The URL can be used to link to this page

89-1420 I 1 '4 f,. . _ �' ,/'��A`� �l� '-�Y V` '� - -- - . .. . .__. _. ..__. _. .. . . --- I ... _ � - -- �t---- - �---- __. _-- -- -___ . . . wHiTe - cirr CLERK I COII[1C11 'L PINK - FINANCE GITY OF AINT PAUL �C�_ /7a7� CANARV - DEPARTMENT BI.UE - MAVOR File NO• - • ounc l e oluti n � ` � �q� Presented By � Referred To itt . e Out of Committee By Date RESOLUTION COMM NT NG ON THE TWIN CITIES REGIONAL HELI�O T FEASIBILITY STUDY WHEREAS , the Metropoli'ta Council has requested the City of Saint Paul to consider an comment upon the Council ' s Twin Cities Regional Heliport Fea$ib ' lity Study; and WHEREAS , this Study re ommends feasibility and master plan studies be done for a p blic helistop in a downtown Saint Paul search area and proposel m del zoning ordinances ; and WHEREAS , the Saint Pa 1 Planning Commission after review of the Study and a staff �r port and after hearing testimony at public meetings made d ta led findings and specific recom- mendations as set forth ir� ' ts Resolution, File Number 88-36 adop�ed May 12 , 1989 ; and WHER�AS , contrary to 'fi ding number 8 , second paragraph of Resolution 88-36 , the �i y of Saint Paul owns fee title �to Saint Paul Downtown Ai po t subject to the rights of use and control visited in tl�ie Metropolitan �irports Commission by Minnesota Statutes § 47'3. 21 , Subd. 2 , and the pro�rietory powers and rights exclusion o the Federal Aviation Ac� (Section 1305(b) ( 1 ) , Title 49 U.S.C . ) extends to "owners or operators of an airport" ; and WHEREAS , upon recommer�da ion of its Housing and Economic Development Committee, and� ter consideration of the Study and Planning Commission fin in s and recommendations , the Council of the City of Saint Pau� ishes to adopt the findings and recommendations of the Sa�n Paul Planning Commission; now, therefore, be it COUNCIL MEMBERS �' Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays �'/-�'� Dimond I �ng In Favbr Goswitz Rettman B �eQ1�� A gai n s t Y Sonnen ' Wilson Form Approve by City Attorn Adopted by Council: Date /� Certified Passed by Council Secretary ' BY ,L� By Approved by lflavor: Date _ Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By _ gY WH17E - GTV CLERK PINK - FINANCE G I TY O A I NT PA U L Council CANARV - DEPARTMENT BLUE - MAVOR �, FIIC NO. � � / �� Counc 'l Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By ' Date RESOLVED , that except as hereinbefore recited, respecting . finding number 8 , the Counc ' 1 dopts the findings of the Planning Commission and adopts and en orses the recommendations of the Commission respecting desi na ion of a heliport or helistop in Saint Paul , revision of 'th proposed model zoning ordinances , inclusion of citizen members of Saint Paul neighborhoods with citizens from other cities n the Metropolitan Council committee revising the model ordinan e and inclusion of citizens from neighborhoods which will e affected by aircraft noise from Saint Paul Downtown Airpo t in the process of updating the Metropolitan Airports Comm' s ion' s master plan for powntown Airport ; and, be it ' FURTHER RESOLVED, thatl he Deputy Director of Planning, Department of Planning and E onomic Development, be authorized to forward this resolutio o the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Airports Commis io . 2. COUNCIL MEMBERS � �,q Yeas Nays �'%�7—� / Requested by Department of: Dimond �ng [n Favo� Goswitz s�he be� _ Against�I BY Sonnen Wilson Form Approved by City Ajtorne Adopted by Council: Date / �� 6 Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY sy t#pproved by IVlavor: Date _ Approve by Mayor for Submission to Council BY — — BY • � C��—/�.?d DEPARTMENTlOFFICE/COUNqI ; DATE INITI TED City Council sio2i 9 GREEN SHEET No. 5 3 5 2� CONTACT PER80N 6 PNONE DEPAR7LAENT DIRECTOR �CITY COUNCIL Karen Swenson 5087 N�M� orrv��ey �CITY CLERK MUST BE ON COUNqL AOENDA BY(DAT� AOUTINO BUDOET pRECTOR �FIN.a MaT.SERVICEB DIR. MAYOR(OR AS818TMIT) � TOTAL M OF SIGNATURE PAGE8 (CLIP AL L ATIONS FOR 81GNATUR� ACTION REQUESTED: Approval with amendment of Planning C mm ssion comments on Metropolitan Council heliport study a d lan amendment. REOOMMENDATIONS:Approvs(Iq a Rejsct(Fq COUNCIL CO ITTEE/RESEARCH REPORT OPTIONAL _PLANNII�COMMIS810N —dVIL SERVICE OOMMIS810N ��YST PNONE NO. _q8 COMMITTEE _ COMMEN : _STAFF _ _DIBTRICT OOURT _ 3UPPORTS WHICH COUNpL OB.IECTIVE7 INITVITIN(i PF�BLEM.ISSUE.OPPORTUNITY(Who.What�When�Where�Wh»: Opportunity to present City position t pcoming public hearing and with Met Council staff. ADVANTAOES IF APPROVED: Possibility that Saint Paul Downtown ir ort or downtown Saint Paul would not be designated as public hel po t. DISADVANTAOES IF APPROVED: None DI8ADVANTAOE8 IF NOT APPROVED: No official City position. TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION l'AST/REVENUE BUDOETED(CIRCIE ON� YES NO FUNDIN(i SOURCE ACTMTY NUMBER FlN/WCIAL INFORMAT�N:(IXPWM Not Applicable. • . 0 NOTE: COMPLETE DIRECTIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE GREEN SHEET IN3TRUCTIONAL MANUAL AVAILABLE IN THE PURCHASING OFFICE(PHONE NO.29&4225). ROUTING ORDER: Below are preferred routings for the five most frequent types of dxumeMs: CONTRACTS (assumes authorized COUNGL RESOLUTION (Amend, Bdgts./ budget exists) Axept. Grants) 1. Outside A�ncy 1. Department Director 2. Initiating Department 2. Budget Director 3. Ciry Attomey 3. Ciry Attomey 4. Mayor 4. MayodAssistant 5. Finance&Mgmt Svcs. Director 5. City Council 6. Finance AxouMing 6. Chief AccountaM, Fn 8�Mgmt Svcs. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER (Budget COUNCIL RESOLUTION (all others) Revision) and ORDINANCE 1. Activiry Manager 1. Initiating Department Director 2. Department Arxountant 2. City Attomey 3. DepartmeM Director 3. Mayor//lssistant 4. Budget Director 4. City Council 5. City Clerk 6. Chief Axountant, F1n&Mgmt Svcs. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS (ali others) 1. Initiating DepaRment 2. Ciry Attorney 3. Mayor/Assistant 4. Ciry qerk TOTAL NUMBER OF SIC3NATURE PA(�ES Indicate the#�of pages on which signatures are required and�erclie each of theae pagea. ACTION REOUESTED Describe what the project/request seeks to accompifsh in either chronologi- cal oMer or order of importance,whichever is most appropriate for the issue. Do not write complete sentences. Begin each item in your list wkh a verb. RECOMMENDATIONS CompletA if the isBae in question has been presented before any body, public or prnrate. SUP,PORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVEI Indu:ate which Council objective(s)your project/request supports by listing the key Mrord(s)(HOUSING, RECREATION,NEIGHBORHOODS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BUDGET, SEWER SEPARATION).(SEE COMPLETE LIST IN INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL.) COUNCIL COMMITTEE/RESEARCH REPORT-OPTIONAI AS REQUESTED BY COUNCIL INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE,OPPORTUNITY Explain the situallon or conditions that created a need for your project or request. ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED Indicate whether this is simply an annual budget prxedure required by law/ charter or whether there are specffic wa a in which the City of Saint Paul and its citizens will benefit from this pro�ect/action. DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED What negative effects or major changes to existing or past processes might this projecUrequest produce if it is passed (e.g.,traffic delays, noiae, tax increases or assessments)?To Whom?When? For how Iqng? DISADVANTA(3ES IF NOT APPROVED What will be the negative consequences if the promised action is not approved?Inability to deliver servicel Continued high traffic, nase, accideM rate? Loss of revenue? FINANCIAL IMPACT Although you must tailor the information you provide here to the issue you are�dressing, in general you must answer two questions: How much is it going to costT Who is going to pay? � � � Members: � I � /�� , Bill Wiison, chair � Tom Dimond �� I� CITY OF 'S INT PAUL Kiki Sonnen fJ� OFFICE OF TH CITY COIINCIL' �/� Date: August 2, 1989 l Commit ee Report RECEIVED WILLIAM L. W(LSON MARK VOERDING Councilman nUG` O 4 1989 Legislative Aide n To: Saint Paui City Council ciTY c�ERK From : Housing and Econo ic Deveiopment Committee � Bill Wilson, Chair SECOND COI�IMI. EE REPORT Meeting Held 7/26/89 �I. Letter of the Mayor submittin,g P anizing Cammission recommendations � te the Metropolitan Council and oning amendments on Heliport Zoning Study (as indicated on July 26, 19�39, ommittee P,eport: "A second committee report wil be prepared once the City Attorney has completed work on a resol tion to reflect committee and Planning Commission actions") THE PREPARED AND SIGNED RESOI.UT ON, WITH GREEN SHEET ATTACHED, IS SUBMITTED WITH THIS SECONA C MMITT�;E REPORT � d -��, �..r.t�-.�� ' `' �5d �- /;',r�r� � ��_� �- • � �� 3- �Xf i}}.;�--�=`-� � � �. � �.� �.G..� �'�� CITY HALL SEVENTH FLOOR SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 612/298-4646 s�,6 . � � . i 1( �i.-- ` r,,;; '„-} � , �� ' {/�, � � CITY Qb` ►' iNT YAUL ., iiii�E Id�li OFFICF OF TFi CITY COUNCIL JAMES SCHEIBEL. ' RECEIVED Council President I � �uG 2119a9 � ClTY CI.ERK August 17, 1989 Mr. Steve Keefe, Chairman ' Metropolitan Council , Mears Park Center � 230 East Fifth Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Dear Mr. / , The City Council of Saint Paul herewit transmits to the Metropolitan Council the Saint Paul Planning Commission'si f' dings and recommendations on your Twin Cities Regional Heliport Feasibility S udy. The Planning Commission made these recommendations after reviewing he Study and a staff report and after hearing testimony at public meetings. The City Council is presently consic�er ng the Planning Commission's recommendations but as yet has take�n n final action to adopt them. In the meantime, howe�er, the City Councilire uests that these important recommendations be considered by th� M tropolitan Council in their deliberations on the Study. Since ely, ; • i I J s Scheibel Council President , JS:rm ' � CITY HALL SEVENTH FLOUR , SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 612/298-5679 .�t.48 __. ,. _ _ . � �;^ �=� � - � �- / U cit of saint aul I Y p planning commission reso�u ion file number 89—36 � �te May 12, 1989 i � WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commi;ss'on has considered the Metropolitan Council's Twin Cities Regional Helipoxt easibility Study; and WHEREAS, the Study recommends feasibillit and master plan studies be done for a public helistop in a downtown Saint P�ul search area and proposes model zoning ordinances; and � WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, bas�d pon the Study, public meetings, and a staff report, made the following findings o$ f ct: Re�ulation i 1. The City "is preempted by the Cdns itution and federal legislation from enacting local regulations pert�in ng to number of helicopter operations at a heliport, types of helicopters i�ha may take off or land there, flight paths to or from heliports, altitude �es rictions around heliports and noise levels around heliports." (City attorney opinion of September 22, 1988. ) 2. There is an exception to the pr�em tion ruling in 1. above . Cities which own and operate airports "may adoptire ulations governing such matters as noise, length of landing strips, and type of aircraft that may use the airport." (City attorney opinion of Septembe 22, 1988.) � � , 3. The City through zoning may "regul te the location and site design standards of heliports so long as the reg}�la ions are not inconsistent with either federal or state laws or regulatio s. The local zoning regulations may provide that a heliport is a cohdi ional use and subject to general and special conditions imposed by the oning Code provisions and the Planning Commission acting pursuant to t�os provisions." (City Attorney opinion of September 22, 1988.) , 4. The Minnesota Pollution Controll A ncy has testified that their noise rules, Chapter 7010, require a city ta, t e all reasonable measures to prevent establishment of land uses, suc�h heliports, which would immediately be in violation of State noise standa;rd . rco tinued) i i moved by Zieman � seconded by Morton � in favor (Unanimous) ; against- � � 5. i1AC has developed and adopted a noise abatement/operations plan for the Downtown Airport and the FAA also has approved it. The plan identifies noise sensitive areas; designates preferred runway use, arrival-departure routes, minimum altitudes, and flight tracks; and limits ground tests of aircraft engines. However, this is an operations plan and not a re�ulation. As the plan states: "The final determination for the safe operation of the aircraft rests with the pilot, therefore compliance with noise control measures is largely voluntary, and the MAC relies on the cooperation of aircraft owners and operators and the FAA control tower for the plan's success. In addition, weather and air traffic conditions sometimes make it unsafe to use noise abatement procedures; and certain types of aircraft may be unable to fly safely at the suggested minimum altitudes or using recommended flight paths." 6. Similar operations plans could be drawn up by the operators of all new heliports and approved by the FAA. 7. On the request of the Neighborhood Committee, Planning staff spoke to Frank Trainer of Congressman Oberstar's staff about FAA and city regulation of heliports. He suggested speaking to Los Angeles airport personnel because he understood the City of Los Angeles regulated and enforced flight paths, altitudes, and other helicopter activities at the airport. 8. Staff spoke to Los Angeles Airport operations staff. He said that the city owns the airport. As owner of the airport, they enter into an agreement with each helicopter operator at the airport. The operators must agree to abide by the minimum altitudes, flight paths, and low noise takeoff and land�ng procedures in order to locate at the airport. Operators who do not follow the agreement can be ejected from the airport. (The FAA approves the safety of �hese operator agreements. ) The City of Los Angeles adopts and enforces these "regulations" by virtue of owning the airport, not b� zoning regulations. Regulating its own airport is consistent with finding 2. Consequently, Saint Paul cannot regulate helicopter activities through operators agreements at Downtown Airport or at private heliports because it does not own the facilities. (It can, however, regulate heliports through zoning as set forth in findings 3 and 4. ) (continued) , i � � 9. People testified at the public �ee ing that making complaints about low flying helicopters is difficult because t e FAA wants to know the helicopters identifying nwnber which may be im ossible to see. People also testified that they do not know where to complain Existin� Heliports ' 10. There are helistops for emergen¢y edical services now at Saint Paul Ramsey and United Hospitals. , 11. Since Downtown Airport is a ub ic airport where helicopters are allowed to take-off and land and helicopte o erators are allowed to locate their maintenance and storage facilit'tes there, it technically is a public heliport even though it is not designated a a public heliport. 12. Operations at Downtown Airport py elicopters not based at Downtown Airport have been insignificant. 13. In 1988, there was an average o� 2 operations at Downtown Airport between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. , almost all of �ahi h were airplanes. The biggest proportion of the flights were airplanes t�ra porting checks to Federal Reserve banks. 14. The tower at Downtown Airport i�s c osed between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. because there are not enough flights to r ain open. 15. The master plan for powntown Ai�rp t is currently being updated and should be completed in spring of 1990. The etro Council's proposal for a public heliport at the airport will be, s died as part of the update. Military Helicopters � 16. The National Guard and Army Rese es have 61 helicopters based at the Downtown Airport and they performed about 1,000 operations in 1987. 