Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.b. S.O.A.R. PresentationCITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMKARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MAY 5, 1992 AGENDA ITEM: SOAR PRESENTATION UPDATE AGENDA SECTION: AIRPORT PLANNING, CITY STAFF UPDATE DEPARTMENT HEADS REPORTS PREPARED BY: STEPHAN JILK, CITY ADMINISTRATOR AGENDANEM , ATTACSM MS: TASK FORCE MINUTES, APP SITE SELECTION PROCESS SUMMARY On Tuesday, May 5, there will be two verbal reports regardin the Dual Track Airport Planning Process. Representatives from SOAR will be present to update the City Council on their efforts. The additoinal updates will be presented by the City Administrator in his role as the City's representative to the Technical Task Force working on the Advisory Committee to the Metropolitan Airports Commission to assist in planning the new airport in Dakota County and Lisa Freese as our staff representative to the Dakota County Airport Planning group. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None. I COUNCIL ACTION: DUAL TRACK AIRPORT PLANNING PROCESS SITE SELECTION STUDY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Wednesday, April 8, 1992, 8:00 a.m. MAC General Offices MINUTES Nigel Finney, MAC Deputy Executive Director - Planning and Environment, called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. The following were in attendance: K. Kramer, MPGA; J. Kari, C. Case, Met Council; J. Hohenstein, City of Eagan; B. Aslesen, City of Vermillion; C. Brumbaugh, T. Petersen, FAA-ATCT; T. Hansen, City of Burnsville; G. Downing, EQB; C. Kjos, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; D. Welsch, City of Apple Valley; D. Wise, MN Dept. of Agriculture; J. Tocho, Dakota County; D. Osberg, City of Hastings; D. Swanburg, USAF; R. Huber, G. Orcutt, F. Benson, FAA -ADO; L. McCabe, Mesaba Airlines; D. Tincher, Airline Pilots Association; C. Hewitt, University of Minnesota; C. Swanson, Washington County; K. Gaylord, Northwest Airlines; R. Theisen, MnDot; R. Wooden, DNR; S. Jilk, City of Rosemount; J. Ruud, FAA Center; P. Goodwin, Goodwin Communications; E. Futterman, L. Dallam, G. Aljberg, HNTB; M. Ryan, N. Finney, J. Unruh, MAC Mr. Finney reviewed the 1989 Metropolitan Airport Planning Act which established the Dual Track Process. As part of this process, the Technical Advisory Committee has been created to provide input to, and review work done on, the remaining elements of the Process. These elements include selection of a site for a new airport, preparation of a detailed development plan for the proposed airport, an update of the Long Term Comprehensive Plan for MSP, and preparation of the environmental documentation necessary for either continued development at MSP or development of a new airport in the Dakota Search Area. The Airport Planning Act requires a recommendation by the MAC and the Met Council to the Legislature in 1996; the MAC and the Met Council have been working to expedite the process and it is anticipated that, under an optimistic schedule, work could be completed by the end of 1994 with a recommendation to the Legislature during the 1995 session. Evan Futterman, HNTB, gave a slide presentation on the Dual Track Planning Process for 1992- 1995. The presentation included a review of work completed on the Long Term Comprehensive Plan for MSP, designation of a search area by the Met Council, a proposed schedule for the remainder of the process, and the various issues and concerns that will be addressed for each step of the process prior to a recommendation to the Legislature. Mr. Finney clarified that while the Airport Planning Act requires that the MAC and the Met Council make a recommendation to the Legislature, the final decision will be made by the Legislature. He also stated that the FAA will be conducting an Airport Capacity Design Study for MSP as requested by the State Advisory Council on Metropolitan Airport Planning. This study will focus on the existing airfield and look at development alternatives to expand and SITE SELECTION PROCESS SUMMARY The process of selecting a new airport site from within the Dakota Search Area will be conducted in three steps: 1) site identification, 2) site screening, and 3) site selection. These steps are described following. 1. Site identification—The first step in the process involves identifying potential sites. A set of site identification criteria will be used to delineate areas suitable for the new airport. The airport layout from the Conceptual Design Study will be placed within the suitable areas within the Search Area using some hard and fast identification criteria and a series of other considerations. The sites that are identified will comprise both a general physical boundary and a specific runway layout/orientation. 