER BUSINESS A. City Council Appointments to Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission Kipp reported that the City Council reappointed Jeff Larsen to the Commission as a resident-at-large for a term expiring March 31, 2004. The Council also appointed Gary Demee as a resident-at-large and Mitch Anderson as a Flying Cloud Airport business representative for terms expiring March 31, 2004. Kipp explained that the two new appointments would not take office until April. Heffelfinger indicated that Demee was in the audience and introduced him to the Commission. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES March 14, 2001 Page 2 II. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 7, 2001, MINUTES Heffelfinger asked that on Page 6, Item D. Bearman's Bluff Development Proposal, first paragraph, the last sentence be placed in front of the sentence"Heffelfinger said he is not prepared to make a motion on this development." This sentence was not part of his statement. MOTION: Schmidt moved, seconded by Larsen, to approve the minutes as corrected. Motion carried, 5-0. III. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. City Council Action Regarding Flying Cloud Airport Expansion Kipp reported that at the March 6 City Council meeting, the Council did pass a motion to retain Attorney Peter Kirsch to serve as Special Counsel to the City of Eden Prairie, under the direction of the City Manager and the City Attorney, at a cost not to exceed $40,000, unless otherwise specifically authorized by the Council, for the purpose of developing a comprehensive strategy memorandum evaluating the City's options in opposing the expansion of the Flying Cloud Airport and increasing the City's leverage over the airport expansion plans, including but not limited to the viability of adoption of local ordinances, negotiation of intergovernmental agreements, participation in the environmental review process, administrative regulatory solution, legislative solution, political solution, litigation, and recommend a plan of action. The Council also passed a motion to seek out a public relations firm to represent the City's interests and perspective. Kipp explained that the Council's final action was that the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission continue to work on any possible solutions that would protect the community with regard to the City's concerns on numbers and sizes of planes, noise levels and flight times, and to ask that the FAA be involved this time so that decisions could hold. Larsen asked how they make the FAA officials aware that they would like them to participate in further discussions. Kipp suggested that a letter be drafted and sent to the FAA encouraging them to participate. Heffelfinger said if there were no objection to the FAA joining this group,he would draft a letter to the FAA and follow it up with a telephone call. Larsen said he felt it was a good idea and is in favor of the FAA participating. Heffelfinger indicated that the letter would be mailed to Glen Orcutt inviting the FAA to participate as ex-officio members of the Commission. MOTION: Smith moved, seconded by Neuman, to authorize the Chair to send a letter to the FAA invitinz them to participate with the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission as ex-officio members in discussions reizarding expansion of Flying Cloud Airport and Ordinance 51. Motion carried, 5-0. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES March 14, 2001 Page 3 B. Metropolitan Airports Commission Presentation Chad Leqve, representing MAC, explained that he would like to make a presentation which would provide a brief history of where the Commission has been throughout the process of developing an alternative to Ordinance 51, starting with the initial goals. Leqve reviewed the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission's mission relative to noise reduction. He reviewed the proposed revisions to Ordinance 51which included 20,000 pound weight restriction for Stage II jet aircraft and the weight limit for Stage III aircraft would be raised to 22,500 pounds basic empty weight. Stage II aircraft would be prohibited from using the airport between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. and run-up operations would be prohibited between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Ordinance 51 also included a provision stating that scheduled airlines in Part 121 cargo operators are not permitted to use the airport. Leqve reviewed the Part 161 analysis and the FAA's position on Ordinance 51. As the Commission proposed changes to Ordinance 51, it became necessary to review that Ordinance under the Part 161 analysis. The FAA's position is that as Ordinance 51 exists today, it is in conflict with grant assurance provisions and weight is not an appropriate surrogate for noise. The Part 161 analysis of the nighttime Stage II restriction yield minimal impact due to the fact that very few Stage II aircraft exist in this region. Leqve reviewed considerations for possible alternatives stating that per the FAA, Ordinance 51 is not a viable future alternative due to the grant assurance issues associated with the ordinance. Leqve indicated that a weight limit should be based on variables that are consistent with FAA guidance and provisions that are voluntary in nature typically do not conflict with Part 161. MAC is committed to a 5,000-foot runway stating that a new law passed by the Legislature would require Legislative action to expand a minor use airport runway beyond 5,000 feet. Leqve explained the proposal relative to FAA comments and resultant options available. He stated that they would seek voluntary restrictions on Stage II jet operations between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. and via signed agreements with tenants,restricting run-up operations between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. In response to Neuman's question regarding enforcement of run-up agreements, Leqve read the methods of enforcement for such agreements as outlined in the published