Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFlying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission - 11/01/2000 APPROVED MINUTES FLYING CLOUD ADVISORY COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2000 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER PRAIRIE ROOM A & B 8080 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Heffelfinger, Jeff Larsen, Gary Schmidt and Joe Smith COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Bauer, Laura Neuman and John Smith MAC REPRESENTATIVES: Roy Furhmann, Joe Harris, Chad Leqve and Mark Ryan FAA REPERSENTATIVE: Glenn Orcutt VISITORS: Loren and Norma Wuttke, 16860 Flying Cloud Drive Mitch Anderson Fred Seymour, City Council Candidate Scott Mace, President of Zero Expansion STAFF: Scott Kipp, Senior Planner Richard Rosow, City Attorney Carol Pelzel, City Recorder CALL TO ORDER Chair Heffelfinger called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as published. II. APPROVAL OF MAY 3,2000, MINUTES AND AUGUST 2, 2000, MEETING NOTES MOTION: Larsen moved, seconded by Smith to approve the May 3, 2000, minutes as published. Motion carried, 4-0. MOTION: Larsen moved, seconded by Smith, to approve the August 2 meetiniz notes as submitted. Motion carried, 4-0. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie November 1, 2000 Page 2 III. DISCUSSION ITEMS Heffelfinger explained that he would like to make adjustments to the order of the agenda and the first item he would like discussed is the 1999 Noise Monitoring Summary. C. 1999 Noise Monitoring Summary Chad Leqve distributed copies of the 1999 Flying Cloud Monitoring Summary along with an executive summary explaining that this document indicates the trend leaning towards heavier use of the south runway which may be a result of resurfacing of the north parallel runway. Leqve explained that a total of 129 jet operations were recorded during the 300 hours of monitoring with Lmax levels between 47.5 dBA and 93.0 dBA. The report also shows that noise standards were not exceeded during the 300 hours of monitoring. Leqve said that helicopters accounted for ten events, ranging from 53.OdBA to 75.0 dBA. A major source of noise impact during the hours monitored was commercial jet aircraft overflight from the Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport. Leqve explained that 1998 summary information compared to 1999 shows an 8.3% decrease in operations during the year with a 3.8% decrease in average operations per hour. Heffelfinger asked how operations compare to 1996 and if this is also a downward trend. Leqve responded that there was a slight downward trend. This information is provided in the summary document in Section 2. Noise monitoring summary graphs and statistics are also included in this document. Kipp pointed out that the hours of monitoring were not consecutive hours. Leqve explained that their current monitoring system is a minimum of two hours for arrivals and two hours for departure operations. This system is explained in the main document. IV. NOISE ABATEMENT/AIRCRAFT INCIDENTS A. Noise Complaints for July and August, 2000 Leqve explained that there were no incidents reported for the months of July and August. He distributed a copy of the map showing the noise complaints for Flying Cloud Airport from July through September, 2000. In July there were three complaints for excessive noise from two complainants. In August there were 22 complaints; 11 for excessive noise; six for early/late and four for low flying. In September they received six complaints; three for early/late and three for excessive noise. Heffelfinger pointed out that there seems to be a significantly higher number of complaints. Loren Wuttke, 16860 Flying Cloud Drive, explained that he did a sampling for three days and called in six complaints on August 6. If he were to monitor all flights in and out, it would be a full-time job. The excessive noise occurs on a daily basis. Wuttke indicated that the FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie November 1, 2000 Page 3 flight path pattern for in and out is directly over his property. Wuttke said he is at this meeting to say that he takes offense that MAC has targeted his property to go in and out and he takes the position that it is his air space and he would appreciate the airport recognizing that and staying out of it. Hefelfinger explained that part of the noise abatement plan for the airport is to encourage aircraft to fly over non-populated areas. Wuttke pointed out that the wildlife area is also in this path and he has a conflict with that. He said he does not believe they need to take the path that they are taking. If they went straight west and continued to gain elevation and altitude than turn they would affect less people. Hefelfinger pointed out that the Fish and Wildlife has been a participant in the evaluation of the proposed changes of Flying Cloud airport and they are concerned about the wildlife. Hefelfinger said he appreciates Wuttke bringing to their attention the impact of the noise abatement plan on him. Hefelfinger said he is concerned with the number of early/late complaints received. One of this Commission's goals is a voluntary plan to avoid traffic prior to 6:00 a.m. Hefelfinger asked if any effort has been made to eliminate these early/late flights. Smith responded that there is one operator that has early departures and they have requested that that operator be contacted. Furhmann explained that initial contact has been made to set up a date to visit with that operator and they will continue to move forward to limit