Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFlying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission - 05/03/2000 APPROVED MINUTES FLYING CLOUD ADVISORY COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 3,2000 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER PRAIRIE ROOM A & B 8080 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie COMMISSION MEMBERS: Jeff Bauer(arrived at 7:10 p.m.), Tom Heffelfinger, Jeff Larsen, Laura Neuman, Gary Schmidt, Joe Smith and John Smith VISITORS: Mitch Kilian, MAC; Roy Furhmann, MAC; Chad Leqve, MAC; and Mark Ryan, MAC STAFF: Scott Kipp, Senior Planner Carol Pelzel, City Recorder CALL TO ORDER Chair Heffelfinger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. All Commission members were present. Visitors listed above. Heffelfinger welcomed new members Neuman and Joe Smith to the Commission. Each member and guest introduced themselves to the new Commission members. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as published. II. APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS A. Chair Heffelfinger said he would be willing to continue serving as Chair. MOTION: John Smith moved, seconded by Joe Smith, to appoint Tom Heffelfinger as the Chair of the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission. Motion carried, 6-0. B. Vice Chair Heffelfinger explained that a citizen representative normally holds this position. He suggested that Joe Smith serve as Vice Chair because of his past experience in attending these Commission meetings and his appointment would bring some consistency to the organization. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie May 3, 2000 Page 2 MOTION: Heffelfinger moved, seconded by John Smith, to appoint Joe Smith as Vice Chair to the Flying Cloud Advisory Commission. The motion carried,6-0. C. Secretary (Bauer arrived during discussion of this item.) Heffelfinger explained that the Secretary fulfills the duties of the Chair and Vice Chair in their absence. MOTION: Joe Smith moved, seconded by Bauer, to appoint Jeff Larsen as Secretary to the Flying Cloud Advisory Commission. The motion carried, 7-0. III. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 26, 2000 MINUTES Larsen asked if the word"lobby" in line 6 of the first paragraph of Page 2 should be changed to read something else. He said he thought they discussed whether or not they were actually lobbying prior to the group making the trip to Washington. MOTION: Larsen moved, seconded by Heffelfinger, to change the word"lobby" on Page 2 to read "consult with". The motion carried, 7-0. MOTION: Schmidt moved, seconded by John Smith, to approve the January 26, 2000, minutes as amended. The motion carried, 7-0. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Status of Draft Environmental Impact Statement Mark Ryan representing MAC explained that they did receive a good response to the public hearing and the discussion held before the formal hearing was very helpful. He explained that a lot of good comments were received and approximately 31 letters were submitted to the record. They also received an additional 120 copies of a form letter. There are still letters coming in and they all basically say the same thing. Ryan indicated that some of the comments focused on concerns about the effect of the airport operations on the bald eagles nesting and the effects on the river corridor. Comments were also received from the City of Eden Prairie and they are currently working on a response to those issues. Staff is also working on additional analysis for the concerns presented. Obviously, this is a draft Environmental Impact Statement(EIS). Ryan explained that it is important that they address the issues presented and to focus on those issues. The noise analysis has been completed and they will be conducting further investigation on air quality issues. Heffelfinger indicated that before the hearing there FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie May 3, 2000 Page 3 had been some feedback from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the noise mitigation plan for bird strikes and he asked if this is one of the issues being addressed. Ryan responded that the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service wants MAC to shift their flights from over the river to over residence. He indicated that at certain times of the year their operations could be shifted because of the flight corridor for the birds and they will be investigating this further with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Schmidt explained that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service raised the issue of bird strikes as a safety issue. Neuman questioned if there is a formal record procedure in place for keeping track of bird strikes. Schmidt responded that if there is a bird strike they are required to report it and this information is forwarded to the regional office who forwards it to the Washington office where records are kept. The impact to the bald eagle was also raised, however, that has not yet been identified. Neuman said she believes they were specifically concerned about nesting and not necessarily about bird strikes. Ryan pointed out that all comments in the official record would be responded to. Heffelfinger indicated that the next meeting of this group is not scheduled until the first week of August and he asked where MAC would be in the process of the draft EIS. Ryan responded that one of the key elements is incorporating into the EIS document some of the analysis that is evolving from the Part 161 Study. The input from the public hearing for the Part 161 Study will be incorporated into the revised EIS. Ryan indicated that it might be late June or early July before the public hearing is heard on the Part 161. B. Status of Part 161 Study Furhmann reported on the Part 161 Study. There are a couple of issues they