draft EIS. Leqve explained that aircraft operating at Flying Cloud would be determined by the runway length and weight-bearing capacity of the runway. Leqve reviewed the modified EIS alternatives stating that two alternatives will remain in the EIS —no-action and action. The action alternative will include the FCM Noise Mitigation Committee recommendations and the conclusions resulting from the Part 161 findings. He explained that Stage II daily operations changed from 5.68 to 1.54 and they changed voluntary compliance from 100% to 50%. Demee indicated that Ordinance 51 included two elements that were agreed to. They were weight restriction and noise restriction. Demee said he feels MAC is omitting the weight restriction from their proposal. The 20,000-pound weight restriction was not FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES March 14, 2001 Page 4 meant to be a measure of noise. Leqve responded that they are talking about the FAA's position and they feel that Ordinance 51 is strongly based on weight restriction and they see it as a surrogate to get to the noise issue at the airport. Fuhrmann further explained that originally under Part 36 aircraft had to go through a certification that did not require meeting noise certification. Since that time, aircraft cannot be certified unless they now meet the noise standards. The Commission reviewed the Supplemental EIS 2010 DNL Build and No-Build Alternative Noise Contours. The contour lines displayed included the noise contour from Alternative E in the draft EIS, and the updated Build Alternative with mitigation. Heffelfinger said he would like to see what the draft EIS Alternative E noise contour would look like based on the reduction of Stage II operations identified in the Part 161 study. By doing so, would define what noise reduction a mandatory vs. a 50% voluntary compliance would be. Furhmann said based on the 50% vs. mandatory compliance and letters of intent on nighttime maintenance runups, the footprint would not change appreciably. C. Alternatives to Ordinance 51 ■ Written voluntary agreements with tenants ■ Evaluation of lease agreements with tenants ■ FAA involvement With regard to voluntary agreements, Schmidt explained that the draft EIS showed 100% compliance. After surveying operators and talking to other airports, they changed the average to 50% compliance. The run-up issue is a local issue that has to do with operators and the operators have indicated that they are willing to comply. Fuhrmann explained that the driving force on the size of the contours is departure and arrivals. Run-ups do not drive the contours. The run-up activity affects the people living relatively close to the airport and does not occur during the nighttime. Smith pointed out that in talking about bans on maintenance run-ups, they must remember that some run-ups heard are departure run-ups prior to aircraft taking off. With regard to voluntary restrictions for nighttime operations, Neuman questioned why they limit nighttime restrictions to Stage 11 aircraft only. Neuman said she feels that voluntary restrictions should apply to all aircraft. Neuman stated that she is also concerned about gathering information on operators who do not comply with the restrictions for accountability. She suggested that MAC have a person on-site 24-hours a day to enforce the restrictions. The information compiled would be a great source of information for MAC and would also be very good information for the City. The information could be made public on a regular basis to encourage the operators to comply with the restrictions and should MAC not enforce the restrictions or keep appropriate records, they could be fined. Neuman pointed out that MAC is spending a large amount of money on expansion, however, noise is a huge issue that should be FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES March 14, 2001 Page 5 addressed by hiring people to report on non-compliance. Neuman said she feels they need to get more teeth into voluntary compliance. Heffelfinger said Neuman has made a very good point. When they came into this at the last meeting it was from the perspective that the FAA caused rejection of the entire agreement struck over the last couple of years and it now starts again with voluntary compliance being limited to what was originally agreed to. Heffelfinger pointed out that voluntary noise abatement procedures including nighttime curfews at the Twin Cities airport was effective because it applied to all aircraft. Heffelfinger said he would suggest moving forward taking into consideration the FAA's position on Ordinance 51,but not to start out with a set of assumptions. If they pursue voluntary agreements they have to look at what other kinds of restrictions may be implemented. When discussing voluntary agreements they need to talk about it across the board. Furhmann pointed out that there are two very distinct issues with voluntary agreements. One discussion focuses on Stage Il operations proposed as Part 161 noise mitigation measures. Stage Il was to be a mandatory restriction while voluntary nighttime applies to all aircraft. Leqve explained he was talking specifically to Part 161. They do currently have voluntary nighttime agreements and are in the process of trying to formalize those agreements. Schmidt explained that the noise abatement plan from day one discouraged nighttime operation. They are now proposing that written voluntary agreements be entered into. Smith pointed out that nighttime compliance at Flying Cloud is currently greater than 50%. Heffelfinger asked how realistic is it that 50% compliance will be achievable with Stage III aircraft. Smith said he feels it would be very achievable since his business closes at midnight. He said he could speak with confidence that very few of their clients have operations after midnight. Smith said he could not speak for other operations on the field but his business only have two employees on duty after 7 p.m. Demee asked if in an effort to put more teeth into voluntary agreements they could put positive reinforcement