17. The military helicopter operation have been a noise problem to the adjoining Dayton's Bluff and West Side resi ential neighborhoods for many years. �(co tinued) ; � � I 18. In 1989, the National Guard has 86 full time employees, the Army Reserve 35. In 1989, the National Guard has 35 helicopters, the Army Reserve 28. 19. The National Guard expects the number of their aircraft to decrease in the future due to budget cutbacks, and the Army Reserve expects the number of their aircraft to remain the same. 20. Both the Guard and Reserve have imposed voluntary curfews on flights between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 21. Most of the traffic pattern wark (repetitive training operations) of both the Guard and Reserve helicopter is done sway from Downtown Airport at other airports or training areas. 22. The City Council has wanted to establish a strategy to relocate the military helicopters outside of Saint Paul. Metro Council Re,gional Heliport Studv 23. The Met Council study forecasts a modest growth in privately based (non-military) helicopter activity at about a 2.3$ annual rate for the region. By the year 2008, privately based helicopters could increase to 29, compared Lo the 21 privately based helicopters now in the region. 24. The Met Council study proposes that feasibility and master plan studies be done for a public helistop in a downtown Saint Paul search area, the facility to be at either at Downtown Airport or the downtown business area. 25. The Met Council study gives an intermediat2 priority (b to 10 years) to the Saint Paul helistop for planning, design, and construction since there are helicopter landing and basing facilities now at Downtown Airport. 26. Since the Downtown Airport now is technically a public heliport, establishing a public heliport in the downtown business area would mean there would be two public helicopter facilities in the downtown area, a public heliport at Downtown Airport and a public helistop in the downtown business area. (continued) ..._ , . i i i � 27. The Downtown Airport is very close to the downtown business area (about 1-1/2 miles) and can adequately serve �bu iness users there. 28. Several people testified that tMe owntown Airport should not be designated as a public heliport because this cou d induce helicopter traffic. However, designation of the Downtown Airpor as a public heliport will not induce people to buy helicopters and s�ar using the airport. Helicopter activity could increase there because helic pter activity increases and there is no other heliport to locate at -- Whe her it is designated or not will not make the difference. 29. The two model zoning ordinances wh ch the Met Council proposes are inadequate to guide heliport regulation inith region. 30. Emergency medical service helistop at hospitals provide valuable public services. � NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Pla ning Commission, that since the Saint Paul Downtown Airport already accommodates, th functions of a public heliport, designating it as a public heliport or listop would be superfluous. Helicopter traffic is forecast to increase only tno rately in the region during the next 20 years, and if any small changes to th� 'rport are required, they can be done as the need arises. Furthermore, since the 'ai ort is only one and one-half miles from the downtown business area and can adequa�te serve the businesses there, no search area for a public heliport or helistop needs o be designated in Saint Paul. NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,I t t the proposed model zoning ordinances in the Metropolitan Council's Study be rev'sed, giving greater regard to land use relationships between heliports and qth r land uses and recommending only regulations which cities have the autho ity to adopt and that citizen members from Saint Paul neighborhoods, as well aslci izens from other cities, should be members of the committee revising the model ard'nances; and I BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Metr�op litan Airports Cossission should include citizens from neighborhoods who will be affected by aircraft noise from Saint Paul Downtown Airport in the process of upda ing the airport's master plan; and '�co tinued) y i �I i r qt� `4 � �'�t R'n �J.,4 �"�'4'�':�. hb �,� 3�"�S g 'Z',iy - �q'zFY w t•� t�v`s ;+` �,�-�°-e e,a.r ��w., c r s;i�,,rg�y x � ° i y 7��z "t_* :' r t aye �t^wµ'�. . :� �c � � i tfi. 7 + ,"�"g ��.. � _ i � H r; ��k"C r�nit �- ) � � a y. r wly�4�}y _.:. 5i r'� .p ��'^,y S�^ r � s �L� � :'�1 �r( � �`�;'�T {��f��S t � ' {� a� '�w�''�r. , -:ndy t �� +,.:. �'C Tr 7'i A�.d i t ,4( : fl �� S � .�t �x d M1 f �'� i sr�s V' ��{ � �{ 1 *'1;9- x +` ��r' '§..��g � � ,'� �� '� `' xt s �s�l }'�' > `� „�, t 4 -; ,�� 3,A,` �' _{ � � `�`�*.� 5"F ��' �_" � w �' ''? xw�' F .�. r t 8 4 �4.r s�r,r�,�' y, ;' �� 1�y 3?t a l� gi�P� � 'F'4£'<�-g Fr� i; t � #� �a ,<� �� a � + : � 4 -. a.c' �' "e c `i� s r . �"i 1 .� � t 'G � y,x xIr"y z 0.{h + } � :S � .4 7�w ��'� s r P �' � t �� ~i ;�. r � x - � � r � � �e � � F s �h � f�. � �T�''�' �z � 'i�n ar ,`A,�'� �: � .� x; � x a;a�,� � i§ � k:t � *,� .G� > �.� �� F.� +�y 3�`.� �W� �',�� , :r"�'t '{ �i`�'� �:.t� �"`�'9�r", r� � {'Y: ,��u ..;��s,'7�}.,.. ,t _ ��'L ww at�F �.4i �d r'x�`��,� tvE'"�; �f«s}�,d P r, ,��,fi,�1 r f.� � .�t ��i s�t++�`t'�o h � '.#�, x�,,g„� �.�.y,�'F '�.v�, z .. _ '�' "�'� �.: � .4 }s�.: ^"'fl �l... �3 �„ �, r ..'z^. a ;eara3 r b�:d iE ��; �3#rF� �u �t-� z,� b � Y ty,x4- m > �d� � � dz.+ �., ...�,�`^ � . "� �+: . � ��. �:a y �r r� s ^y a _ sY n tl+:� ic � ��, }4r �'bY��„a'4'7�' "t't�11z�*n't"�� t :i � �'pyn 4�. : �. � �.,:r� � t n�.' �, t� G , '� :.'�`�wf. : *� a : ! �r� 'y "��"'�,. t'�� ;Y i n � f,rK � 3i n. .r,�•�ya p1�Ff � �{7� ��1 t�k�'�, a.�� I'v ' � 1 � d` r . a �-. ,t �.G ,.r.�hk�:� g� � ,.M _. # h S . ,""�� ,74( 'y�}"' { 3 ��.�7 t4t � � �� rt 3 �. -� F c�, r t cut cg,u� ra ! t fy. ' g�t ��.,i`• �t { �"kY�.'�""; �'�x.N„�„T��s� ��x' `f *G� ` �, :�M'¢��7� �V �1 � s� < s E� �'' ��'`�i�. �� 'k,.� d r r§, � . `+F 3 p�. ; { � "y�t�'t� a�t'J 3" - y �,_;:4��$ f '�� '1 v °r� �b° 1 �s' ..�. a C< � .��+ .,"4�^ � r �� ,�� A 3 . i y�' � �, y�r: a�{�� •; � �,� .�.y� . ��, ,,�tft�� z,e,.�,.�.�y� { + x , ' i 2 w ° u ' t�t�'' ��"�-� r . ,.a �" .,��wA.'+r •..,�� '��, m.0 s� �+«w"` "'4�w' �.v��``�{�� t., '� s�,.rr.�r.x�,� rkk4°� r:�` ,� �aa , .� :'. � � '"�4Ai i a+a��}•gxt�Y��° �*,��'': ^G i'. `+�';� ,�.w c°1.�� ''� �� Y�,'Sk� '� ys �e �` r� � '�`;dJ.,,�'ag?'�,�'.,>t ,` 4 4,�,ir� � -,i ; ��, �.e ti� ,�.' .� � r',w`+ y - t , �, � `�k �'�:� 'k�u�� '� ` �F. r# ' '� r y.: � �f � y, s .:. e'�t �.F„ai. 9,�1 j.�'� y z~ �: r .�'� j ��. 3j €� t, j �,. �5 X . s � ,�`l,v°� R rt�.1�'�E y r s { �. � t � ;� � d<• "s s T� h ti��' a.� y,- i � � '„ t� �"�M1m�y�� .�� rf � L t �'S' ��,�� 4 „ S ��,�. } R 1� �r� �'Y#cf ` � y� �'y'�y� 4x;;�� = � r � '� A z '�4 � � ,, : t ti �� R a�t ��. .� ,y �'3�"� '}� b F �. � e � � 'x'� � r�. t b,a.�F �t- . e �. f ; �� i":r � y 7q R � � � y ,�, ;;. t �x I y . ^� � .�,� 4 1 Xr:. �, .. . eA$�T r + .+�.�. 2 -F �jr � �, - �. � c 3 �`t�` ¢ �� t§ .:,t �t y� ;4 �,:e+i� �- d�� . � Ma:�. � ; 7 �,� � � �., g �.� �a • f ,(� �ty, ,� n � ( � sy, h .r�, { �. -� � z ,. ,, � f y{ T! ., 7 � r ! Sb d \ J" �`�i � �t. 4 ;�3 �� A �T a� �' ;_ �� Y� �� pµ�s � v➢ .°� t �� tT� 'k5�� ;� k�:`'4,� �� :�.. y. 'jt�. "'��x i �}ry ';�# � F.� a,� r i �: ,. � .� � , 4tL.. y 7 �;, .�S .i�'�r ,t 3%<t 'A�'i. �/ � t . � rl"�'i��y �- ` r r,k ::'� � � $ .r ..� r f4 t.i 7 t- x �� F �r. k �p..�a�` (a� n (* ,sc ;� �j.f ,�r,k,Y �x �+ y ?'�' y��.�v�yr; � �� Z a:* : t '�� P a,�r ,� ° a'� a: y-rr ti� "`t� . � yx:r � �r , � ,r S'a� �q.;'�• � '. g > , � i ,� e r ., a Ps - p'�� ni �'� �� .2�.'.2'� 3, ',t 4`: ,t 'u �� k� ;:C �" r'� '�f :' � � }�.'�y�x-� .Y sy �`� - t ��`,�^.'�� a�s �` }' �� .''5�.�,iax �'�.�� ' r#� ��.�' 9s'd'� �f x� � e<� r r � r ,r § ; h��,��.,.. � �.xi S��^v4t��M � �y �`1 �'° � r�S f r 4:-.,y'� 'Y��"��`R��'✓ �� y�, �` y �.•y6 +r �.�>F� ,+f� L � +'z; k�'" } � �-� ��a��'� 7 , d �e�; 4��;± i �.J � � �� 7.� a �� y� '��x�'V �- " �Y+'.� Y _�� r :S �e r' ' �y`, ys.Y'C++,' r ,tz ��r 64 I' '� .n �.+ d� k ,r f � �� r,, �' �.� j{ � f� � h�ks� A ��$ a � ��"' .,�-��''�� ►"S- i � �'��.��a. 4 �,�h x�� °� i. E t�r r"� �� ':t � � �� , �1ii1i�� ,�'�- t' v �� .,�? �r�'� �,t K �'�. �,. -e. , - � n� � 4� .�,� i. 'k�� `;:.5^I �; �`�� YN~� �fbhY�� } `�a? ' , e � 4�l �:v� �'2� . , s�,K ,�� ak'a; ��'F".�9 i a r-i w�� f�� ,+ s�� 3 Pi ``y � $q i��` � s� - f 1i�� b i ,A . ' 4 � �� r�.g`�, y ^`' ( �t , r^r,rH �4i �` ��y�'�� r�,a r r' `� �!' ��'�a� �' i i,��-- , � .2�a- � ��-�� ,? � a� �. ° ` �a "� �kr -� Yt� r � it� � r � � ; --�s � � k�� 'i5�ps,�,�'+.- �.yl��C �; i, k a�� r i '�..�`��+�'. �� Jd�n, x s� � /i'3 �� # � � � � ��''.6 � [ � k �� 5+7bN � � � v '"�, �_,7 ; t-.4 �� *fA��7't��`T `� � a �se. G �"fir�y � id S:, "ti'' � 4 i,�;2; ' � a s �� f 4 � � e �, �,� � r3 ,` i > �. '( t � i �� r i 1 �r.tv� �"�''� � � � � q� a ' � �S �, �� ' � � �� y ? �� i . 4.. .+s„ i t� k�" ::��9 '�.' � _. �� 1�, f ` �i r�x 5.r. i :.' ti . .:. .��` .; �} .�.... _ �' t .5 �' y l�n�?�i'" �'�'M�"�a; - .. , - .,,. +� �,:�:� �. * � . : ' ._ :'� ' '�� r , - � � 7 �° rv_ ✓`}: , #� .;� ,� ��i��, �s,��!�'�.; .t. ,�#: �: .s�r * � r r, } �,�c�S�� 5' ` �� - i �.� � � � ��4 m�.. � � 1' r�c��1 7 �{'� � ''E. ! � _' _t '� � � a!Y � 4. � .,� ��,k i } "'�. Y G ,:! � 'y . r �� . �t1 � � �� rF,� !4"� a -�� t '�i 5 ,y� t'7' c (� F 7�. 1 £j �r ! -:�� r.,� .Y �y"--'-:r a � r'''��. } r "' C Y'c+� .� zi> `k. 7 :-�l � :�'r n�, r ..i � �l d . � ` x 4 i �Ei •� d r . �, .�'�` �"6, ' `z µ ��.�..�'A t�a�� e T_' �a i ,��. � � yv�,. r � :.t i r ,i � '�-7 ,, t - � �r t ,"�`; a ,, c � � � �;�,.�t��„" t,. �.,r �k�i, * .� �4 + r � z t 'ts � e ,� �r � t x � �.� d `�'� t `t7"'�5!?' g . t 1 ,� X x� �: t�' ,�e' '�Y �S'�o. � � rY+ � ,��, ,� �,yF�'"f,.. .. ��n��'fir xa r§'.y,-5* e �q r � .e E _�� ,�� 't � k r-'.y r s"�""�� t ,� g 9 � �„ih'�`3 x b ,: �y" t t°'�i,',u5.k o� '+'�� ,h'tk��r�',� r :,�i � -i k �;�.., k\ �� .+,r�,. �.� � r}''K`T > yH �.., 1� � !7:: ��{ !x' 4' ✓��. { � ,� �. � �L`�� 'i 1 ! t �� a�'�yrd' . �' t�ax4a ! r�r�,�-t _ "�i".�4 1�� Sc�i�� , � xgvx.+... .� �� ..f�.'�? ..rna K�f f '�� r�.�� t 1 �: +' ° :� �r �" :s �� t '� � �r K �� 1 t,.- ra h a ''#t in.� �r�n`�` .,,� f . { P , •kta o,� �`i � �'4 P x `i r�� ' a{��"`z," �.�.� "s i asf �'�,"'t�, . �H '� �,-c��';�-.�h�'i i �� S� j A4 �+,,,',�'4 k��., ^i�+� 7�'°� n., wi.�^s'� ,- � �1 �d i�;� � ,�� ;C a:� ��+i� r ti�'`s� � #��M*'�! �� `h _: � 1" w ' �(�� y� �r h��}f��faf �� r� '�� .y i{ � i . 4 �'.„, ° `{ �, � v :a : } � �- �.'t' 1 � r.y-t s4�,�. e C Pt, :s- ' a � a 1 � "�'� �S.t ` �, .��F' i��'��` °. '.� 1 �' �� m�:e ��x : �;. �v,�h y,° � r �,s G �Fx �t ` T C. ' �. � � � zy "�`�- i^ r .:'" y _'' t S ; � ` t f��",`y'tp�c"�ly,.f w {�+r ' i ,� !�t' 3.� '),. i �D o-� � �: � ., :t �A 4 .i s {� F'$'� '`� `x,,,�� '*y,'.;.�Y.,4 F'� .' �`�`�4•��4,+��:.y,'1`'��SY��" :�' i�4�r fj" �� ,f � .s* 't r:� a t p II .I.(' �t''�} } 3�.�..� ��_; �'�,'. �,"3 �i w� �:_�_� 4 � '-..' '�Y `�.�� ^*�"'A�a�''�^�: '� i w� `'�.Y .. �- 1.�; s S i ,� ;r � :.�s � ri�`�3 �l�� a� �Y, d a i� � � 'Y'-" ' �'� � -i � �' �.�" '*�+ £�b� ��t�� 1 � #� 3 � � a �� *K ` � a �-9 fi �. -fa:i�s r� ' �+ g'i' G '�k. �^ mi ^n }.dy ,PF� x w �s� � i; a a�"\ s�" ��ky'�° ' � t�. Y^�Y�''�t"��# �.��,--'* t�' �th t �A�3 :�"F �i+"` �� ''4.k��` a'�."" 'F��i �K�,.�"'��° Jr.�; } X3t�` S N �'��p�{ �i::i� i�� }�a Xi��,y^ia�� r� �,p Y� .� �„ �: 1 - -"��''� si� F�. �� 'v `aa` sik�� :. ��' ro � �J�t, �� y n ;y ��,' � �,. .. t (�s, i,� 5? .,d+� �. �AT�, �' k i�{i��+ `�� .:��i r � s�9+'� a,� ''4y E 3; sz:' r7 Sy f 4 1 ''.l�y K �M rit �+r °M1."�'� ��F''# ut� y�.� x . i . .N #9 �S 3 ��k, ,�{ � � �. +�� `'2 � ,y�' i � °:t r �' :e r '`�s�-''+��4y r ° �t�r. � a d ?r��v �4 � fi4Vr� 7 r�,3�� y F$��., �t� �C�..I�+ t�3��i ��+�, V A+71 t 9�}�� a•4 y a�'"� r��},;{ ,�3��.a�r"°z'+c+` ��f � �'�y.��, � � S � � 4 �� "�'��1��'�' �1 �F'''�� n &�5,"A�ry' y%�Y. � �� # r�7 �;� "'v r3i ta't`�y w�'�' ';t�g�,S�� t'�r-� ��,.•�t�� r'1��`'�i �ti:� r� ' � � Y�'4 � k'�e l �iy 'Yp! �� ;}Ba �1-$ �,* � �� e , t�'4 � � , . � �y : }t ��'" �. f Y :.v a'� � s t ! -r5�+ � � yiy�,7 `.''�' ( X t r �Z' � > �-�x �€�`Ew'�. �`°'"L,y- � ��';tZ �y,��F y73� 5.,�� ,� � ;.� �5�� . i r r� f+a_ w� f< ,�F.�. y .. �.' .. �, }..+ �' t *s ay� �" 'k'Y,,.�"x�.F%��. a�� v" .,., r� ��.� � �-�' t�,,�� M �k.:- d y. ��7 . �-.t 4'l � ;�.y t i g 1 Y :� 'i •�^'+�' l �v� >S� Mt�� fi 5'q;�{ih.Y 'C et '1f� � �+i � l��+ t+�l t f '.:, µ't,�y.,. "r� 'a"�6'; �.� �t'�,° :.< � '�- ti ,� '' � d''��t� 1 A .Tx u y$_� �}.t- �;i#.�;�4 ��t9 ,..kvbZ �, � s '' �#.� � �r. f y1 k MT�� r ,^r^ tk � a�f, ..� '$ 3�: F§'� i .p�.� rz �` 1r� �R� a j� N�.,"Y�h .g� � p ) �:'�.� l' n"x��. -�,'� t .r'i+'+ptx �%1'.. - ee�., 3 '�2� a ., := F+•'G t � '�A. �s YM[" .. � 'd.� ,!� }"�`iz37Ya x�l k� s:3. r �n I� ,�N,'�"� `i �. te� .,`�'s.� :'� x zt,� d3' a s� 1 r '"d''' S r �,� -� "y`-.t� r �y�y�`+s'}tl y�kl y�'_.�"*i ��f��'t ,�G-� �`+� ; � '�� '�t' '�� j` y� �� :. kx ,.t,2�: � w :� � c..� �..r'f �ra ��'c �.�� „_�.i� kf"i aJ 5... '��'�`e`�" d '.�9 ,jv�x�ae .�'fi{ d y s t Af �: �`�T'� �_.1 � tv �_v.f � r L c. �" ,a,�.� .k�a g'X�;�# �xt',�y�.,�? l�'�z,�.�`P?•- r„� �.se �r.A� �#.�{ s f:.. 'M .�� '_r ,. �}, ��: ...� . .l e,� ,� � f A� v.r� � �ti'�. p � t � { r; . ,�,.r,� ! d a 's s '� �w K h ,�va�. , 4 � �;� t� k� �� , �-,'��`�x F� i t xe� �+ 5 ,k�r�{� �� : i ,'� 'u+ k `C.h6� r�' V �� ''b-c` C � 9 �� ? �Y 4: �+re i r�+,�: .f W V"rth "� � �, .,-1 �za � �. ,��c y �. � u �+e ��,s�- g•Y-�� t ; a: w `�� ,a a -.a ,� '�. :: �i. 1 ',d`�1��+ �4 r� �,�r �� '� ,n,,. � . S �..�1,�`�� e��'•�� <ra � �v �� Y ,4��a u i: „+A �y �.'( Y5 2 �� 1 S .. �'1 j Y (f.� �p � e., ,r d�ta e �,� t� � �i Y y k fi { f r $ � f E„? �� ,. r s . "� �'a i€ -1�� R '�7 ,�' aia ,��y fia� ?:°�� F^n�. .. '�$ a rc � � � r .,� s ..� � .. ar� i#��7 �� ` Y..� ,� x t ��' � � -�?��,� i.� � �r� '�a",� ; sN��^� �',� t> �,t+? ,;. � �r ,� � �k!" ., � �,r� 4Y .. }.:. i . { *, 1'�A s. .i.a �� +�'t�r'�,{.y',�j+,�,F�� : r r.r ��`-S vtv5y r�'k"�`� F�,¢ij�; � S 3 'AO�,� `1 k � � f .� g�. #:$2 � �}.t ' �,�. ��s'� �� s�1': �3",�;�`�� vY Y�n4{itn� �f' •.�+'6�`� . F,� �a ��, '�r ° f � � a } 7 ,` ��f�iCk � X ��t� 7�� y 5�{ w,' t �1`'�'R4� �,3�y �t'yF�.ar al.�!' `�T �,'_ rt �Y � .�&a""�,rs v �t` � ,w+..r a 1 `�.r�ti, �t -' .. G �.� i ' y� � i. : F l Yxe'3.S � �`i1 ..t� � �f} y �r . � �� t++- ' S gj7,4 .'t+'� ` � , r ,_, t 1 tM>� s � N � �(' �`� f ';t.� v�'t�, '��.i�'°� ��, t "�.; �s ��r '�$ ��: 2"^ ��ry�; � }r�•�. N ` :� r �'S* '�r � A- `r'�.� tr� �.r�"X�;r��V �+� m.y '`a a i y a"�- tf��i��f�n.�i�� ,n� �'} �'� } �� tR�.� w ��+x;�s+y�,� � - �". �t r��s 3� � ' � `P��'�ev�,W'��,�`v�".{�ii2�,�:-��,�'e�tt :��. ��,f�}a:�,� � ��.V�+� i4.�.�i�� w�?u ��.�;a�,3 � y� �{�„ r w� ��'a "'t�'� `c i�.�, y2�',` t i,�<.:.,rr ��.�ah.,'�`�,�� _M'�"� ��"�w`# y r,1 '�e�: `��,�'�,.. ,� i �:' � sd`�,,a,,'S � y,' i� �� r � � y. ��, k''� '�i�i� ^"t{.:ti' �j�`f�,w'�rt�a i��reay,-: j3�,'�'" ..�.5. °n,7 1# "-i;�/y4 � s 'e Y �; f ,.,# ��, r � ' � � " .�'��, � h � ''^ � + a '* aF 5� , `� t s 1' � � � ::E � ' � y..�L'� .1 S � �r � s; 'P..�C' �'G�� t�'�.�" $r� +e �a �.. a,, g .��. t �� '� i ��z �: [ , `;�z e `� ,� ..;-x t `fi,-u�� ..�K �'� ,, ..> �. . i��&��' � E r �,.4' �,. P fi"�°sx }`�' z,va: f ,�..' r ..A t .ti ! 4` r t S �' s r 3�._, s, 4 fiY� '2TM�yy+.�e v �M�` � 7 z � 1�: s ?a �� -.x '4f �,��, � ?J.°� � �� ;�'� �t w � � S� ' �f t $ � '�� `Z�� "�'yt` r� .� �s, �'''.rG,� u ��`� t�.k f, �'�+w�„ '�'��'� r �, ,�e'' °tr s 1 fi�i'��'� . t -~t� � rF ,� � C 2 ?'�'i-�ktL�.�y�"'7�f} � ; �v-��.° �S� d�� fi � -A #-�ei ,.�+ �.�.� �y��*rx r ' ' � r .�" r;� ° < ��` *�S'v 'A'iai` � ;=.�°��° "�`'�k�"'s� .'`«�- .t�'��rt r�,� �"!��^:: yr��y:. } p f�,t '� t_. � �� , �++ � r a .. '^' .� �^�? �;. �1st r yr�,e'.:. x r�'. � r y z"rf t�4 a ` o- n� , t : 4 �i � �;,e ... x t z y � a � f ,� �'��a.