2. Site screening—The next step consists of screening the potential sites identified from the first step using a list of site screening criteria. The purpose of this screening process is to eliminate the least promising sites. The surviving three or four sites will be called candidate sites. 3. Site selection ---The final step in the process involves evaluating the candidate sites based on a set of site selection criteria and selecting the "best" site. The criteria will be comprehensive in nature, and will address physical geography, airfield/airspace considerations, ground access, utility infrastructure, regional/community impacts, economic impacts, environmental impacts, and cost/financial feasibility. The evaluation of the candidate sites from an environmental perspective will be to a level of detail commensurate with an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This analysis will appear as a chapter in the Federal EIS, and will make up an Alternative Environmental Document (AED) in the State environmental process. Following is a list of factors to be examined during the site selection process. These factors will be developed into specific criteria to identify, screen, and eventually select the best site. Based on technical and public input and physical features in the Search Area, factors will be added or deleted from the list. SITE SELECTION FACTORS FACTORS SITE IDEN- TMCATION SITE SCREENING SITE SELECTION PRELIMINARY COMMENTS PHYSICAL Land requirements d Airport layout must 5t within Search Area. Topography ✓ Conditions generally similar throughout Search Area. Soils ti' Conditions generally similar throughout Search Area. Geology V Depth of bedrock varies throughout Search Area. Hydrology V V Conditions vary throughout Search Area. Meteorological conditions V Conditions generally similar throughout Search Area. Floodplains ✓ %/ V Avoid locating ground facilities within floodways. AIRFIELD/AIRSPACE Operational efficiency V Initial layouts will match CDS Layout. Airspace interaction V Airspace will be restructured regardless of site. GROUND AK;CESS/UTILITY Ground access travel times V MC deemed travel times acceptable within Search Ate&. Disruption of existing roadway system V Infrastructure varies throughout Search Area. Availability of rail access Infrastructure varies throughout Search Area. Availability of utilities V ✓ Infrastructure varies throughout Search Area. REGIONAL/C0MM1JNITY/S0CI0- ECONOMIC Socioeconomic ✓ Impacts generally similar throughout Search Area. Metropolitan area growth impacts V Could vary throughout Search Area. Displaced commercial/industrial employ. V No major commercial/industrial areas in Search Area. Land ownership V Ownership of large areas vs. individual owners. Community social impacts V Includes impacts within and around Search Area. Displaced residential population ✓ V May vary throughout Search Area. Public services ✓ Will be considered during site selection. Institutional factors V Could vary by site. State safety zones V V State Safety Zones will not contain urbanized areas. Revised April 28, 1992 SITE SELECTION FACTORS (I'd) FACTORS SITE MEN- TIFICATION SITE SCREENING SITE SELECTION PRELIMINARY CONDAENTS ENVIRONMENTAL Noise impacts ✓ ✓ ✓ Ldn 65 noise contour will not contain urbanized areas. Section 4(0 land ✓ ✓ V Could vary throughout Search Area. Historical/archeological/cultural ✓ Could vary throughout Search Arca. Biotic communities ✓ ✓ Initial DNR input, Summer 1992; final summer 1993. Wetlands ✓ ✓ ✓ Sites will avoid concentrated areas of wetlands. Wild and scenic rivers ✓ Could vary throughout Search Area. Prime farmland ✓ ✓ Could vary throughout Search Area. Hazardous waste disposal sites ✓ ✓ Could vary throughout Search Area. Water quality ✓ ✓ Could vary throughout Search Area. Air quality ✓ Similar conditions throughout Search Area. Solid waste ✓ Could vary throughout Search Area. Threatened and endangered species ✓ ✓ Could vary throughout Search Area. Light emissions ✓ Similar impacts throughout Search Area. Energy supply/natural resources ✓ Will be considered during site selection. Construction impacts ✓ May vary through Search Area. COST/FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY Land acquisition costs ✓ Costs will be considered during site selection process. Site preparation costs ✓ Costa will be considered during site selection process. Airport facility construction costs ✓ Costs will be considered during site selection process. Utility construction costs ✓ Costs will be considered during site selection process. Relocation costs ✓ Costs will be considered during site selection process. Highway/rail construction costs ✓ Costs will be considered during site selection process. Financial feasibility ✓ Financial analysis will be used during site selection. Revised April 28, 1992 NEW AIRPORT SITE SELECTION. LNVENTORY CHECKLIST ... STUDY INVENTORY ITEM SOURCE DATE AREA BASEMAP REC'D COV'D REGISTER NOTES COMMUNITY DATA— Rs� �Nro 1990 Census Blocks Map Met Council 1/13/92 2 Good