into it. They could reward people who actually follow the agreements by, for example, reducing lease costs. Neuman said that is a good suggestion in addition to reporting non-compliance. Furhmann pointed out that in looking at Flying Cloud and other MAC airports, they have more than 50% compliance. By using 50% compliance in the EIS, they are using the worst case scenario. This is the national average. Neuman asked how they determine if compliance is better than 50%. Furhmann responded that they have letters of compliance at MSP and they monitor the activity. All carriers sign voluntary agreements not to operate Stage II aircraft in the evening. Heffelfinger asked if operators could be recorded or identified when using Flying Cloud as a means of monitoring compliance. Schmidt said it is feasible. Neuman asked if MAC would be opposed to hiring someone to monitor compliance. Schmidt said he feels the chances of hiring someone to sit at the airport all night to monitor flights is very slim. He does FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES March 14, 2001 Page 6 not believe MAC would support it and is not sure of the benefit. Typically, they know right away if someone is in non-compliance because of complaints. Heffelfinger asked if radio transmission could be taped. Jeff Kleinbeck, Flying Cloud Tower Manager, responded that the recorders are turned off at the close of business and turned on again at opening. This is in accordance with national regulations. However, he would be happy to check into this further. Heffelfinger asked if everyone who operates out of Flying Cloud has some sort of lease. Schmidt responded that they do and all subtenants are subject to the same terms of the lease as the tenant. Under current leases, the tenants are not required to report who the subtenants are,however, the new lease will require that subtenants be listed. Heffelfinger pointed out that under state law, MAC has the right to control use of their land. Heffelfinger said the restrictions in Ordinance 51 do tie to the use of the land. He is not suggesting that all of the things discussed under Ordinance 51 be put in the leases but he does believe that the leases provide them with an opportunity for restrictions to the extent they can agree is a reasonable restriction. He believes that the FAA does not have the ability to control the landowners use of the land. Heffelfinger said he would like to see a copy of the leases that are being renegotiated. Schmidt explained that the leases are still in draft and should be out in mid April. Heffelfinger asked that MAC share the leases with this Commission when they become available. Schmidt stated that they anticipate taking the lease form before the MAC Commission some time in April. There are a significant number of tenants signing new leases between June and September for a ten-year term. Heffelfinger said he would like this Commission to review the lease form to determine if there is some way they can put some language in the lease that would obligate the tenant to comply with certain restrictions. He would prefer to have the voluntary restrictions be mandatory. The tenant does have an obligation to respect the interest of its neighbors. Schmidt said he would be opposed to placing mandatory enforcement in the lease. Heffelfinger said they could consider adding some type of reduction on the lease rate if the operator is in compliance and if in non-compliance some type of charge could be built into the lease. Schmidt explained that the Logan Airport tried inducements and were challenged by the government and lost. Heffelfinger said he feels this is a land use issue and the landowner has certain rights to control the land use. Heffelfinger said he feels it is important to recognize that these leases may be a solution to the elimination of Ordinance 51. Schmidt said he does not disagree, however, he is not prepared to make a commitment to including restrictions in the leases. Heffelfinger said he understands but this is an option that MAC and the City may have for a negotiated settlement. Heffelfinger said he is making a formal request as a member of the Flying Cloud Advisory Commission that Schmidt approach MAC and ask them to provide copies of the lease document to this Commission once it is available for distribution. He also asked that Schmidt talk to MAC asking that they defer executing some of the agreements to allow an opportunity for this Commission to review those leases and to discuss possible additions to the leases. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES March 14, 2001 Page 7 Kipp pointed out that the Commission should discuss physical improvements to Flying Cloud including runway length at a future meeting. They need to look at the northerly parallel runway to determine if it needs to be 3,900 feet, which could potentially increase operations. Also, they need to discuss weight bearing capacity and airport design for different categories of aircraft. The Commission should also look at the limitations on the time of runway lighting. Schmidt explained that he has sent a memo to MAC requesting authorization for a public hearing on the elimination of Ordinance 51. The public hearing will be held in May or June. Heffelfinger asked why the public hearing needs to be held now. Schmidt responded that the FAA has asked MAC to submit a plan for repeal of Ordinance 51 or justification why the repeal did not occur immediately. They must repeal Ordinance 51 or the FAA will start withholding funding. Heffelfinger urged MAC to not hold the public hearing now. He asked that they advise the FAA that they are seeking alternatives to Ordinance 51 with the City and are discussing voluntary agreements. They are exploring achieving 100% compliance through inducements or penalties, which might be a viable alternative. Heffelfinger said if they are not able to achieve a favorable alternative then the public hearing to repeal Ordinance 51 could be held. He is not aware of anything on the timetable for this airport construction that says the public hearing can't be