{��.,�x y�r�� 4'�al�ir:c t �� ,� {° _ d 4 -�r "z,`"� x` iar�.r�+. r � 'p"�' F ��. t e � T �`., t r6i 4 s- c w2, t�: �4 `�a! �'�£,.y:C. f ch i J� �� r x� .:� x 4 i 3 Y J ,� 4,. ) ., � � 3 � "� � �'s �t � '� i '�t �� r�� 9�.: �x; � � � t . � �" � � r .:f a �}>.}:.�. ;� �� r�'�� iA"uA`"��3 Y a st �r�'t �� C'.� � ��u�,.�'�,C S �°�' �z�' i r* � ' :,. t�: � .;�1p� , "� . .��j1 s� a`�, r 's P�t r� : A t,rs ..y..�5 v� k�:�g, � .ti':r r `� 'r x ., � s.:� L �:a.t 4 -�'`kb�,,�; ��,�' �y�,.5'° vs.�{�.r�jx�k S aS ,-4i x �,-:� � � �i�.xy �' .5 .� x ;y 7„�'' h �bf�+,�� r ,{.� -,t { ,y �^y � ,� �.N .p�i � ` S x t �1 F� � 3 f , ,5... -� f �. � _� }'3' �3?' �, .� A �� v,�K�,�, -,{ ,�a�t � . �..dti_�k � '� a� n � ` Y t^ �'#.. "�a�IS� �''."'�i r s �� w� 1� e r � '�f;�: �, �«. �, �. ";'� r"�' r� ; t `5 m s� s' � , '��t .. t� �.�' q t�;a P 'a'�� ..� Te _�.s r; . �4 .r`F � �' " ix �+rr � F�: t �x t v� + � r .�� - ��r c a �.. 4 N b_ y ' �, e "+�4 S' � s� �,. °s.a I !°11+,.y v 'k � } c w � c,k,,q�y. � ' "5 �'# .. ,s '�7'`� � ft .Y z -3 t q, r' � � r a . - t ' s��i.�,i�y k t� . ;� ti � q��e q "k �-�!c.h � � ��'ai'"M � `t•k�t �,! `,s � : ; }r ., � �, C ; k � a'� �� -�' '� 'S��-� - k r .' ,� �� r � �4,�a�, � ! 'g i}-: � ' p Y 3 T . 4s' �. 1 c c�f�i �S� 'F t �� y l� .: y}5�i . 1�.'u, t �,. �v` {�} fi�� ,�.� k','. � i u - �. �.. n,5 �, r�. � t{ 6°' rx'� '��i^. 7 �` "� �� Y+g" �`�✓t rne r 4� x � 1%l f t'�. r a C �. k. M �. r x �� a<.; f ( ar� 5^ ., F i� � i .y �t'tn.v ��'s ?a y,t,t+�'+ .' � C h a s tt. t*�dl -_ k > �,�� 3 ��:x r i ' '? �'�4r7yt-�.. � � ,� a ,� � .. � ��£ �+:� sa v� i � ,,,�/ ,t,.r ;.� a. � �, zs �, n p x k!a � �� ro z �t�,^,s .�;'� 1 ffY �.� : '�'�c. s}`�:n t x:� ,_ �� '4..+w l� �.5� �5 ( .;+ F[ 7�' ,l � �� f � � ��,p�'£�� "4 ta 4 l'�.*t �� .,�.4�r ��,�z�.xR�.��y � - . �^ ,. ._.:z� ...:C2!,'Ji v��rS".,w�.ne. .. _ _ � . . ;a.� '��aF.,, �fx .�..a,n4a ��..�.i�Y�t, '�,s..SiF`6 u+4�x'.7kFin�hi�+c�`�. .:�ae�,v�.�rR,'.�`3;.�i`+�.r.. . . "�`. , _ _ ' �� /<�� v , �t**�. GITY OI+" AINT PAUL 4 �4 '� OFFICF O THE MAYOR '' n�it1° , � � a � �'� +� Ao _�.� 347 C TY HALL - ..b+ SAINT PAUL, INNESOTA 55102 GEORGELATIMER (612 298-4323 MAYOR May 26, 1989 Council President James Scheibel an Members of the City Council Seventh Floor, City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear President Scheibel and Council Members: On May 12, 1989, the Planning Cotnmi sion adopted a resolution concerning the Metropolitan Council's Twin �Ci 'es Re ional Heli ort Feasibilit Studv. The Commission's resolut�io and staff report are enclosed. The Metropolitan Council's study w completed last January and sent to the cities of the region for their eview and comment. The Metropolitan Council will hold a public heari,ng on the study in July, 1989, and intends to revise and adopt it as part of eir Aviation Development Guide chapter in August. The Metropolitan Council's study r commends that public heliport feasibility and master plan studie be performed for four general locations in the Twin City region: in downtown Minneapolis; at the passenger terminal at Minneapolis- aint Paul Airport; in the I-494 area of the Minneapolis suburbs; and in�do town Saint Paul. For downtown Saint Paul, the study recommends a publi heliport at either powntown Airport or the downtown business area. The s udy also recommends two model zoning ordinances. The Planning Commission recommetZds that neither the Downtown Airport nor the downtown business area be dgsi nated by the Metropolitan Council as a site for a public heliport. Since Downtown Airport already accommodates the functions of a public helipbrt designating it as a public heliport would be superfluous. Helicopt�r raffic is forecast to increase only moderately in the region in the ne t 20 years, and if any small changes to the airport are needed, they can b done as the need arises. Furthermore, since the Downtown Airport is only one and one-half miles from the downtown business area and can ade uately serve the businesses there, no search area for a public heliport eeds to be designated in Saint Paul. The Planning Commission also reco ends greater citizen participation in the revising of the model zoning o dinances by the Metropolitan Council and in the revising of the master lan for powntown Airport by the Metropolitan Airports Commission. 4�p 48 � � t Council President Scheibel and Coun il Members May 2 6,, 1989 Page Two In June the Planning Commission wil hold a public hearing and act on proposed heliport zoning amendme�ts contained in the enclosed staff report, Saint Paul Heli ort Zoni tud . These amendments will then be sent to you for your review and adoption. I am pleased to transmit this resol tion to the City Council and request that the Council review and adopt i as the City's policy on the Metropolitan Council's study and tr nsmit it to the Metropolitan Council for their consideration. Very truly urs, Ge g imer M r GL:rm Enclosure I , � � - //� �v t� city of saint paul ' pianning commission resol tion file number 88-36 , �te May 12, 1989 � ,I WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Comqnis ion has considered the Metropolitan Council's Twin Cities Regional Heliport Feasibility Study; and WHEREAS, the Study recommends feasibili y and master plan studies be done for a public helistop in a downtown Saint �au search area and proposes model zoning ordinances; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, ba�ed upon the Study, public meetings, and a staff report, made the following findings of act: Regulation ; 1. The City "is preempted by the ICon titution and federal legislation from enacting local regulations peritai ing to number of helicopter operations at a heliport, types of helicopters th t may take off or land there, flight paths to or from heliports, altitude�' re trictions around heliports and noise levels around heliports." (City atto�ne opinion of September 22, 1988.) 2. There is an exception to the pree ption ruling in 1. above . Cities which own and operate airports "may adop�t gulations governing such matters as noise, length of landing strips, and t s of sircraft that may use the sirport." (City attorney opinion of Septem r 22, 1988.) 3. The City through zoning may "reg late the location and site design standards of heliports so long as the regu ations are not inconsistent with either federal or state laws or regu]:at'ons. The local zoning regulations may provide that a heliport is a c�on itional use and sub,ject to general and special conditions imposed by th Zoning Code provisions and the Planning Commission acting pursuant to !th se provisions." (City Attorney opinion of September 22, 1988. ) � 4. The Minnesota Pollution Contrbl gency has testified that their noise rules, Chapter 7010, require a city �o ake all reasonable measures to prevent establishment of land uses, such as heliports, which would immediately be in violation of State noise stan�iar s. ( ntinued) moved by Zieman I S�(;OI��d b�/ Morton � 1 in favor n i m us) � against- � , i I 5. MAC has developed and adopted a oise abatement/operations plan for the Downtown Airport and the FAA als has approved it. The plan identifies noise sensitive areas; designates p�tef rred runway use, arrival-departure routes, minimum altitudes, and flightitr cks; and limits ground tests of aircraft engines. However, this is an op rations plan and not a regulation. As the plan states: "The final dete�imi ation for the safe operation of the aircraft rests with the pilot, therefo�e ompliance with noise control measures is largely voluntary, and the MAC r lies on the cooperation of aircraft owners and operators and the FAA conttro tower for the plan's success. In addition, weather and air traffic condi�io s sometimes make it unsafe to use noise abatement procedures; and certai types of sircraft may be unable to fly safely at the suggested minimu�m ltitudes or using recommended flight paths." 6. Similar operations plans could b drawn up by the operators of all new heliports and approved by the �F 7. On the request of the Neighbo�ho d Committee, Planning staff spoke to Frank ' Trainer of Congressman Oberstsr' staff about FAA and city regulation of heliports. He suggested spea&in to Los Angeles airport personnel because he understood the City of Los An�el s regulated and enforced flight paths, altitudes, and other helicopter ctivities at the airport. 8. Staff spoke to Los Angeles Ai�po t operations staff. He said that the city owns the sirport. As owner of t e sirport, they enter into an agreement with each helicopter operator at the irport. The operators must agree to abide by the minimum altitudes, flightjpa hs, and low noise takeoff and landing procedures in order to locate at the airport. Operators who do not follow the agreernent can be ejected from�� th airport. (The FAA approves the safety of these operator agreements.) �he City of Los Angeles adopts and enforces these "regulations" by virtue of ownin the airport, not by zoning regulations. Regulating its own sirport is� co sistent with finding 2. Consequently, Saint Paul cannot egulate helicopter activities through operators agreements at Downto Airport or at private heliports because it ' does not own the facilities. i (I can, however, regulate heliports through zoning as set forth in findings and 4. ) ' ( ontinued) ; �I ' �'j - /��v � 9. People testified at the public me ting that making complaints about low flying helicopters is difficult because he FAA wants to know the helicopters identifying number which may be i possible to see. People also testified that they do not know where to complai . Existing Heliports I 10. There are helistops for emergency medical services now at Saint Paul Ramsey and United Hospitals. � 11. Since Downtown Airport is a u li sirport where helicopters are allowed to take-off and land and helicopt'er perators are allowed to locate their maintenance and storage facili;tie there, it technically is a public heliport even though it is not designated s a public heliport. 12. Operations at Downtown Airpor� b helicopters not based at Downtown Airport have been insignificant. 13. In 1988, there was an average �of 20 operations at Downtown Airport between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. , almost all of w ich were airplanes. The biggest proportion of the flights were airplanes �'tr sporting checks to Federal Reserve banks. 14. The tower at Downtown Airport ,is closed between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m, because there are not enough flights to emain open. 15. The master plan for powntown F�ir ort is currently being updated and should be completed in spring of 1990. Th Metro Council's proposal for a public heliport at the airport will lie tudied as part of the update. Military Helicopters I 16. The National Guard and Army R�se es have 61 helicopters based at the Downtown Airport and they performed about 11,000 operations in 1987. 17. The military helicopter opera�io s have been a noise problem to the adjoining Dayton's Bluff and West Side res dential neighborhoods for many years. ( ntinued) , i i � � 18. In 1989, the National Guard ha� 8 full time employees, the Army Reserve 35. In 1989, the National Guard has 3 helicopters, the Army Reserve 28. 19. The National Guard expects the n ber of their aircraft to decrease in the future due to budget cutbacks, � an the Army Reserve expects the number of their aircraft to remain the s�me 20. Both the Guard and Reserve havje i posed voluntary curfews on flights between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 21. Most of the traffic pattern woxk repetitive training operations) of both the Guard and Reserve helicopter i�s ne away from Downtown Airport at other airports or training areas, i 22. The City Council has wanted td e ablish a strategy to relocate the military helicopters outside of Saint Pau . Metro Council Regional Heliport Stuc�y 23. The Met Council study forecas�s modest growth in privately based (non-military) helicopter activi at about a 2.3$ annual rate for the region. By the year 2008, privately base helicopters could increase to 29, compared to the 21 privately based heli�co ters now in the region. 24. The Met Council study proposes t at feasibility and master plan studies be done for a public helistop in a owntown Saint Paul search area, the facility to be at either at Downtown Airp rt or the downtown business area. 25. The Met Council study gives an i termediate priority (6 to 10 years) to the Saint Paul helistop for plannung design, and construction since there are helicopter landing and basing fa ilities now at Downtown Airport. 26. Since the Downtown Airport now i technically a public heliport, establishing a public heliport i the downtown business area would mean there would be two public helicopte� f cilities in the downtown area, a public heliport at Downtown Airport and a public helistop in the downtown business area. ' � (c ntinued) � � , . � , 27. The Downtown Airport is very c7�os to the downtown business area (about 1-1/2 miles) and can adequately serve b siness users there. 28. Several people testified that the Downtown Airport should not be designated as a public heliport because this co ld induce helicopter traffic. However, designation of the Downtown Ai�tpo t as a public heliport will not induce people to buy helicopters and $ta t using the airport. Helicopter activity could increase there because heli opter activity increases and there is no other heliport to locate at -- wh ther it is designated or not will not make the difference. 29. The two model zoning ordinances w ich the Met Council proposes are inadequate to guide heliport regulation in t e region. 30. Emergency medical service helisto s at hospitals provide valuable public services. ' NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the! P1 nning Commission, that since the Saint Paul Downtown Airport already accommodates t e functions of a public heliport, designating it as a public heliport 'br elistop would be superfluous. Helicopter traffic is forecast to increase only m erately in the region during the next 20 years, and if any small changes to t'he irport are required, they can be done as the need arises. Furthermore, since the a port is only one and one-half miles from the downtown business area and can adequlat y serve the businesses there, no search area for a public heliport or helistop need to be designated in Saint Paul. NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, at the proposed model zoning ordinances in the Metropolitan Council's Study be �re ised, giving greater regard to land use relationships between heliports and ot er land uses and recommending only regulations which cities have the auth rity to adopt and that citizen members from Saint Paul neighborhoods, as well as c tizens from other cities, should be members of the committee revising the modellor inances; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Metiro olitan Airports Commission should include citizens from neighborhoods who will b affected by aircraft noise from Saint Paul Downtown Airport in the process of upd ting the airport's master plan; and � (c ntinued) , i pEPARTMEN'f/OFFICEIOOUNpL DATE INITIA PED — PLANNING �i22 $9 GREEN SHEET No. 3�� CONTACT PER80N 3 PHONE EpARTidENT DIRECTOR CRY OOUNqL Ro er R an 3382 � CITY ATfORNEY cmr c�r�c MUBT BE ON COUN(:IL AOENWI BY(DAT� ROtfTlli�i BUDOET DIRECTOR � d MOT.SERVN;E8 dR. MAYOR(OR A8818TANT) TOTAL#�OF 81QNATURE PA�iE8 � (CLIP AL L ATIONS FOR SIGNATUR� ACr10N REGUESTED: Transmit Planning Commission Helip rt Recommendation to City Council REOOMMENDATIONS:Appmve(A)a Re�eCt(F� COUNqL ITTEE/RESEARCH REPORT OPTIONAL �PLANNINO COMMIS810N _dVIL SERVICE OOt�IMI8S10N """"'� RECEIVED PHONE NO. _d8 COMMITTEE _ —�,,� — �MEN : �UN 2 �9a9 _D13TRICT COURT _ SUPPORTS WHlqi OOUNGL OBJECTIVE? MAY6R`S O�FFBCE INITIATINO PROBLEM,ISSUE,OPPORTUNITY(Who,Whet,When,Whero,WNy): Metropolitan Council's regional he ip rt study proposes a public heliport in the downtown area of Saint Paul. he Council asks for city's response. Planning Commission recommends no ub ic heliport be designated since Downtown airpo�t serves this func io . ADVANTAOES IF APPROVED: �,emphasize use of Downtown airp rt -� helicopters in future. DISADVANTAOE8 IF APPROVED: ,� � � � � �:��(� ��\ � ,�� , �� • None v � ` J�" ��,�4- - ,,..