are dealing with including the nighttime Stage 11 restriction from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. He explained that when any type of restriction is involved, current and potential itinerant operators at the field are surveyed to determine who has Stage 11 jets in the Great Lakes Area. The survey shows that very few operators said they would operate at Flying Cloud and few would do Stage Il at night. The FAA looks at what the potential impact and benefit would be of implementing the restriction. The survey indicated that of the aircraft that could possibly come to Flying Cloud during nighttime hours resulted in approximately one per week. Furhmann stated this is significantly less than what was identified in the EIS. Based on 1996 data, the EIS was looking at 4.5 aircraft. The use of Stage Il aircraft may be overstated, therefore, the impact would also be overstated. There have also been concerns because of an incident in San Jose which currently has access restrictions dealing with the Gulf Stream IV. They have a nighttime restriction for aircraft weighing over 75,000 pounds. An operator re-certified their aircraft under 75,000 pounds by limiting the amount of fuel capacity. The FAA is looking at that very closely as it relates to Flying Cloud Airport. Furhmann said he has had some discussion with the FAA to make sure that the nighttime restrictions on Stage Il aircraft Flying Cloud is proposing is not tied to San Jose. The FAA is concerned that Flying Cloud would limit the noise standard. Heffelfinger explained that this Committee addressed FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie May 3, 2000 Page 4 that issue prior to adding the weight restrictions. The weight changes proposed are not new and if anything, is a relaxation of the grandfather clause. The only restriction they are seeking is to add the nighttime curfew. Furhmann explained that the Part 161 has not yet been submitted to the FAA. However, they are aware that it is being prepared and are concerned that increasing weight is discriminating against other aircraft. The FAA is nervous about the different restrictions at the different airports. Furhmann indicated that the FAA prefers that the curfew be achieved voluntarily rather than making it a restriction. They will look at the impact of that measure whether voluntary or mandatory. Furhmann said that one Stage II operation in a week may not justify a mandatory restriction and it may be beneficial to seek voluntary compliance of the operators of this nighttime request. Also, it may not be cost beneficial for doing a mandatory restriction. Furhmann explained that there is a certain amount of data that needs to be collected for the Part 161 Study and they are in the process of gathering that information but have not formally submitted the document to the FAA. Heffelfinger asked where they were with regard to maintenance run-ups. Ryan responded that that element is still under study and some operators have indicated that they might have some difficulty with 100% compliance. Joe Smith said the run-ups could be controlled as part of the operator's lease with MAC. Heffelfinger said that since there are very few Stage II jet aircraft using Flying Cloud Airport, they might be able to deal with the restriction voluntarily. However,he does question the run-ups that seem to be more of a problem than early or late departures or arrivals. Joe Smith indicated that this is something that needs to be handled by the MAC. Schmidt asked if the MAC should come back before this group before moving forward with the Part 161 Study since they have the opportunity for voluntary agreements that would accomplish the same thing. Heffelfinger said he feels they should come back to this Commission with a tentative proposal and findings before they commit themselves to cause action that might not be exercised in the long run. John Smith stated they could always back off from the Part 161 Study and still put in a voluntary restriction. Heffelfinger indicated that they may still want to hold the public hearing in any event. MOTION: Heffelfinger moved, seconded by Schmidt, to request that MAC return to this Commission with a report prior to making a decision to submit the Part 161 Study to the FAA. Motion carried, 7-0. Heffelfinger said if necessary, a special meeting would be called to consider filing of that Study. Heffelfinger asked if there would be a revised draft of the EIS incorporating all of the comments and the investigation as a result of those comments submitted to this group for one more review. Ryan explained that MAC has to review the final document and approve it before it can be forwarded to other agencies. When the document is in a position to be presented to the full Commission it becomes a public document and may FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie May 3, 2000 Page 5 be submitted to this group. Once MAC approves the document it is automatically turned over to the FAA. Both State and Federal agencies must also approve this document. MOTION: Motion Heffelfinger, second John Smith, that Metropolitan Airports Commission staff provide the Flying Cloud Advisory Commission with a copy of the revised draft Environmental Impact Statement incorporating the changes and deletions arising from the public hearing at least a week prior to the submission of that document to the Metropolitan Airports Commission giving this Commission time for meaningful input should they desire to do so. Motion carried, 7-0. With regard to the expansion of Flying Cloud Airport, Heffelfinger asked where MAC was with land acquisition. Ryan responded that they have recently acquired a 13-acre parcel on the west side of Spring Road. Kipp distributed a map showing land acquisition. The Commission reviewed the status of acquisition of property. Ryan reported that MAC has allocated $35 million for property