the number of early/late flights. Heffelfinger explained that this Commission does monitor the complaints quarterly and try to track those complaints and bring them to the attention of the operators at the airport. He suggested that if the patterns continue, Wuttke call the airport so that the complaints can be tracked. Heffelfinger further explained that part of the expansion of the airport involves consideration of how this noise abatement plan is working and if it affects more people or fewer people. Heffelfinger said he does not think this Commission feels that expanding the noise abatement plan is in the best interest of the community at large. He said he has not sensed any initiative or momentum to change the noise abatement plan that seems to be well received by the operators. IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS D. Land Acquisition—East Side Safety Zones Heffelfinger reported that a public hearing has been scheduled for November 6 regarding the land acquisition issue. Ryan indicated that this item will be presented before the Planning and Environment Committee and the purpose of the public hearing is to respond to the City of Eden Prairie's request that MAC acquire certain property now. He explained that a development has been proposed on the east side of the Flying Cloud Airport. The proposed development will be split into two phases and the first phase is underway. The second phase is located within a portion of Safety Zone A as FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie November 1, 2000 Page 4 well as a majority of it located in Safety Zone B. Staff is recommending that MAC consider the acquisition of additional properties on the east side of the Flying Cloud Airport to assure adequate runway approach protection. They would like to acquire this property now prior to it being developed. Kipp explained that the safety zones do not currently exist because MAC has not created the necessary zoning authority to regulate them. The City has declined to be part of any zoning authority regarding the safety zones for liability reasons. The developer does have the right to develop this property and the plan has been reviewed and approved. The developer has agreed to set aside the second phase of the development until MAC has considered acquisition. MAC is looking into acquiring the safety zones now so it may be purchased at fair market value. A. Status of Part 161 Study Heffelfinger explained that the Commission members did receive a copy of a letter on Friday dated September 27 from the FAA to MAC which is the FAA's preliminary response to the Part 161 study. Heffelfinger asked for clarification of this letter. Glen Orcutt of the FAA presented a brief background of the letter. He explained that this is one of two letters sent regarding Part 161 and other airport issues. The letter regarding the Part 161 study was FAA's view on the proposed ordinance. MAC is still in the process of preparing the 161 study. FAA chose to provide comments to MAC on their observations of problem areas. MAC has not formally submitted the study to the FAA. FAA's comments are based on what has been submitted for public review and the letter received is not a final determination at this point. One of the issues was the legality of the existing Ordinance 51 and the proposed ordinance under current assurances. One of those assurances is that the airport would be made available for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical activities. Within that context, the study talks about airport noise and capacity used. This is not a Part 161 issue but current assurances of MAC and compliance obligations. In reviewing Part 161, there is a clause which states they must adhere not only to Part 161 requirements but also to other Federal laws. In this case, there is concern with grant compliance. Kipp questioned whether or not the existing Ordinance 51 adopted in 1978 would be grandfathered in. Orcutt responded that the first page of the September 27 letter talks about the Airport Noise and Capacity Act. It does not look at pre-existing laws. The FAA is obligated to look at how the law has changed since the original Ordinance 51 was passed. Court cases have indicated that the types of restrictions in Ordinance 51 are unlawful to have in place today. It is not necessarily a Part 161 issue but a current compliance issue. Orcutt further explained that current assurance items specify that the airport be available for public use. When the original Ordinance 51 was brought FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie November 1, 2000 Page 5 forward, the FAA did look at it at that time and made no comment to MAC. This issue has now come up because of the draft EIS and the proposal to look at Part 161. Heffelfinger questioned the legality of this issue since the FAA has remained silent regarding Ordinance 51 for over 20 years. Also, the September 27 letter refers to many things that are not clear. He asked if the FAA headquarters had solicited information from this region prior to preparing the letter. Orcutt explained that typically, the FAA will respond to complaints. Over the years no one has come forward to challenge Ordinance 51. Orcutt explained that there are also some questions regarding weight limits. The Part 161 process did present more detail regarding operations numbers and Stage II aircraft and, therefore, the EIS will need to reflect that information. There are a few issues that are different in the Part 161 documentation as opposed to the published draft EIS. This letter officially states that