��,,<.: �- �� _,, t , � � I ! �' � �� -- � � � . ,; ..._. � �� ,� � ` ��`- � , � �T� � `�'�� , ;. �_ . �. i .-- ' . '� DI8ADVMITAOE8 IF NOT APPROVED: ` `�.I.-� ; � � ' .�:� � . Neighborhoods affected t , r (�;I � �.� �' mnotes helicopter use at Downtown airport. �, `.�. `'' ; t ' I � ��`l } � � ' � � I �rcil Research Center / , : -� J'�9r"� �. �. i�B�J TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANBACTION = � C08T/REVENUE BUDOETED(CIRCLE ON� YES �NO� FlINWNp gpupCE ACTIVITY NUMBER FlNANGAL INFORMATIO�1:(EXPWN) NOTE: COMPLETE DIRECTIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE(3REEN SHEET INSTRUCTIONAL • MANUAL AVAILABLE IN THE PURCHASIN(�OFFICE(PHON�NO.298-4225). ROUTING ORDER: Below are preferred routings for the five most frequent types of documeMs: CONTRACTS (assumes authorized COUNCIL RESOLUTION (Amend, BdgtsJ budget exists) Accept. Grants) 1. Outside Agency 1. DepsrtmeM Director 2. Initiating Department 2. Budget Director 3. City Attorney 3. City Attorney 4. Mayor 4. Mayw/Assistant 5. Fnance&Mgmt S1res. Director 5. ay cou�cn 6. Fnance Accounting 6. Chief Accountant, Fin 8 Mgmt Svcs. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER (Budget COUNCIL RESOLUTION (all others) Revision) and ORDINANCE 1. Activity Manager 1. 'Initiating Department Director 2. DepartmeM Accountant 2. Gy Attorney 3. DepartmeM Director 3. Mayor/Assistent 4. Budget Director 4. City Counc(I 5. Ciry Clerk 6. Chief Accountant, Fln &Mgmt Svcs. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS (all others) 1. Initiating Department 2. City Attomey 3. MayorlAssistant a. C�ry Cie�k TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNATURE PAGES Indicate the#�of pages on which signatures are required and p perclip , each of these pages. ACTION REQUESTED Describe what the project/request seeks to accomplish in either chronologi- cal order or order of importance,whichever is most appropriate for the issue. Do not write complete sente�. Begin each item in your list with a verb. RECOMMENDATIONS Complete ff the issue in question has been presented before any body, public or private. SUPPORTS WHICkI COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? Indicate which Council obJective(s)your project/request supports by Iisting the kay word(s)(HOUSING, RECHEATION, NEIGHBORHOODS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BUDGET, SEWER SEPARATION). (SEE COMPLETE UST IN INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL.) COUNqL COMMITTEE/RESEARCH REPORT-OPTIONAL AS REOUESTED BY COUNCIL INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY Explain the situation or conditions that created a need for your project or request. ., ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED Indicate whether this is simply an annuai budget prxedure required by Iaw/ charter or whether there are specific ways in which the City of Saint Paul and its citizens will benef'rt from this projecVaction. DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED What negative effects or major changes to existing or past processes might this projecUrequest produce if it is passed(e.g.,traffic delays, noise, tax increases or asaessments)7 To Whom?When? For how long? ' DISADVANTACiES IF NOT APPROVED What will be the negative conaeque�ces if the promised action is not approved?Inability to deliver service? Continued high traffic, noise, axident rate? Loss of revenue? FINANCIAL IMPACT ARhough you must tailor the fnformatbn you provide here to the issue you are addressing, in general you must answer two questions: How much is it going to c�st?Who ia going to pay? � � � Members: ,� ��`�'� Bill Wiison, chair� -� `�" . Tom Dimond `, GITY OF ►� INT PAUL Kiki Sonnen s ,�uit tuu � � �� :� ' OFFICE OF T�IE GITY COIINCIL• C�� '�'- " Date: July 26, 1989 ! Comm�itt e Report R�CEIVED WILLIAM L. WILSON MARK VOERDING COUnCilman � J1 i� �Q �(�O� Leaislative Aide u o Jo To: Saint Paul Ci�y Council � c�rY c��c •. From : Housing and Econo�j�ni Development Commi�tee - Bill Wilson, Chair i Letter of the Mayor submitting P a ' g Commission recommendations to the Metropolitan council and Zoning am ndments on Heliport Zoning Study A SECOND COMMITTEE REP WILL BE PREPARED ONCE THE � CITY ATTORNEY HAS COMP D WORK ON A RESOLUTION TO REFLECT COMMITTEE A.ND IvING COMMISSION ACTIONS . __._____._..�._ 2. Resollition�establishin�a City-Co1ie Partnership Iniiiative to be � undertaken"in cooperation with t�e t. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce's �`�� Higher Educarion I,eadershin Grbu and that a member of the Caunc:l be �� selected to seive on said group wiith annual report to be made to the Council and with a first joint project on a��c d bealth and development educational campaipa to coincide with the Cilty ear of :he Child acti�ities (CF 89-llll) COi1�IMITTE� RECOMME�FD PROVAL, WIT'H AMENDMENT (Finally Resolved clause on page �, w reads ."to begin in the early fall of 1989", and this is AMENDED to read ';to egir, in the early spring of 1990") � i ; � . ' . � . � : , . , , - - CTTY HALL SEVENTH FLOOR : I SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 612/293-4646 ' • �� 8 46 ' � . '"._. "... ...; ..��...-. :.... . ,_ _ ......... _ . _ - . .. . . -......... . .. .. .. ... -. ' _. _ .... .. _... . . ,. .. . . . ... ... , . . ,�+,ax'. . , � l . �� , , ; c,ity of saint paul ' plar�g comr�ssion re tion , f� ��r 88-36 s �te May 12, 1989 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Comtnis ion has considered the Metropolitan Council's Twin Cities Regional Helipprt Feasibility Study; and ' WHEREAS, the Study recommends feasib'il y and master plan studies be done for a public helistop in a downtown Saint ;Ya sea ��a and proposes model zoning ordinances; and � WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, balse up� r•�,(%��_� ` ings, and a staff report, made the following findings ,of fac - t�e¢ulation ' ��T �j�,',`` -.., � � -,,, t .. 1. The City "is preempted by the ;Co s �,��'�-�--� .slation from enacting local regulations pe�ta r ter operations at a heliport, types of helicopter$ t ;here, flight paths , to or from heliports, altitud� r rts and noise levels around he2iports." (City attprn .2� 1988.) 2. There is an exception to the �r- �ve . Cities which own and operate airports "may adopi ach matters as noise, length of landing strips, and� � �y use the sirport." (City attorney opinion of Sep!te _ 3. The City through zoning may ",re late the locati�.. .nd site design standards of heliports so long as the reg ations are not inconsistent with either federal or state laws or reg�la ions. The local zoning regulations may provide that a heliport is a ;co ditional use and subject to general and special conditions imposed by t e Zoning Code provisions and the Planning Commission acting pursuant td t ose provisions." (City Attorney opinion of September 22, 1988. ) � 4. The Minnesota Pollution Contzol Agency has testified that their noise rules, Chapter 7010, require a city' to take all reasonable measures to prevent establishment of land uses, Suc as heliports, which would immediately be in violation of State noise standa ds. � contirnied) m��,d �/ Zieman ' seconded by Morton in fav�or ;m �S� against- ' �1� _ ,;; _ :'U 5. MAC has developed and adopted a ise abatement/operations plan for the Downtown Airport and the FAA als has approved it. The plan identifies noise sensitive areas; designates ptef rred runway use, arrival-departure routes, minimum altitudes, and flight 'tr cks; and limits ground tests of aircraft engines. However, this is an op rations plan and not a regulation. As the plan states: "The final deter,mi tion for the safe operation of the aircraft rests with the pilot, therefoxe ompliance with noise control measures is largely voluntary, and the MA� r lies on the cooperation of aircraft owners � and operators and the FAA cont�ro tower for the plan's success. In addition, weather and sir traffic conditio sometimes make it unsafe to use noise abatement procedures; and certai types of aircraft may be unable to fly safely at the suggested minimi,im ltitudes or using recommended flight paths." 6. Similar operations plans could b drawn up by the operators of all new heliports and approved by the' F 7. On the request of the Neighboxho d Committee, Planning staff spoke to Frank ' Trainer of Congressman Oberstar' staff about FAA and city regulation of heliports. He suggested spea�Ci to Los Angeles sirport personnel because he understood the City of Los An�el s regulated and enforced flight paths, altitudes, and other helicopter ctivities at the sirport. 8. Staff spoke to Los Angeles Ai�po t operations staff. He said that the city owns the sirport. As owner o� t e airport� they enter into an agreement with each helicopter operator at t�e irport. The operators must agree to abide by the minimum altitudes, flight pa s, and low noise takeoff and landing procedures in order to locate' a the sirport. Operators who do not follow the agreement can be ejected from' t airport. (The FAA approves the safety of these operator agreements.) rl'h City of Los Angeles adopts and enforces these "regulations" by virtue of owmi the airport, not by zoning regulations. Regulating its own airport i� c istent with finding 2. Consequently, Saint Paul cannot regulate helicopter activities through operators agreements at Downt�o Airport or at private heliports because it ' does not own the facilities. � ( t can, however, regulate heliports through zoning as set forth in findings 3 and 4. ) , ( ontinued) ; � � i i 9. People testified at the publia m ting that making complaints about low flying helicopters is difficult becau�se the FAA wants to know the helicopters identifying number which may �e ' possible to see. People also testified that � they do not know where to comRla . • Existing Heliports � 10. There are helistops for emergenc medical services now at Saint Paul Ramsey , and United Hospitals. � 11. Since Downtown Airport is a I c airport where helicopters are allowed to ' take-off and land and helicopter operators are allowed to locate their maintenance and storage faciliti s there, it technically is a public heliport ° even though it is not designated as a public heliport. 12. Operations at Downtown Airporlt b helicopters not based at Downtown Airport ; have been insignificant. , � 13. In 1988, there was an average; of 20 operations at Downtown Airport between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. , almost all o�f w ich were airplanes. The biggest proportion of the flights were sirplanesitr nsporting checks to Federal Reserve banks. 14. The tower at Downtown Airport� is closed between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. because there are not enough flights �to emain open. 15. The master plan for powntown �Ai ort is currently being updated and should be completed in spring of 1990. � Metro Council's proposal for a public heliport at the sirport will �be tudied as part of the update. Military Helicopters I � 16. The National Guard and Army I�es rves have 61 helicopters based at the Downtown Airport and they performed abou 11,000 operations in 1987. 17. The military helicopter oper�ti ns have been a noise problem to the adjoining Dayton's Bluff and West Sidejre idential neighborhoods for many years. ; � ; ( ontinued) i i 18. In 1989, the National Guard has 8 full time employees, the Army Reserve 35. In 1989, the National Guard ha's 3 helicopters, the Army Reserve 28. 19. The National Guard expects the n ber of their aircraft to decrease in the future due to budget cutbacks„ a the Army Reserve expects the number of their aircraft to remain the s�am . 20. Both the Guard and Reserve have mposed voluntary curfews on flights between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. ' 21. Most of the traffic pattern work (repetitive training operations) of both the Guard and Reserve helicopter �s one away from Downtowa Airport at other sirports or training areas. , 22. The City Council has wanted to e tablish a strategy to relocate the military helicopters outside of Saint Pau . � ' Metro Council Regional Heliport Stu�v 23. The Met Council study forecasts modest growth in privately based (non-military) helicopter act,ivi y at about a 2.3$ annual rate for the region. By the year 2008, privately b�ase helicopters could increase to 29, compared to the 21 privately based heLic ters now in the region. 24. The Met Council study propose�s at feasibility and master plan studies be done for a public helistop ir� a downtown Saint Paul search area, the facility to be at either at Downtown �i ort or the downtown business area. i 25. The Met Council study gives an ntermediate priority (6 to 10 years) to the Saint Paul helistop for plannin , design, and construction since there are helicopter landing and basin$ f cilities now at Downtown Airport. 26. Since the Downtown Airport now s technically a public heliport, establishing a public helipo�t n the downtown business area would mean there would be two public helicopt�r acilities in the downtown area, a public heliport at Downtown Airport� an a public helistop in the downtown business area. � ' ontinued) ; I i 27. The Downtown Airport is very clos to the downtown business area (about 1-1/2 miles) and can adequately serv� b siness users there. 28. Several people testified that the Downtown Airport should not be designated as a public heliport because this! co ld induce helicopter traffic. However, designation of the Downtown Aiipo t as a public heliport will not induce people to buy helicopters and sta t using the sirport. Helicopter activity could increase there because h�eli opter activity increases and there is no other heliport to locate at -- wh ther it is designated or not will not make the difference. 29. The two model zoning ordinances w ich the Met Council proposes are inadequate to guide heliport regulation i� e region. 30. Emergency medical service helisto s at hospitals provide valuable public services. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the P nning Commission, that since the Saint Paul Downtown Airport already accommodatejs e functions of a public heliport, designating it as a public heliportlor elistop would be superfluous. Helicopter traffic is forecast to increase only m erately in the region during the next 20 years, and if any small changes to t�he irport are required, they can be done as the need arises. Furthermore, since the a port is only one and one-half miles from the downtown business area and can adequat ly serve the businesses there, no search area for a public heliport or helistop n¢jed to be designated in Saint Paul. NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, at the proposed model zoning ordinances in the Metropolitan Council's Study beire ised, giving greater regard to land use relationships between heliports and ot er land uses and recommending only regulations which cities have the auth rity to adopt and that citizen members from Saint Paul neighborhoods, as well a� c tizens from other cities, should be members of the committee revising the model or inances; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Me�ro olitan Airports Commission should include citizens from neighborhoods who will b affected by aircraft noise from Saint Paul Downtown Airport in the process of upd ting the airport's master plan; and I (c ntinued) � i . I city of saint paul ' planning commission re�o tion f�e number 88-36 � : date May �2, �989 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Cohimi sion has considered the Metropolitan Council's Twin Cities Regional Helipor Feasibility Study; and WHEREAS, the Study recommends feasibil ty and master plan studies be done for a public helistop in a downtown Saint' Pa 1 search area and proposes model zoning ordinances; and � WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, b�se upon the Study, public meetings, and a staff report, made the following findings;of fact: Regulation ' 1. The City "is preempted by thelCo stitution and federal legislation from enacting local regulations perta ning to number of helicopter operations at a heliport, types of helicopters t at may take off or land there� flight paths to or from heliports, altitud� r strictions around heliports and noise levels around heliports." (City attorn y opinion of September 22, 1988.) 