acquisition. Schmidt pointed out that an issue for the MAC in acquiring property is that if platting occurs long after the airport proposal for improvement, a national precedent would be set if they went out and bought the property after the fact. John Smith suggested that this Commission recommend that any new development in the airport area include a statement on the property deed making people aware that the airport does exist. Kipp explained that the City does require that the first owner of the property be advised of this airport acquisition. Joe Smith said he feels it is poor land usage to build homes next to where they are having noise abatement corridors. The new homeowners should be aware of this. C. Land Development Proposal—Grace Church Kipp explained that Grace Church has purchased property located at Pioneer Trail and Spring Road and is proposing a master plan for a 600,000 square foot church with 4,500 seats. This item may be scheduled for a public hearing before the Community Planning Board on June 12, 2000. The County is proposing to upgrade Pioneer Trail in 2002. The Church is also proposing some recreational fields outside. Schmidt explained that this is a huge issue for Flying Cloud Airport. The airport will interfere with the church. Kipp indicated that an EAW has been prepared and submitted to MAC. Heffelfinger said there would also be a traffic issue for vehicles near the airport since Sunday is a major flight and training day. Ryan pointed out that the church has submitted the required forms to the FAA. Kipp said the EAW does address safety and noise zones. Furhmann explained that the existing soccer fields and traffic on Pioneer Trail has been a major issue for that area. He asked what the City's current status is on the traffic that will come in and out of this new facility. Kipp responded that a full traffic study has been FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie May 3, 2000 Page 6 prepared and indicates that during the week the intersections will operate at an acceptable level of service. Heffelfinger said he senses that this Commission does have some concern regarding this development, however, the City's Community Planning Board has the authority to recommend approval or disapproval of this plan. This Commission does have the authority to advise the City on airport related issues. Neuman said she feels this proposal will affect the EIS dramatically. Kipp pointed out that the EIS does identify the parcel as a church parcel. Furhmann explained that the church would have to meet the Metropolitan Council's Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Aircraft Noise. Neuman said she feels this proposal goes beyond noise. It will affect the airport operation including airport traffic. The proposed height of the building and spire, together with the number of people and vehicles that will occupy the site also presents a safety concern for aircraft operations. Schmidt stated that the church will not be in violation of Federal and State regulations but the airport noise will interfere with the church services. John Smith questioned how the local roads would be able to handle this additional traffic. Kipp responded that traffic studies show that the proposed church will not overwhelm the roads. The roads are designed to handle the traffic and the proposal is not in violation of any land uses. He added the staff will be completing a full review of the proposal and will present its recommendations to the Community Planning Board and City Council. MOTION: Motion Heffelfinger, second John Smith, that the Flying Cloud Advisory Commission wishes to express their belief that the development of Grace Church on the proposed site at the size suggested in their March 10, 2000, submission to the City is an inconsistent and unwise use of that property based upon the existence of an airport as its immediate neighbor. Motion carried, 7-0. V. OTHER BUSINESS Leqve distributed a map showing noise complaints for the first quarter of 2000. Thirteen complaints were received for the first quarter from eight separate addresses. Leqve explained that he and Furhmann have been meeting with flight instructors and operators informing them of the status of the EIS and reviewing the noise abatement plan. Leqve said they would be holding an open house for all operators to discuss the EIS. With regard to the noise complaints, Heffelfinger pointed out that five complaints had been received from one resident regarding early morning noise. Joe Smith explained that it is one aircraft with early departure. He suggested that the airport manager write a letter to the operator and ask that they not depart so early. Heffelfinger asked that MAC staff determine who is responsible for the early flights and take appropriate action to FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie May 3, 2000 Page 7 counsel them. He asked that they report back to this Commission at their next meeting as to the status of these early morning flights. Furhmann reviewed the process for calling in noise complaints. Neuman asked if the telephone number to call for noise complaints is a number published locally. Furhmann responded that it is published in the Minneapolis phone book and they would look at publishing it in the Eden Prairie directory under Flying Cloud Airport. Kilian presented a brief update on legislative action. He explained that the definition of minor use airport has been placed in the State statute and taken out of the Met Council Guide Chapter. Any future expansions would take legislative action. This bill did pass in the House and is waiting to be heard in the Senate. Kilian explained that the non- commercial tenants have formed a committee to try to get a tax reduction on hangars. This would affect the City's tax revenue from the airport. This item is in the Omnibus Tax Bill. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.