there is some new information presented and this information will need to be incorporated into the final EIS. Heffelfinger asked for clarification of the paragraph reading that Ordinance 51 incorporates a weight limit as a limitation on aircraft noise. Orcutt responded that generally, a weight based noise restriction is not possible to do. This weight-based restriction does not have any significant benefit to reduce noise. The FAA is suggesting that one way to come up with some type of rational weight based restriction would be on pavement design rather than saying certain weight limitations reduces noise. The Flying Cloud Airport runway pavement is designed and built to a limit of 30,000 pounds. Scott Mace,representative from Zero Expansion, asked who would certify the weight limit of the runway pavement. Schmidt explained that the 30,000 pounds is for single wheel. Dual wheels result in less of a load on the pavement itself. The load bearing capacity of Flying Cloud is approximately 50,000 pounds. The Airports Commission designs the runway and it is typically designed for their own equipment. Mace asked if the Flying Cloud pavement structure would allow for an aircraft up to 50,000 pounds. Schmidt answered yes and if an operator exceeds that limit, they will try to get to another airport. Mace asked if they are relying on volunteer compliance. Schmidt pointed out that there is certain pavement criteria that has to be met and a consulting firm would certify that. Heffelfinger asked if Flying Cloud prohibits commercial scheduled aircraft. Orcutt responded that this airport is not certified to have that type of operation. Heffelfinger asked what would prohibit Flying Cloud from having this type of service. Orcutt said the sponsor or owner of the airport would decide if that type of activity would be permitted. Schmidt pointed out that it is not MAC's intention to make Flying Cloud a Part 121 airport. Heffelfinger said that may be their intent now but that may change in FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie November 1, 2000 Page 6 the future and he asked how that could be prevented from happening. Schmidt explained that there is certain criteria that must be met such as lighting, separation requirements, etc. These criteria could not be met by Flying Cloud. This is also something that is not shown in the Airport Commission's comprehensive plan and there are also some space issues. Furhmann explained that flexibility of starting a schedule service might prove difficult to implement. If considering passenger service they also need to consider parking facilities, terminal facilities, gates, etc. Also, the ability to provide the necessary acres is nearly impossible because of the land configuration. Mace pointed out that the letter from the FAA refers to revision of Ordinance 51 to prohibit scheduled airline and Part 121 cargo operations at Flying Cloud Airport. He indicated that the draft EIS also refers to scheduled airline and Part 121 cargo not being permitted at the airport and is part of the existing Ordinance 51. Mace pointed out that this predates legislation and is not subject to Part 161 analysis. The FAA letter states one thing while the draft EIS says something else. The FAA letter does not allow restriction of jet operations yet the draft EIS states that Ordinance 51 includes voluntary restrictions. Mace asked what the status of the EIS is. Heffelfinger said this Commission worked long and hard to reach a compromise on the various issues and now it appears that the FAA has some major concerns regarding these issues. With regard to cargo operations, Heffelfinger asked what the FAA is saying regarding those operations. Orcutt responded that the FAA is saying that a law cannot be put in place to prohibit cargo operations. Furhmann pointed out that the square footage for cargo operations is being doubled in Minneapolis. Kipp also pointed out that Flying Cloud cannot restrict cargo operations. They cannot discriminate against someone who is doing a cargo run versus someone who is flying a single- engine plane. Kipp asked if there is any way to separate the existing Ordinance 51 from being reviewed by the FAA. Orcutt responded that the letter submitted is not a final determination, they recognize that there are a lot of issues to be addressed and a lot of work yet to be done to present a proposed plan to expand the airport and to have it accepted by the community. Orcutt explained that the FAA letter identifies some significant problems that need resolution before this project can move forward. Orcutt said the FAA is willing to sit down with all interested parties to discuss the issues presented in the letter. In response to a question from Mace, Orcutt explained that the reason the FAA is looking at Ordinance 51 is because MAC is not proposing to abolish this ordinance but to build on it. Ordinance 51 will remain with modifications. Mace asked if changes were not made to Ordinance 51, would it still be subject to review. Orcutt responded that initially this ordinance was on the books even though it was not in compliance with existing law. No complaints were received from anyone, therefore, there was no prior reason to review it. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie November 1, 2000 Page 7 Heffelfinger said he would like MAC's interpretation of this letter from the FAA and how they see this issue impacting the EIS and Part 161 study. Furhmann said they would like to run the full process of the 161 procedures as identified by the FAA. MAC would be prepared to come back to this Commission to identify what impact this would have on aircraft size, types of airplanes, what other type of aircraft could be accommodated with the existing 50,000 pound weight restriction on dual wheels, etc. They will continue to work with the community to see which direction they should go and what impact the changes would have on the community. Once that is accomplished, they would go back to the EIS and make some modifications. Part 161 is a more in-depth study than required of the EIS and they realize there are some discrepancies in these two documents. Orcutt pointed out that the issues and resolutions discussed will need to be incorporated into the EIS. Schmidt explained that MAC thought they could amend Ordinance 51, however, this may not be possible and they may have to find another way to accomplish what they had set out to do. MAC will also need to determine what their strategy will be for Part 161 and what their options are. Kipp explained that one of the first things that will need to be discussed is the validity of Ordinance 51. They may be talking about a significant revision to the EIS. Furhmann suggested that once all information has been received from 161 and preliminary comments have also been received, they consider looking at a voluntary measure. Ordinance 51 should stand on its own merits. Agreements or benefits with voluntary measure can be affected by the EIS. They need to determine how to address reaching the same goals. Once the Part 161 study is completed they will also need to determine if they are going to submit it. Schmidt pointed out that the FAA will wait for their submittal and in the meantime they will try to pin the FAA down as to what their intentions are. They will need a commitment from the FAA as to what steps they will take and that will dictate the actions of MAC. Heffelfinger asked for an explanation as to why the FAA's letter to MAC dated September 27 was not forwarded to this Commission until October 27 and two days after a public rally had been held on this issue. This letter has a dramatic impact on the Part 161 study. Schmidt explained that the letter came in while he was out of town for two weeks. Also, this letter is not an official response of the FAA. Schmidt said they are attempting to get additional information and they don't have a clear understanding of their options. He indicated that they would like to bring this item back to this Commission for further discussion and to determine what their options are. Schmidt said MAC is not intentionally trying to hide something. Orcutt explained that the FAA did write two letters regarding this subject. Since the public record closed on October 16, the FAA wanted to provide final preliminary comments. The second letter dated October 13 summarized FAA's concerns into three areas. The first point is the inconsistencies in the EIS that need to be addressed. The FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie November 1, 2000 Page 8 second point is the problem with the existing Ordnance 51 and changes to that ordinance. The third and final point is the FAA's concern with the Part 161 process. Mace indicated that at the rally they did ask specifically about the Part 161 study and this would have been an opportunity to mention the FAA's letter. Heffelfinger said the fact that Schmidt was not in town when the letter was received is no reason for not forwarding it to this Commission. The letter was addressed to Ryan. This Commission is as much a part of the FAA process as MAC is. The letter from FAA basically says the ordinance relied on for 22 years does not hold water. This is a hugely significant document for the City. Heffelfinger said he would like to receive a copy of the second letter submitted by the FAA referred to by Orcutt. Heffelfinger said he is very disappointed that this Commission did not receive copies of these letters when they were originally received and he feels the trust level has been deeply harmed by this. MAC had possession of these letters for a month prior to submitting them to this Commission. Heffelfinger asked what the next step would be and pointed out that the next scheduled meeting of this group is February 7. Schmidt responded that MAC would probably need two weeks to identify their options. They need to talk to the FAA and see what can be expected. Schmidt suggested that within a two to three week timeframe this group meet again to identify what course of action they should take. Heffelfinger asked that he be included in further conversations with the FAA. Schmidt said one of the options they could look at is a voluntary compliance program. If this will accomplish what they are trying to do this may be the route they should take. However, they will still need to know what will happen to Ordinance 51. Kipp said the alternative of no Ordinance 51 needs to be explored. Heffelfinger asked Orcutt to ask the FAA not to mess with Ordinance 51. It has been in effect for 22 years and the FAA has asked them to work with the community. Heffelfinger said if necessary, a special meeting of this Commission will be called. He asked that should a special meeting be necessary, the date and time be published on the City's Web site. B. Status of Draft Environmental Impact Statement See Item III A. above. V. OTHER BUSINESS The next regularly scheduled meeting is February 7, 2001, however, a special meeting will be called should MAC request one. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION MINUTES City of Eden Prairie November 1, 2000 Page 9 VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.