2. There is an exception to the �re mption ruling in 1. above . Cities which own and operate airports "may adopt egulations governing such matters as noise, length of landing strips, andit es of aircraft that may use the sirport." (City attorney opinion of Sept�em er 22, 1988.) 3. The City through zoning may "�eg late the location and site design standards of heliports so long as the rqgu ations are not inconsistent with either federal or state laws or regulat'ons. The local zoning regulations may provide that a heliport is a don itional use and sub3ect to general and special conditions imposed byith Zoning Code provisions and the Planning Commission acting pursuant to th e provisions." (City Attorney opinion of September 22, 1988. ) 4. The Minnesota Pollution Control ency has testified that their noise rules, Chapter 7010, require a city to ke all reasonable measures to prevent establishment of land uses, swch s heliports, which would immediately be in violation of State noise standiar . , ' (c ntinued) � moved by Zieman se�conded by Morton in favor � �m us� against— i i ! ! I ; I I { 5. MAC has developed and adopted a noise abatement/operations plan for the � Downtown Airport and the FAAjal o has approved it. The plan identifies noise sensitive areas; designates pre erred runway use, arrival-departure routes, minimum altitudes, and flight t acks; and limits ground tests of sircraft : engines. However� this is at� o erations plan and not a reeulation. As the plan states: "The final determ nation for the safe operation of the sircraft rests with the pilot� therefQre compliance with noise control measures is largely voluntary, and the MAC elies on the cooperation of aircraft owners � and operators and the FAA contr 1 tower for the plan's success. In addition, weather and sir traffic cond�ti ns sometimes make it unsafe to use noise abatement procedures; and certa n types of aircraft may be unable to fly safely at the suggested mini�puum altitudes or using recommended flight paths." 6. Similar operations plans could e drawn up by the operators of all new heliports and approved by th� F . ; 7. On the request of the Neighbprh od Committee, Planning staff spoke to Frank Trainer of Congressman Obers�tar s staff about FAA and city regulation of heliports. He suggested speaki g to Los Angeles airport personnel because he understood the City of Los A�ge es regulated and enforced flight paths, altitudes, and other helicopter activities at the sirport. 8. Staff spoke to Los Angeles Alirp rt operations staff. He said that the city owns the sirport. As owner of he airport, they enter into an agreement with each helicopter operator at �he airport. The operators must agree to abide by the minimum altitudes, flighit p ths, and low noise takeoff and landing procedures in order to locate a the airport. Operators who do not follow the agreement can be ejected fro�n t e sirport. (The FAA approves the safety of these operator agreements.) Th City of Los Angeles adopts and enforces these "regulations" by virtue of o1Gmi g the airport� not by zoning regulations. Regulating its own sirport i's c nsistent with finding 2. , Consequently, Saint Paul can�io regulate helicopter activities through operators agreements at Downto Airport or at private heliports because it � . does not own the facilities.j ( t can, however, regulate heliports through zoning as set forth in finding 3 and 4. ) continued) � , I � ' , i � � I I � �_ � `-� � � . 9. People testified at the public eting that making complaints about low flying helicopters is difficult becak�se the FAA wants to know the helicopters identifying number which may be "mpossible to see. People also testified that they do not know where to coaypl n. Existing Heliports ' 10. There are helistops for emer�,en medical services now at Saint Paul Ramsey and United Hospitals. 11. Since Downtown Airport is a �u airport where helicopters are allowed to take-off and land and helicopte operators are allowed to locate their maintenance and storage faci];it s there� it technically is a public heliport even though it is not designate as a public heliport. 12. Operations at Downtown Airpo�t helicopters not based at Downtown Airport have been insignificant. 13. In 1988, there was an averagej o 20 operations at Downtown Airport between 10 p.m, and 7 a.m. , almost sll of ich were airplanes. The biggest proportion of the flights were airplanes t ansporting checks to Federal Reserve banks. � 14. The tower at Downtown Airport i closed between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. because there are not enough flights to remain open. 15. The master plan for powntownlAi ort is currently being updated and should be completed in spring of 1990. , e Metro Council's proposal for a public heliport at the airport willlbe studied as part of the update. ' �ilitary Helicopters � 16. The National Guard and Army Res rves have 61 helicopters based at the Downtown Airport and they performed abou 11,000 operations in 1987. 17. The military helicopter operati ns have been a noise problem to the adjoining Dayton's Bluff and West Side re idential neighborhoods for many years. ;: ` ; ( ontinued) I . I • I i � _ 18. In 1989, the National Guard h�s 6 full time employees, the Army Reserve 35. In 1989, the National Guard h�s 5 helicopters, the Army Reserve 28. 19. The National Guard expects the� n ber of their aircraft to decrease in the future due to budget cutbacks, a d the Army Reserve expects the number of their aircraft to remain the siam . 20. Both the Guard and Reserve have osed voluntary curfews on flights between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. , 21. Most of the traffic pattern wdrk (repetitive training operations) of both the Guard and Reserve helicopter i�s ne away from Downtown Airport at other airports or training areas. � 22. The City Council has wanted to e ablish a strategy to relocate the military helicopters outside of Saint pau . � Metro Council Reeional Heliport Stud� 23. The Met Council study forecast�s a modest growth in privately based (non-military) helicopter actiivit at about a 2.3$ annual rate for the region. By the year 2008, privately based helicopters could increase to 29� compared to the 21 privately based heliJ�op ers now in the region. 24. The Met Council study proposes� th t feasibility and aaster plan studies be done for a public helistop in a d wntown Saint Paul search area, the facility to be at either at Downtown Airpo t or the downtown business area. 25. The Met Council study gives anl, in ermediate priority (6 to 10 years) to the Saint Paul helistop for planning, design, and construction since there are helicopter landing and basing fac lities now at Downtown Airport. 26. Since the Downtown Airport now!is technically a public heliport, establishing a public heliport ,in the downtown business area would mean there would be two public helicopter �fa ilities in the downtown area, a public heliport at Downtown Airport a�d public helistop in the downtown business area. � �(co tirnied) , � , � , I � 27. The Downtown Airport is very c�os to the downtown business area (about 1-1/2 miles) and can adequately serv� b iness users there. 28. Several people testified that �the Downtown Airport should not be designated as a public heliport because this' co ld induce helicopter traffic. However, designation of the Downtown Airpo t as a public heliport will not induce people to buy helicopters and �ta t using the airport. Helicopter activity could increase there because h�eli opter activity increases and there is no other heliport to locate at -- wh ther it is designated or not will not nake the difference. , 29. The two model zoning ordinances ich the Met Council proposes are inadequate to guide heliport regulation in e zegion. 30. Emergency medical service helist s at hospitals provide valuable public services. ; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the P ing Commission, that since the Saint Paul Downtown Airport already accommodatels e functions of a public heliport, designating it as a public heliport or elistop would be superfluous. Helicopter traffic is forecast to increase only m rately in the region during the next 20 years, and if any small changes to �he irport are required, they can be done as the need arises. Furthermore, since the a ort is only one and one-half miles from the downtown business area and can adequat ly serve the businesses there, no search area for a public heliport or helistop ne�e to be designated in Saint Paul. NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVEA, t the proposed model zoning ordinances in the Metropolitan Council's Study be 'xe ised, giving greater regard to land use relationships between heliports and ot er land uses and recommending only regulations which cities have the suth rity to adopt and that citizen members from Saint Paul neighborhoods, as well a� c tizens from other cities, should be members of the committee revising the nodel or inances; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the MeCro olitan Airports Comnission should include citizens from neighborhoods who vill b affected by aircraft noise from Saint Paul Downtown Airport in the process of �pd ting the airport's master plan; and (c ntirnied) ' � i . I I � � . �q� i�� L SAI PAU � HELIPORT NING STUDY � Recom ndations to � Metropol t Council and Zoning endments � � � � � , � � . ,.�.�� Di isi n of Planning � Department of Pla ni g and Economic Development 25 e t Fourth Street Saint aul Minnesota 55102 ' � r � � � � � ',, � � D 1 HELIPORT 0-ACRE STUDY � The purpose of this 40-acre study� i (1) to review and recommend any needed changes to the Metropolitain uncil's Regional Heliport Feasibility Study and (2) to develop proposed h liport zoning amendments for the city � zoning ordinance and needed amendme ts to the Comprehensive Plan. ' RECOPIl�iENDATION �0 TROLPOLITAN COUNCIL 1. Since the Downtown Saint Paul�' Ai port already accommodates the functions of a public heliport, esignating it as a public heliport or � helistop would be superfluous. elicopter traffic is forecast to increase only moderately in the egion during the next 20 years, and if any small changes to the a�rp rt are required, they can be done as ' the need arises. Furthermore', s nce the airport is only one and one-half miles from the downt wn business area and can adequately serve the businesses there, n s arch area for a public heliport or helistop needs to be designated n Saint Paul. ' 2. The Met Council's model helipprt zoning ordinances should be revised. Greater regard must be given ' o he land use relationship between � heliports and other land uses. e ordinances must only recommend regulations which cities have th authority to adopt. L The Met Council has already deci ed to revise the model ordinances and is in the process of setting up committee to begin the work. So that the committee may have a br ad perspective, citizen members from Saint Paul neighborhoods, as wel as citizens from other cities, � should be members of the Comm�tt e. 1 PROPOSED ZO ING AMENDMENTS 1. Permit public and private helipo ts at sirports in I-1 and I-2 ' districts as a special conditfon use provided: i. There is 1,000 feet �'et en the heliport and residentially zoned property. , ii. The proposed heliport o rator provides the City with a noise analysis showing that t heliport will not violate State ' Noise standards, Chap'te 7010. If the analysis shows that the standards will be viola d, the operator must take mitigating measures before the hleli ort is established. Iiii. The heliport must have s ate and federal approval. iv. A site plan is provided. ' ,II DIVISION OF PLANNING • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNIN AN� ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • CITY OF SAINT PAUL � CITY HAII ANNEX • 25 WEST FOURTH STREET, SAIN PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 • TELEPHONE: 612-228-3382 � 2. Permit private helistops at hospitals in RM-2, RM-3, B-3, B-4, B-5, � I-1, I-2 and RCI-1 districts as a special condition use provided: i. There is 200 feet between the helistop and residentially zoned � property. ii. The proposed helistop operator provides the City with a noise analysis showing the helistop will not violate State noise � standards, Chapter 7010. If the analysis shows that the standards will be violated, the operator must take mitigating measures before the helistop is established. � iii. The helistop must have state and federal approval. iv. A site plan is provided. , 3. Remove airports as a permitted use from RCI-1 districts. � . � � � I � � � � ' , � , � TABLE CONTENTS � Page Introduction 1 ' Definitions 1 Background: Heliports and Helicopt rs 1 � The Metropolitan Council's Regional Heliport Study 2-5 � Alternatives 5-10 Neighborhood and Housing Committee eetings 11 1 Findings : 11-14 Recommendations ; 14-15 ' Staff Analysis 15-16 Comprehensive Plan Amendment � 16-17 � Zoning Code Amendments � 17-21 ' ! A PENDIR � Page Attorne General Memo - Noise I � y 23 Noise Pollution Control Rules � 24-27 St. Paul Downtown Airport Noise' Ab tement/Operations Plan 28-37 j � City Council Resolution on Mili�tar Helicopters 38 � Statements and Letters Presente�d Public Meetings 39-49 Statements and Letters Received 50-56 , Staff Memo: Frank Walz Letter � 56-58 ' Minutes of April 5 and April 1�? P blic Meetings of 59-63 Neighborhood and Housing Co ittee � � � � , � � �� l�, �, 1 �: . Introduction i iIn October, 1987, the City Counci adopted a moratorium on issuing permits for the establishment of heliport . The purpose of the moratorium was to allow the city time to consider p ssible amendments to the zoning code ' concerning heliports. The Met�*op litan Council at this time was also about to start a regional study o heliports. Their study was to inventory existing facilities, pr ject demand, develop siting standards ' and model ordinances, and prop se a public heliport systems plan from a regional perspective. The dat� d veloped and the proposed regional plan approach by the Metropolitan Coun il would be useful to developing the ' city's heliport zoning amendments The Metropolitan Council has c�mp eted a draft Twin Cities Regional Heliport Feasibility Study and ha sent it out for public review. The � Metropolitan Council will hold a ublic hearing on the study in July and expects to adopt it as part of th Aviation Development Guide chapter in late summer. The City Councill,ha extended the heliport moratorium until � October 9, 1989, so that zoninffi endments may be completed. The purpose of this 40-acre st�dy is (1) to review and recommend any needed changes to the Metropol�ta Council's study and (2) to develop � proposed heliport zoning amendd�►en s for the city zoning ordinance and needed Comprehensive Plan amendme ts. � Definitions Here are some definitions which a e used for this 40-acre study. � Heliport. An area designed toiac ommodate the take-off and landing of helicopters. Heliports may in�clu e operation facilities such as mait►tenance, service, storage, or terminal facilities. Heliports includes � helistops. Helistop. An area designated 'to ccommodate take-off and landings of ' helicopters. Such an area shall ontain no operation facilities other than one tie down space and othe facilities as are required by other regulations. ' � Operation. A helicopter take-of or landing. Public heliport or helistop. iAn heliport or helistop open to the