held in the fall. Schmidt said he was not sure they would gain anything by waiting. Heffelfinger said he feels MAC is forcing the hand of the City to do whatever is necessary to defend Ordinance 51. Schmidt said he is not saying that they will not discuss alternatives to Ordinance 51 but Ordinance 51 will not stay. Heffelfinger said he would propose holding a meeting of the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission in the middle or end of April. This would give the Commission an opportunity to talk about the need for a public hearing. They could also talk about leases and would appreciate getting a notice of the MAC meeting considering the leases. Kipp indicated that he does obtain the MAC agenda and backup information and would be happy to pass the agenda on to the members of the Advisory Commission. Neuman asked that MAC also consider ideas for reporting compliance and non- compliance. Heffelfinger asked if it would be possible to run tapes when someone comes in or goes out of the airport. This would allow them to determine who is taking off or landing at the airport and what hours this is occurring. Schmidt indicated that there is a difference in that the community feels the only way to control noise is through mandatory compliance while MAC feels they have success with voluntary compliance. Heffelfinger urged MAC not to get rid of Ordinance 51 at this point. One of the things that could provide settlement alternatives is the force of law that Ordinance 51 carries. Amending the Ordinance may provide some protection that the City needs. There are FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES March 14, 2001 Page 8 things that could be put into Ordinance 51 that could be done creatively to solve this problem. Heffelfinger said his concern about Ordinance 51 is that they will be eliminating one of the tools that may be used to reach a settlement. Schmidt asked if they do develop an ordinance that everyone can accept, what would stop them from adopting a new ordinance. This is a national issue and the main issue is whether or not MAC is abiding by grant assurances. Another issue is that they cannot accept or proceed with the EIS while Ordinance 51 is in place. Heffelfinger asked if it is MAC's intention to place them at ground zero of the dispute or is it MAC's intention to placate the FAA to allow them an opportunity to explore options. Schmidt said they are not looking to get to ground zero,but to satisfy the FAA. Schmidt explained that they are not willing to compromise grant assurances. Heffelfinger said he is convinced that if MAC moves forward with the public hearing they are depriving this Commission the opportunity to resolve this issue. Schmidt explained that the memo requesting authorization to hold the public hearing was sent today and will be considered at the April 3 MAC meeting. He indicated that it would be appropriate to submit a letter requesting that the public hearing not be held or if someone wishes they are welcome to attend the meeting. Schmidt reported that they are still working on the supplement EIS. A public hearing will be conducted after the supplement comes out. They anticipate the document being available April 1. III. OTHER BUSINESS B. Woodbear Highlands (formerly Bearman's Bluff) Kipp explained that Woodbear Highlands is located west of the airport and in the area shown for acquisition by MAC for future safety zone. The Community Planning Board did review the plans for this development and recommended approval. This item will go before the Council on March 20. Review of the project is based on the current Comprehensive Plan. Smith asked how this development could be approved when it is potentially located in a future safety zone. Kipp responded that the landowner has the right to develop his property in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. MAC has had the authorization to acquire the property for the last several years. Heffelfinger asked why the City feels compelled to approve these types of developments when there are issues about land use and compatibility with the airport. Kipp explained that the City does have an approved comprehensive plan. The airport plan has not been approved; the EIS is in the process of being developed. Heffelfinger asked if it is necessary or in the best interest to approve this development proposal at the March 20 City Council meeting. He asked if there would be some credibility gained by postponing action on this item for 30 days to afford them the opportunity to discuss the future of Flying Cloud Airport. Richard Rosow, City Attorney, explained FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES March 14, 2001 Page 9 that the property owner is not present this evening to indicate whether or not he would be willing to postpone action on this project. Kipp pointed out that the entire approval process could take up to 120 days. Heffelfinger asked that this Commission's concern regarding development occurring around the airport be brought to the City Council's attention. C. Community Survey Kipp reported that the results of the community survey are in. There will be a City Council workshop on March 20 to review some of those results. The four most important issues of the respondents were (1) affordable taxes - 60%, (2) traffic congestion, inadequate road system—58%, (3)preserve open space—38%, and (4) expansion of Flying Cloud Airport— 30%. There was a 16% response rate to the survey sent to the entire resident population. D. Next Regularly Scheduled Meeting The Commission agreed to meet on Tuesday, April 17. Heffelfinger asked that the Commission be prepared to discuss the mechanical issues such as weight bearing limits and to be prepared to respond to safety issues, etc. regarding Flying Cloud Airport. Heffelfinger said he is not in a position where he could completely support voluntary restrictions and suggested that they come up with other alternatives. IV. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Neuman moved, seconded by Smith, to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.