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.