public. � Private heliport or helistop. A y heliport or helistop not open to the general public and requiring pri r permission of the owner to land. rRegion. The seven county met�'op litan area of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Was ington Counties. ' Back round: Heli orts and He ic ters In the Twin City region, there a e 16 heliports and 10 public airports � where helicopters may land. In aint Paul, United and Saint Paul-Ramsey hospitals have helistops for �me gency medical service helicopters. Saint Paul Dowritown Airport has hel�po ts for private operators and the military. Transient helicopt�rs may also land there. � - 1 - �, l There are 21 private helicopters based in the region, most (18) at public � airports. Private helicopters performed about 21,000 annual operations in � 1987. At Saint Paul Downtown Airport there are based nine private helicopters and 61 military helicopters. These helicopters performed about 15,500 � operations in 1987, about 11,000 by the military and 5,000 by the private operators. The study forecasts a steady but moderate growth in helicopter activity at , about a 2.3$ annual rate for the region. By the year 2008, privately based helicopters could increase to 29, with 33,000 operations a year. Business/corporate helicopter use is expected to have the most potential , growth. The Metropolitan Council's Reeional Heliport Feasibilitv StudY , The Metropolitan Council heliport study makes recommendations in three areas which the city needs to address. � 1. Heliport System Plan The study recommends that heliport feasibility studies and master � plans be performed for four general locations in the Twin Cities region. The locations and type of heliport are shown on Map 1. The recommendation does not specify sites but only indicates general � search areas where there is a demand for a heliport. The heliports would be public heliports. The study does not recommend locations for private heliports. Private heliport locations and types are left to private heliport developers and federal, state, and municipal � regulators. For Saint Paul, the study recommends a public helistop in a downtown � search area. The helistop could be either in the downtown business area or at the Saint Paul Downtown Airport. The helistop would have an intermediate priority (6 to 10 years) for planning, design, and � construction since there is public landing facilities available now at Downtown Airport. The city needs to address whether a public heliport is an appropriate � use in the downtown search area. 2. Policy Recommendations � The heliport study recommends the following six policies be added to the Metropolitan Council's Aviation Goals and Policies. S stem Function M y 1. Public heliports should be planned where appropriate and consistent � with regional aviation objectives, community issues and environmental concerns. 2. Helicopter landing facilities at hospitals in the region should be � encouraged, in concert with federal, state and local planners. - 2 - � � , ! __ � . :.. .. ' MQP 1 . . . . 1 _Y .., .. .. �� ! ; .. .. _ . � 1 __.__.. . .. ;�."' . _. . .��. .. ; ....�. ,rf � � : ..... � ..�... � ....... ,.:,...'�-,� . .. . � � : ; � ......, . . � � � . . � .. ..__. __ ._ , _. -- . 1 _. . . ; ., ...... . - . . ...�.... ... � ��... .,.. ...,,...... N�1�1 �,��1 1 � � •. • , � � :.....,. .,.,.. ... . _,_ � , ..... .;: ......� ,�� _eeul ,..� :, ��;,.o...,, `" `�� ' port � .......... ., , ::.. _ .,.� , • ,.,., , a . .,�...., �1 .;. � ...... ; ... .. : D� ]li.tl�� ,.,,.= ,........ ,��.�. `. . ]el � -1AI�.o. ,. . ,..:, . I ...� L'n ♦t i 1 ��lif�.�il/ •! -��III�� i �. �,..`,.'. .. � � 1��• ��w.� . 'l.`�1w � . . _ , ......... , .�.� .:� � . �......... ��(�'(•' . .. . ... � --- ., � ... �' I��r -�.��. ,� .i ■.n1•w o..r..i �... 1 ~ ...n W , ...�, . I I � � .,►, r. . r�. ► � ..�.. �i . M O I .J �Y�Y � � .. . ._. ...-." •l111�� . •• , • � . ..�1 •�� • �r� ■.��• . � •i .1■ � ►1,, .. _ � •.��..�,G .. , . + '�. _.. I ~ iH�..u�• ..n �. . �'� � � In c�w.�..c. �.- • `J��► • � . ,. �• j Y •w�o..� � .� •. .�. �a. �:A_�. w '� ,.,. .-•-- ,..w � - - • �--�---r'- --- - -- -•. �,� F �. , ,,. �, .� ..�,,. „ .� .�..... , •�I.l��.. � ' I, • ��iwl� •Y�1• •Y� _.. _ .. . . " � �N• 4 . . . ' �v � �.��4 �.��w. .. � � 1� ,.�.... � ra� '� ' ' ..c �. ! .- .�• -asa A �� . Jri�,, �.�v.... • � ��.��w.t � �..�. � U��f1 I irn..�. ..� : .�•..... __'. _«�YjR. �G �O`• � � . s � �� i ; i � , � M� , . t.�wUt• CO ,..��i. ,.'�� .:�.1% ,��,`.� �.�.w�,li � S�� jr�'- � . ._� .0��•. .. r. � fwKi� ..... . . , ,_ f iRYR :' , �.�• i . J•VJ''� 1 . , . ... . .,�,�. � - � Mtiipqrt .....»., , .,... . ' -� ...,. , ... ... � �... ., - � . = ...:� _.1_ � —'—_yr '� � __' � • --_.---Z,4er---- .. . _ ` .. ———.. . .. .,..—T .... . i ��— I , �.�. . , . . . �r I � ,..�....� � ,... .� � � . . .. ' � ...,. �. I , . .li, -., r � � ' . : ' '�'--� � � . �. � � •1��.�ur• � .+ ' • � •/�1��.•V� � • � �\V�� LN. � ' � , 1 ' •.�.. � �� •�� i 1 ��J.�1��..�� .� � � �+ . . ... _i __ ._i�'.� .._- .�J�.�f��J � _�.i �.� . . ..�. . •�• -' 1" '"'� � •, . •�• ' .....• ' '��/I�• . •��• � �.. . ..� I .t.• . .1 •J•11 � •.�t\.�.t' •��1.�1 I •1�.��. ♦1 � � .I �.. . . I •1��11 � w��IIV� .......�1 I ' <�i—� • ; � I � ' ........� I .1,.,,.�- , •- - -��- -- • -- . � `�— � -_. - --- • ---�- • - - • . . - -r�..�e.r. �w I 7 � �� r.._� � -� t 7• I ..��... � 4�u � io �� .. .. .. I � I. �'�.1 ��. ... ..... . . _._ �� . Twin Cities Figure Recommand• Regional Heliport . 2 Feasibi I ity Study Systom Plah � � a�«� br r� � �M��Y� ��Y f\e�eyl �. � System Development 3. Investment in Public Heliports should occur only when required by ' need and after existing facilities have been used to the maximum capability. ' System Compatibility 4. A model heliport zoning ordinance should be established for the � region, to encourage the appropriate development of heliports, consistent with noise and land use issues. System Planning and Coordination � 5. Heliports and helicopters should be integrated with all other � aspects of aviation in future aviation system plan updates. 6. The Metropolitan Council should encourage heliport feasibility studies or Master Plans where consistent with the regional system , plan and desired by local communities. The city needs to address whether it should encourage helicopter � landing facilities at hospitals by allowing them in the zoning ordinance. The model zoning ordinances must also be addressed. They are discussed below. 3. Model Ordinances � The study recommends two model zoning ordinances. � The first ordinance would make private and public heliports permitted uses in commercial and industrial districts and private heliports � permitted uses in residential districts. The heliport would have to be approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) . There would be building height limits placed on ad�acent properties which are under , the approach and departure paths at public heliports. (This is FAA policy now.) The second ordinance would permit heliports as special condition uses. � Cities could allow them in any zoning district deemed appropriate. A 200 foot setback would be required between the heliport and residential property. The FAA and MnDOT would have to approve the � heliport. For helicopter routes and altitudes, "the Planning Commission, in concert with the heliport operator, the FAA and the State, shall establish heliport access and egress routes and � altitudes. All such routes must have FAA approval as the regulatory agency in these matters." In approving a heliport special condition use, the Planning Commission may impose reasonable conditions, ' including restrictions on levels of activity. A noise assessment, using FAA guidelines (the same guidelines used for Condor's permit) or more sophisticated techniques, would be required. � - 4 - , � , I The first model ordinance has �ve y few regulations. It would have � allowed the Condor Heliport as a permitted use without any public review in a single family zon�ng district. Because of the noise which can occur at heliports and be�au e of the dense residential and ' business development pattern in he city, heliports need to be regulated much more than is p�op sed in this model ordinance. The second ordinance raises agai the issue of the city regulating � helicopter flight paths and l�eve of activity (maximum operations) at heliports. The City Attorney, ha said that these matters are pre-empted from city regulatipn y Federal and State regulation. � Alternatives The five alternative positions o� t e next five pages give a wide range of � possible responses to the Met Counc 1's plan and of possible city zoning amendments. They are offered in, or er to focus the public discussion about heliports. � � I ' � ' � � , � � � ' � I � 1 1 � ' - 5 - , � ' ALTERNATIVE AA: Prohibit Heliports � Supportin,g Rationale ' . The noise of helicopter takeoffs and landings at heliports make heliports incompatible within the city. . The city has much less control of heliports than other land uses. For � instance, noise at business sites can be controlled by the city's noise ordinance. Intensity of development at business sites is � controlled by the zoning code's floor area ratios. Access to parking lots at business sites is controlled by parking lot design standards and the layout of streets. However, the control of noise, number of flights (intensity) , and flight paths at heliports (access) has been � preempted by the federal and state governments. Until the city has such control, the city should prohibit heliports from the city. Response to Met Council � . Recommend Met Council remove the downtown Saint Paul area from the � systems plan as a location for any future development of a public heliport. Zoning Amendments � . Define heliports as part of an airport. . Add a statement to the section making sirports a special condition use , in I-1 districts that heliports separate from airports are not permitted in the City. ' � � � , � � - 6 - � r 'r� . -� . ` �� , � rALTERNATIVE A: Allow Heliport at owntown Airport � Supporting Rationale , . The noise of helicopter tak�of s and landings at heliports make , heliports incompatible within he city. . The city has much less control of heliports than other land uses. For instance, intensity of develop ent at business sites is controlled by , the zoning code's floor are� r tios. Access to parking lots at business sites is controlled b parking lot design standards and the layout of streets. However; c ntrol of noise, number of flights ' (intensity) and flight path� a heliports (access) has been pre-empted by the federal and state gover ents. Until the city has such control, the city should reStr ct heliports in the city as much as possible. ' Response to Met Council I � Recommend Met Council designat D town Airport in the systems plan as the location for any future de�el pment of a public heliport. I Zoning Amendments � Amend the zoning code to: I � 1. Permit public and private hjeli orts at airports in I-1 and I-2 districts as special condiiio uses. 2. Require minimum spacing bebwe residential zoned property and � heliports and helistops. � 3. Require a noise impact analys s. If arialysis indicates adverse � effects on residential proper y, require mitigation of adverse effects. I � 4. Require federal and state �pp oval of heliport or helistop. 5. Require height limits on ad,ja ent property for public heliports. � i ' � , � 1 � _ � _ 1 � ' ALTERNATIVE B: Allow Heliport at Downtown Airport and Helistops at � Hospitals Supporting Rationale � . Large heliports should be allowed only at Downtown Saint Paul Airport � where other aircraft activity is permitted. . The Downtown Airport is a good location for a heliport since it is in one of the largest non-residential areas in the city. � . The downtown is so close to the airport there is no need to have a heliport in the downtown. � . The downtown is a mixed use area with residential spread throughout it. Allowing a heliport in the downtown could inhibit new residential use and adversely affect existing residential. , . Emergency medical service helistops at hospitals provide valuable public service. � Response to Met Council Recommend the Met Council designate the Downtown Airport in the system � plan as the location for any future development of a public heliport. Zoning Amendments , Amend the zoning code to: 1. Permit public and private heliports at sirports in I-1 and I-2 � districts as a special condition use. 2. Permit private helistops at hospitals in RM-2, RM-3, B-3, B-4, B-5, , I-1, and I-2 districts as special condition uses. 3. Require minimum spacing between residential zoned property and � heliports and helistops. 4. Require a noise impact analysis. If analysis indicates adverse � effects on residential property, require mitigation of adverse effects. 5. Require federal and state approval of heliports and helistops. ' 6. Require height limits on adjacent property for public heliports. � � - 8 - � � ' i � ALTERNATIVE C: Allow Heli ort a�t D wntown Airport and Helistop in B-4, P B-5, and I Distr,ict and Hospitals tSupportin„g Rationale � . Large heliports should be al�lo d only at Downtown Airport where other aircraft activity is permitt�ed. . The Downtown Airport is a gol�od ocation for a large heliport since it , is in one of the largest non-re idential areas in the city. . Helistops can be a positive too for corporate and industrial ' development in the downtown and industrial areas. . Emergency medical service he�lis ops at hospitals provide a valuable ' public service. , Response to Met Council � Recommend the Met Council adopt �th proposed system plan which shows a public helistop in the downtown ,se ch area. 1 Zoning Amendments Amend the zoning code to: , l. Permit public and private helip rts at airports in I-1 and I-2 districts as a special conditio use. � 2. Permit public and private helis ops in B-4, B-5, I-1, and I-2 districts as a special conditio use. 3. Permit private helistops at �os itals in RM-2, RM-3, and B-3 districts , as a special condition use. 4. Require minimum spacing betwcen residential zoned property and , heliports and helipads. ' 5. Require a noise impact analysis If analysis indicates adverse � effects on residential prope�ty require mitigation of adverse effects. 6. Require federal and state ap�ro al of heliport or helistop. � 7. Require height limits on ad�fice t property for public heliports. ' �; ' � , 9 - , � ' - - CC-1 and I Districts and � ALTERNATIVE D: Allow Heliports in B 4, B 5, R Helistops at Hospitals (Most closely follows Met Council recommendation.) � Supporting Rationale . Heliports should be permitted in the same zoning districts where other � intense uses are permitted. . Heliports can be a positive tool for corporate and industrial � development in the downtown and industrial areas by increasing accessibility. . Emergency medical service helistops at hospitals provide a valuable , public service. Response to Met Council � Recommend the Council adopt the proposed systems plan which shows a public helistop in the downtown search area. � Zoning Amendments Amend the zoning code to: i 1. Permit private and public heliports in B-4, B-5, RCC-1, RCI-1, I-1, , and I-2 districts as special condition uses. 2. Permit private helistops at hospitals in RM-2, RM-3, and B-3 districts as special condition uses. , 3. Require minimum spacing between residential property and heliports and helistops. ' 4. Require a noise impact analysis. If analysis indicates adverse effects on residential property, require mitigation of adverse effects. , 5. Require federal and state approval of heliport. 