Arclnfo Ti Fite 1990 US Census info for GIS Met Council 6 Need d' itized data Cemeteries Local Communities/Courdies 3/92 6 Reagy for county review Community Centers Local Communities 6 County Land Ownership & Plat Maps Counties 2 Current Land Use Met Council akota Co Communities 1/2/92 6 MC 1990 photo ana sts Electric' Source, Dist, Plans Util' Com ies §L92 1 Good Dioitizing in process Fire Service Local Communities/Courrties 6 Governance Map ffownships,Districts Hospitals/Clinics Hudson Maps/Yellow P Communitiunties 3/92 6 Readv for county review Land values Counties 2 Museums Local Communities Court 6 Natural Gas Source Dist Plans Utility Companies 392 1 Good D' itizin .in process Places of Worship Hudson Ma ellow P mmunities Counties 6 DWG File From Pipelines Utility Companies 92 6 Police Service Local Commun' ' Courdiies 6 Prime farmland Counties/Soii Cons. Svc 1 Public Transportation Local Communities Counties Schools Private Hudson Mas ellow P munities/Counties Good I review Ready for Sount Schools Public Feld Work/Met Council/Courtttes 2/92 2 Good Ready for county review Stormwater rains a Channels Counties Wastewater Collection stems Met Council 1 Wastewater Plans Met Council 1 Wastewater Treatment Facilities Met Council 1 Water and Sewer Ma Met Council Communities 1 Water Supply Distribution Systems Communities 1 Water Supply Physical Plant Communities 1 Water Supply Plans Communities 1 Water Supply Sources Communities 1 MAPS & SURVEY DATA— Aerial Photos 1990 Met Councillfrech Reproductions 12/2M1 Unregistered 4 lays Current Land Covera(39 Maps Met Council 6 Good EPPLE'i Detailed Street Map With Names MnDOT 1/21/92 6 Good DGN File— for exhibits only Ma'or Roads & Highway stem Met Council 1 1 Unregistered 4 DXF File Mas & Dev Plans for Region Local Communities Coun ies 6 Tiger Street Maps, Corrected to MN/DOT Met Council 1/9L9? 2 Good Arclnfo Tiger File USGS To o Ma 1:24 000 Scale MAC IZ16191 1 Good 3 DWG Fite Hard Copy Zoning Mas Local Communities/Counties 6 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS— Flood Hazard Boundary Maps DNR/HNTB Pre -90 1 Good Digitized from paper mps Flood Insurance Rate Maps DNBMNTB Pre -90 1 Good Digitized from 2sper maos Flood Plain Location Met Council FEMA 1 1 Poor 5 Wdl not use Geologic Data Minnesota Geologic Survey 2/92 2 Good Not digitized Underground Hydrol2gical Data Minnesota Geologic Survey 92 2 Good Not digitized Meteorological/Clin-atojoaical Information National Weather Service CC 1 Soils Mas Dakota County Tall Structures Field work OAA 4 6 Good Di itized NOAA data Well Records LMIC 4/92 1 Arc Info file SURFACE ACCESS & TRAFFIC— Current Traffic Counts MnDOT Counties Forecasts of Future Traffic Met Council/MnDOT/Counties Future Ground Trans Imp Plans Met Council nDOT Counties Railroad Route & Traffic Information MnDOT/Raikonds ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS— Air Quality Data Met Council/PCA/EPA 6 Biotic Communities Flora & Fauna USFWS NR DXF File Ob Met Endangered & Threatened Species USFWS N Audubon Soc 6 Hist Architectural & Cultural Resources SHPO/Cn Hist/Museum/Aced Inst/Fed/St Park & Recreational Areas MetCouncit Local Communhies Counties On— of 1 Unregistered 4 DXF File Section 4F Lands MnDOT t Park Service Counrties Cities 6 Solid & Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites EPA/PCA/Coun 1/2/92 6 Fair Ob DXF Met Council Water Quality Data Met Council N PC EP SGS Wetlands Nat Wdnd Inv LMI SFWS 3192 2 Good Arc info and DXF file Wild and Scenic Rivers MetCouncil/USDA/FS/Nat Park SeryNR 1 Have DNR data AIRPORTS & AIRSPACE— Exist & Pro Ak Trfe Rts &Flows FAA ARTCC 6 tstin Airpgrk in Region MN §AqP NOTES: (T) Search Area Only 2 Search Area & Dakota Co. Source: HNTB Rev. 4/28/92 , (3) Matches USGS Hard Copy flay (4) Not Checked Against USES Hard Copy (S) Does Not Match USGS Hard Copy Overlay (6) Search Area and Environs .- Metropolitan AirCommission SOAR Stop Our Airport Relocation P.O. Box 82, Rosemount, MN 55068 (612) 891-9241 Wendy W. Wustenberg President 20820 Ahern Blvd Farmington, MN 55024 (612) 460-8340 RESOT U'I'iON- DAKOTA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS The undersigned Dakota County Commissioners hereby state that although we support Dakota County's continued efforts toward cooperative planning and constructive decision-making in accordance with other entities involved in the Dual Track Airport Planning Process, and concur that all residents benefit from the County continuing its monitoring role through the conclusion of the process, we are personally opposed to relocating the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport to Dakota County. Joseph A. Harris, District 1 Donald J. Maher, District 2 Donald R. Chapdelaine, District 3 and Chair Steven G. Loeding, District 4 Michael E. Turner, District 5 Signed Tuesday May 5, 1992 before the regularly scheduled County Board Meeting at Hastings, Minnesota.