6. Require height limits on adjacent property for public heliports. i � ' ' - 10 - ' ' , I NEIGHBORHOOD A�iD OUSING COMMITTEE MEETINGS ' The Neighborhood and Housing C�'o ttee held two public meetings in April, 1989, to discuss with interested arties five alternative positions on the City's approach to heliports. �' Th Committee was given a tour of the � National Guard heliport facility t Downtown Airport. The Committee also met three times on this matter' INDINGS � Staff has considered the five alt rnatives, testimony at the public meetings, the Met Council's sti�dy and zoning approaches elsewhere and , makes the following findings and ecommendations. Regulation 1. The City "is preempted by the Constitution and federal legislation ' from enacting local regulattio s pertaining to number of helicopter operations at a heliport, typ s of helicopters that may take off or � land there, flight paths to o from heliports, altitude restrictions around heliports and noise le els around heliports." (City attorney opinion of September 22, 1�88.) � 2. There is an exception to the reemption ruling in 1. above . Cities which own and operate airport "may adopt regulations governing such matters as noise, length o$ 1 nding strips, and types of aircraft that � may use the airport." (Ci�y ttorney opinion of September 22, 1988.) 3. The City through zoning may " egulate the location and site design � standards of heliports so l�on as the regulations are not inconsistent with either federal or sta�e aws or regulations. The local zoning regulations may provide th�t heliport is a conditional use and sub�ect to general and specia conditions imposed by the Zoning Code � provisions and the Plannin� C ission acting pursuant to those provisions." (City Attorney inion of September 22, 1988.) 4. The Minnesota Pollution Coritr 1 Agency has testified that their noise ' rules, Chapter 7010, require city to take all reasonable measures to prevent establishment of land ses, such as heliports, which would , immediately be in violation o State noise standards. (Memo and noise rules attached in appendix.�) 5. MAC has developed and adopted noise abatement/operations plan for � the Downtown Airport and ths also has approved it. The plan identifies noise sensitive 'are s; designates preferred runway use, arrival-departure routes, mini wn altitudes, and flight tracks; and ' limits ground tests of aircraf engines. However, this is an operations plan and not a re u ation. As the plan states: "The final determination for the safe bpe ation of the aircraft rests with the ' pilot, therefore compliance wi h noise control measures is largely voluntary, and the MAC reli+es n the cooperation of aircraft owners and operators and the FAA cont ol tower for the plan's success. In addition, weather and air tYaf ic conditions sometimes make it unsafe , to use noise abatement procedu es; and certain types of aircraft may be unable to fly safely at the suggested minimum altitudes or using recommended flight paths." (S e St. Paul Downtown Airport Noise � Abatement/Operations Plan in A pendix.) � - 11 - , I ' 6. Similar operations plans could be drawn up by the operators of all new ' heliports and approved by the FAA. 7. On the request of the Neighborhood Committee, Planning staff spoke to � Frank Trainer of Congressman Oberstar's staff about FAA and city regulation of heliports. He suggested speaking to Los Angeles airport personnel because he understood the City of Los Angeles regulated and enforced flight paths, altitudes, and other helicopter activities at � the airport. 8. Staff spoke to Los Angeles Airport operations staff. He said that the � city owns the airport. As owner of the airport, they enter into an agreement with each helicopter operator at the airport. The operators must agree to abide by the minimwn altitudes, flight paths, and low , noise takeoff and landing procedures in order to locate at the airport. Operators who do not follow the agreement can be e�ected from the airport. (The FAA approves the safety of these operator agreements. ) The City of Los Angeles adopts and enforces these � "regulations" by virtue of owning the airport, not by zoning regulations. Regulating its own sirport is consistent with finding 2. Consequently, Saint Paul cannot regulate helicopter activities through � operators agreements at Downtown Airport or at private heliports because it does not own the facilities. (It can, however, regulate heliports through zoning as set forth in findings 3 and 4. ) � 9. People testified at the public meeting that making complaints about low flying helicopters is difficult because the FAA wants to know the , helicopters identifying number which may be impossible to see. People also testified that they do not know where to complain. Existing Heliports � 10. There are helistops for emergency medical services now at Saint Paul Ramsey and United Hospitals. , 11. Since Downtown Airport is a public airport where helicopters are allowed to take-off and land and helicopter operators are allowed to ' locate their maintenance and storage facilities there, it technically is a public heliport even though it is not designated as a public heliport. 12. Operations at Downtown Airport by helicopters not based at Downtown � Airport have been insignificant. 13. In 1988, there was an average of 20 operations at Downtown Airport ' between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. , almost all of which were airplanes. The biggest proportion of the flights were airplanes transporting checks ' to Federal Reserve banks. 14. The tower at Downtown Airport is closed between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. because there are not enough flights to remain open. ' - 12 - � ' ' � 15. The master plan for powntown Ai ort is currently being updated and should be completed in spring o 1990. The Metro Council's proposal � for a public heliport at the !ai port will be studied as part of the update. � � Militarv Helicopters ! 16. The National Guard and Army Res rves have 61 helicopters based at the , Downtown Airport and they petfo med about 11,000 operations in 1987. 17. The military helicopter operati ns have been a noise problem to the adjoining Dayton's Bluff and' We t Side residential neighborhoods for � many years. , 18. In 1989, the National Guard �as 86 full time employees, the Army ' Reserve 35. In 1989, the Na�tio al Guard has 35 helicopters, the Army Reserve 28. ' 19. The National Guard expects t�e umber of their sircraft to decrease in the future due to budget cutbac s, and the Army Reserve expects the number of their sircraft to re in the same. � 20. Both the Guard and Reserve hav imposed voluntary curfews on flights between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 21. Most of the traffic pattern wo k (repetitive training operations) of , both the Guard and Reserve hel copters is done away from Downtown Airport at other airports o�* t aining areas. ' 22. The City Council has wantedlto establish a strategy to relocate the military helicopters outsid� o Saint Paul. (See Council Resolution in Appendix.) i , Metro Council Re ional Heli or S d 23. The Met Council study forecast a modest growth in privately based ' (non-military) helicopter abti ity at about a 2.3$ annual rate for the region. By the year 2008, ,pri ately based helicopters could increase to 29, compared to the 21 pri tely based helicopters now in the , region. i 24. The Met Council study propose that feasibility and master plan � studies be done for a public elistop in a downtown Saint Paul search area, the facility to be ei�th r at Downtown Airport or in the downtown business area. , 25. The Met Council study gives a intermediate priority (6 to 10 years) to the Saint Paul helistop fo planning, design, and construction since there are helicopter' la ding and basing facilities now at � Downtown Airport. � 26. Since the Downtown Airport�' no is technically a public heliport, � establishing a public helipor in the downtown business area would mean there would be two pu�li helicopter facilities in the downtown area,- a public heliport at Do town Airport and a public helistop in the downtown business areai. , , - 13 - , ; ' 27. The Downtown Airport is very close to the downtown business area (about 1-1/2 miles) and can adequately serve business users there. � 28. Several people testified that the Downtown Airport should not be . designated as a public heliport because this could induce helicopter ' traffic. However, designation of the Downtown Airport as a public heliport will not induce people to buy helicopters and start using the airport. Helicopter activity could increase there because helicopter � activity increases and there is no other heliport to locate at -- whether it is designated or not will not make the difference. 29. The two model zoning ordinances which the Met Council proposes are , inadequate to guide heliport regulation in the region. 30. Emergency medical service helistops at hospitals provide valuable , public services. RECOI�Il�IENDATI ONS e Metro Council Regional Heliport Plan 1. Since the Downtown Saint Paul Airport already accommodates the � functions of a public heliport, designating it as a public heliport or helistop would be superfluous. Helicopter traffic is forecast ' to increase only moderately in the region during the next 20 years, and if any small changes to the airport are required, they can be done as the need arises. Furthermore, since the airport is only one and one-half miles from the downtown business area and can , adequately serve the businesses there, no search area for a public heliport or helistop needs to be designated in Saint Paul. 2. The Met Council's model heliport zoning o-rdinances should be t revised. Greater regard must be given to the land use relationship between heliports and other land uses. The ordinances must only recommend regulations which cities have the authority to adopt. , The Met Council has already decided to revise the model ordinances and is in the process of setting up a committee to begin the work. � So that the committee may have a broad perspective, citizen members from Saint Paul neighborhoods, as well as citizens from other cities, should be members of the Committee. � Saint Paul Downtown Airport Master Plan Update 3. The Metropolitan Airports Commission should include citizens from ' neighborhoods who will be affected by aircraft noise from Saint Paul Downtown Airport in the process of updating the airport's master plan. ' Citv Zonin�`Regulations 4. Staff recommends that the zoning ordinance be amended to: � a. ` Permit public and private heliports at sirports in I-1 and I-2 districts as a special condition use provided: ' - 14 - , � � - _�— /�'c:� ii � ' i. There is 1,OOO, fe t between the heliport and residentially zon d property. ii. The proposed h�li ort operator provides the City with a � noise analysis � sh wing that the heliport will not violate State Noise stand rds, Chapter 7010. If the analysis shows that the st ndards will be violated, the operator ' must take miti�at ng measures before the heliport is established. ' iii. The heliport m�st have state and federal approval. iv. A site plan is ,pr vided. � b. Permit private helisto s at hospitals in RM-2, RM-3, B-3, B-4, B-S, I-1, I-2 and RCI- districts as a special condition use provided: ' i. There is 200 f�et between the helistop and residentially zoned property. ' ii. The proposed h�li top operator provides the City with a noise analysis 'sh ing the helistop will not violate State noise stand rds, Chapter 7010. If the analysis , shows that the ,st dards will be violated, the operator must take mitigat g measures before the helistop is established. ' ' iii. The helistop must ave state and federal approval. 1 iv. A site plan is ipr ided. c. Remove airports as a� p rmitted use from RCI-1 districts. i ' S. Staff recommends that th� L nd Use Plan should be amended to limit full service heliports tq D wntown Saint Paul Airport and to allow only private heliports at h spitals. , S7fAF ANALYSIS , Since helicopters make undesirable oise and the City has little regulatory power over heliports, t locations of heliports should be limited within the City as much ''as ossible. , Helicopters can be noisier than si lanes because they can and do fly at lower altitudes (below 2,000 fee,t) . Helicopters also make a distinct ' sound, caused by "blade slap," w�hic can cause strong responses from some people. The City is limited to regulatir� t e location of heliports within the � City. It cannot regulate helicopte activities such as approach and departure paths, minimwn altitud�es, or maximum nwnber of operations. Once a helipoYt is established in an are , it may grow to the point where noise , is a problem to the nearby business and residential areas. - 15 - ' � The Downtown Airport already accommodates the functions of a public heliport and is a satisfactory site for such functions. It has a large , site. The existing private and National Guard heliport buildings and landing areas on the west side of the airport are 2,100 feet from Dunedin Terrace, the nearest residential zoned area. The existing Army Reserve � heliport facilities on the east side of the airport are 2,500 feet from Mounds Park, the nearest residential zoned area. Providing helistops at hospitals provides valuable public benef�ts. The � fast medical services can make a difference to people's lives in emergency situations. Hospital helicopter operations have been infrequent. United Hospitals , reports 104 operations in 1987; Saint Paul-Ramsey Hospital reports 550 operations in 1988. One reason operations are higher at Saint Paul-Ramsey � is because Life Link helicopters, their emergency medical service, stations a helicopter at the hospital one week in three during the warm weather months of April through October. Helicopter crews train at the hospital while stationed there. � A 200 foot spacing requirement is proposed between a hospital helistop and residential property. (This is the spacing recommended by the Met ' Council. ) Here is the effect the spacing will have on the City's four hospitals. Since United and Saint Paul-Ramsey Hospital's helistops are further than 200 feet from residentially zoned property, their helistops ' will remain as conforming accessory uses. The nearest residentially zoned property to Saint Joseph's Hospital is 730 feet although housing is across Saint Peter Street from the hospital. There is residentially zoned property within 200 feet of Midway; a modification of the spacing ' requirement would be needed in order to establish a helistop. Staff also considered recommending helistops in downtown and industrial , districts. However, this could lead to a proliferation of helistops within the City and goes against the general goal of limiting heliports. Staff has recommended that helistops be permitted at hospitals, but the effect on nearby residential areas will be limited because the number of , hospitals are few and operations at hospitals are infrequent. Airports have been removed from the RCI-1, River Corridor Industrial ' District. It is inappropriate and extremely unlikely that an airport would locate in a river corridor district. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 1 Staff recommends that the following amendment be made to the Comprehensive , Plan's A Plan for Land Use by adding: HELIPORTS AND HELISTOPS , Since helicopters make undesirable noise and the City has little regulatory power over heliports, the locations of heliports should be limited within the City as much as possible. � ' - 16 - ' , � Policy (4.6-11) The City will lim t the location of full service heliport � facilities to the Saint Paul Do�nt wn Airport since the airport now accommodates the functions of a'he iport and is conveniently located near the downtown business area, and he iport facilities may be established � there at reasonable distances f�om residential areas. Policy (4.6-12) The City will all w pxivate helistops at hospitals in ' order to allow emergency medica� s rvices. Policy (4.6-13) Private heliports and helistops will not be allowed in the City except as allowed in pQli ies (4.6-11 and 4.6-12) . � I MZONING DE AMENDMENTS , An Ordinance Amending Ghapter 6�,0 the Saint Paul Legislative Code Pertaining to Heliports and Helis ps ' The Council of the City of Saint aul Does Ordain: ' j S ction 1. That Section 66.208H of the Sa�nt Paul Legislative Code be amended so as ' to add the following new defin ti ns thereto: Heliport. An area designed to be used for the take-off or landing of helicopters including operatio�s acilities, such as maintenance, loading ' and unloading, storage, fueling, r terminal facilities. Helistop. An area designed tolbe used for the take-off or landing of one ' helicopter and the tie-down space for one helicopter and other facilities as may be required by other re¢ul tions but not including operation facilities such as maintenance, s orage, fueling, or terminal facilities. ' Heliport or helistop, private. , A heliport or helistop not open to the general public and requiring pirio permission of the owner or operator to , land. Heliport or helistop, public. ' A eliport or helistop open to use by any helicopter. , ' ' r � � �� _ �� _ � ' Section 2. � That Section 60.453 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code be amended so as to add the following new subdivision thereto: � (5) Private helistop located at the site of a hospital, subject to the following conditions: (a) The helistop shall be located at least two hundred (200) , radial feet from any residentially zoned property measured in a straight line from the closest point of the take-off and , landing area to the closest residentially zoned property line. (b) The applicant shall perform a noise analysis to determine � whether upon establishment of the helistop the Noise Pollution ' Control Rules, Chapter 7010, of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency would immediately be violated. If the analysis shows that the rules would be violated, the applicant shall ' take measures � mitigate the potential violation before the helistop is established. (c) The helistop shall be constructed, operated, and maintained in , accordance with the rules and regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and State of Minnesota. Documentation that the FAA and State have approved the ' helistop shall be included with the application. (d) A site plan of the proposed facility and an area map showing , the distance between the proposed take-off and landing area and the nearest residentially zoned property shall be provided to the Planning Commission. 1 Section 3. That Section 60.463 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code be amended so as to ' add the following new subdivision thereto: (5) Private helistop located at the site of a hospital subject to the � conditions set forth for RM-2 Mediwn Density, Low-Rise Multiple-Family Residential District in Section 60.453, principal uses permitted subject to special condition. ' Section 4. , That Section 60.544 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code be amended so as to add the following new subdivision thereto: , (20) Private helistop located at the site of a hospital sub�ect to the conditions set forth for RM-2 Medium Density, Low-Rise Multiple-Family Residential District in Section 60.453, principal ' uses permitted sub�ect to special condition. - 18 - ' � , , Siect on 5. That Section 60.554 of the Saint �au Legislative Code be amended so as to ' add the following new subdivision' th reto: (11) Private helistop located sit e site of a hospital sub�ect to the conditions set forth for RM-2 Medium Density, Low-Rise i Multiple-Family Residential strict in Section 60.453, principal uses permitted subject to 'sp ial condition. , Sec ion 6. That Section 60.563 of the Saint !Pa Legislative Code be amended so as to , add the following new subdivision t reto: (11) Private helistop located at he site of a hospital sub�ect to the , conditions set forth for RM- Medium Density, Low-Rise Multiple-Family Residenti�l istrict in Section 60.453, principal uses permitted sub�ect to sp cial condition. ' $ec ion 7. That Section 60.614, subdivisionl (2 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is ' hereby amended to read as follows: (2) Airports. ��va�e-aa�-ee�e e�a�;-�Re��ag-ke��pe��s ' ead-ke��gads-ea�-e�ke�-e��e� €�-�aad-€�e�ds;-�xaways; €��gk�-s��fps;-ead-€�y�agj-se ee�s;-�ege�ke�-Wf�l�-ka�ga�s; �e�a��aa�-bt�i�d�ags;-aad-ai�x# �a�y-€ae��es-st�b�ee�-�e , �ke-�eqt��effien�s-se�-€e��-f -�ke-nge�e�a�-p�ev�s�eas:'1 I iSe ion 8. , That Section 60.614 of the Saint P 1 Legislative Code be amended so as to add the following new subdivisioln ereto: ' (8) Heliports and helistops, pub ic and private, located at an airport subject to the following con itions: , (a) The heliport and heliis op shall be located at least one thousand (1,000) radia feet from any residentially zoned property, measured in straight line from the closest point , of the take-off and la ding area to the closest residentially zoned property line. (b) The appiicant shall pe form a noise analysis to determine , whether upon establish ent of the heliport or helistop the Noise Pollution Con$ro Rules, Chapter 7010, of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agen y would immediately be violated. If ' the analysis shows �ha the rules would be violated, the applicant shall tak� m asures to mitigate the potential violation before the h liport or helistop is established. , 19 - , � � (c) The heliport or helistop shall be constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the rules and regulations of the � Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and State of Minnesota. Documentation that the FAA and State have approved the heliport or helistop shall be included with the application. ' (d) A site plan of the proposed facility and an area map showing the distance between the proposed take-off and landing area and the nearest residentially zoned property shall be provided , to the Commission. Section 9. , That Section 60.622, subdivision (1) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as follows: ' (1) Any uses permitted in the I-1 District as "principal uses permitted" and "principal uses permitted subject to special conditions," except ' for adult bookstores, adult cabarets, adult conversation/rap parlors, adult health sport clubs, adult massage parlors, adult mini-motion ' picture theatres, adult motion picture theatres, adult steam room/bathhouse facilities and other adult uses and airports and public and private heliports and helistops; provided, that they , meet at least the minimwn conditions imposed in each district. Section 10 , That Section 60.624 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code be amended so as to add the following new subdivisions thereto: � (13) Private helistop located at the site of a hospital sub�ect to the conditions set forth for RM-2 Medium Density, Low Rise ' Multiple-Family Residential District in Section 60.453, principal uses permitted subject to special condition. (14) Airports: ' (15) Public and private heliports and helistops located at an airport, subject to the conditions set forth for I-1 Industrial Districts in ' Section 60.614, principal uses permitted subject to special conditions. Section 11. ' That Section 60.773 subdivision (4) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code is hereby amended to read as_ follows:_ , E4� A��e��s, g��va�e axd-eeue�e�a}�_}xe}t�d�ag ke�ige��s-aa�-l�e�i�a�s;-ea�-e�ke�-ai�e�a€� �ea��r�g-€�e�ds;-��aWays;-€�fg�i�-s��i�s-axd ' €�y�xg-sekee�s;-�ege�ke�-w��k-l�aaga�s; - �e��n�aa�-bt��iags-aa�-at�x��a�y-€ae��ies sxb3ee�-�e-�ke-�e�t�i�e�ea�s-se�-€e��k-�a ' ��ie-'-'6exe�a�-P�ev�s�eas:„ - 20 - � , I�I 4 Private helisto locatedlat the ite of a hos ital sub ect to the , � ) conditions set forth for RM 2 Medium Densit Low-Rise Multi le-Famil Reside al D'strict in Section 60 45 rinci a ' uses ermitted sub ect t s ec al condition. S tion 12. ' This ordinance shall take effect nd be in force thirty days from and after its passage, approval, and ublication. ' , �I ' I ' ' ' ' , ' ' , �'' � , , , , , - 21 - � I � /�,-• � i � � , I / ,� /�. v SF�OOOOb 051�1861 DEPrAATMENT : ATTORNEY GENERAL/EPD STATE OF MINNESOTA � , Office Memorandum o^TE : 4/5/89 � To : REBECCA NIEDZIELSKI I� � Noise Specialist; Prog am Development ' Division of Air Qualft FROM : STEPHEN SHAKMAN r�.-�' Special Assistant Attor ey General , ' PHONE : (-7345 ' , Sus.iECT : AppLICATION OF MINNEaO POLLDTION CONTROL AGENCY NOISE RULES TO HELIPORT SITIN PROCESS ' You have explained that the Metropolitan Council is evaluating the feasibility o a heliport for downtown St. Paul and other locations. You !ha e asked about the applicability of , the Minnesota Pollution CQnt ol Agency 's (MPCA's) Noise Rules, particularly Minn. Rules pt. 7010. 0030 , to the heliport siting process. ' � The authority of thelMP A to establish noise rules is set forth in Minn. Stat. § 11d.0 , subds. 2 and 4 (1988) . Subdivision 2 expressly dijre ts the MPCA to take into account in ' such rules the varying lar�d ses and natural factors found in different locations within t e state. The MPCA applied this statutory directive in defjin ng �Noise Area Classifications (NACs) , for many land use activitijes in Minn. Rules pt. 7010.0050 (1987) . The four classifications und r this rule are based upon the land use by the party who receiive the noise, not the party who ' generates it. These NACs ar utilized in Minn. Rules pt. 7010.0040 , which presc�ri es daytime and nighttime maximum sour�d levels, or noise sta�nd rds, for the NAC classifications one thraugh three. , � Municipalities with aut ority to regulate land use are required by Minn. Rules pt,. 010. 0030 "to take all reasonable , measures" to prevent establi hment of any NAC 1, 2, or 3 land use which would immediately be' i violation of the state noise standards. The heliport u�d r eonsicleration would be governed by this provision and the Metxo olitan Council and the City of St. � Paul would come under the �3e inition of municipality in Minn. Rules pt. 7010. 0020, subp. ; 9 . Thus, they have to comply with part 7010.0030 in their siti of any proposed heliport. ' Please let me know if I an help further on this matter. ' SS:mah . � ' , Z • ' • � 07/15/86 ' CHAPTBR 7010 � MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY ' AIR QUALITY DIVISION NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL RULES � � 7010.0010 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE ' 7010.0020 DEFINITIONS 7010.0030 NOISE CONTROL REQUIREMENT 7010.0040 NOISE STANDARDS ' 7010.0050 NOISE AREA CLASSIFICATION 7010.0060 MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY 7010.0070 SOUND ATTENUATION MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY 7010.0080 VARIANCE , REPEALER � 7010.0010 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. , For the purpose of chapter 7010, American National Standards Institute, Specification for Sound Level Meters , S1 .4-1983 is incorporated by reference. This publication is available from ' the American National Standards Institute , 1430 Broadway, New York, New York 10018 and can be found at: the offices of the , Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 520 Lafayette Road North, Saint Paul , Minnesota 55155; the Government Documents Section, ' Room 409 , wilson Library , University of Minnesota , 309 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis , Minnesota 55454 ; and the State of Minnesota Law Library, Ford Building , 117 University Avenue , ' Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155. This document is not subject to frequent change. ' The Federal Highway Administration publication, Sound Procedures for Measuring Highway Noise: Final Report, FHWA-DP-45-1R (August 1981 ) is incorporated by reference. This publication is available from the United States Department of � Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1000 North Giobe Road, Arlington, Virginia 22201 and can be found at: the offices of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 520 Lafayette Road North, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155; the Government Documents ' Section, Room 409, Wilson Library, University of Minnesota, 309 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis , Minnesota 55454; and the State of Minnesota Law Library, Ford Building , 117 University Avenue , , Saint Paul , Minnesota 55155. This document is not subject to frequent change. Statutory Authority: MS s 116.07 subds 2,4 ' _ 2 �_ I ' � - OL RULES page 3 NOISE POLLUTION CO TR � 7010.0030 NOISE CONTROL kEQ IREMENT. ' No person may violate the standards established in part 7010.0040, unless exempted y Minnesota Statutes, section 116.07 , subdivision 2a. Any muni ipality having authority to regulate � land use shall take a 1 reasonable measures within its jurisdiction to prevent th establishment of land use activities listed in noise area c�a sification ( NAC) 1 , 2 , or 3 in any ' location where the stand,ar s established in part 7010.0040 will be violated immediately upo establishment of the land use. � Statutory Authority: l s 116.07 subds 2,4 ' 7010.0040 NOISE STANDARD$. Sub art 1 . Scope. l hese standards describe the limiting � levels of sound establis e on the basis of present knowledge for the preservation of pub�ic health and welfare. These standards are consistent with spe ch, sleep, annoyance, and hearing conservation requireme{�t for receivers within areas grouped , according to land activit 'es by the noise area classification (NAC ) system establish!ed in part 7010 . 0050. However , these standards do not, by th�ms lves , identify the limiting levels of , impulsive noise needed for the preservation of public health and welfare. Noise standardls n subpart 2 apply to all sources. Sub . 2. Noise standa ds. , Noise Area Daytime Nighttime Classification L50 L10 L50 L10 , 1 60 65 50 55 2 65 70 65 70 3 , 75 80 75 80 ' Statutory Authorityd S s 116.07 subds 2,4 � 7010.0050 NOISE t►REA C SS FICATION. ' Sub art 1. A lica'bi it . The noise area classification is based on the land use �ac ivity at the location of the receiver and determines the noise standards applicable to that land use � activity unless an exempt ' n is applied under subpart 3. Sub . 2. Noise � a ea classification. The noise area classifications and t e activities included in each ' classification are listed below: � � , _. Z�— ' a e 5 - NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL RULES � P 9 Noise Area Classification 3 - Land Ose Activities � Food and kindred products Marine craft transportation ' - manufacturing (except passenger and Textile mill products freight terminals) - manufacturing Highway and street right-of-way � Apparel and other finished Communication (except products made from fabrics, telegragh �essage centers) leather & similar materials Utilities - manufacturing Other transportation, ' Lumber and wood products communication & utilities (except furniture) (except transportation - manufacturing services and arrangements) � Furniture and fixtures Race tracks - manufacturing Fairgrounds and amusement parks Paper and allied products Agricultural , - manufacturing Agricultural Printing, publishing, and and related activities allied industries Forestry activities and Chemicals and allied products related services � - manufacturing ( including commercial forest Petroleum refining and land, timber production, and related industries other related activities) ' Rubber and miscellaneous Fishing activities . plastic products and related services - manufacturing Mining activities ' Stone, clay, & glass products and related services - manufacturing Other resource production Primary metal industries and extraction Fabricated metal products All other activities not ' - manufacturing otherwise listed Professional , scientific, and controlling instruments; ' photographic & optical goods; � watches and clocks - manufacturing Miscellaneous manufacturing ' (except motion picture production) Railroad, rapid transit, � and street railway transportation (except passenger terminals) ' Motor vehicle transportation (except passenger terminals) Aircraft transportation (except passenger terminals) � , - 26- � , i � a e 7 - NOISE POLLUTION CONT OL RULES P 9 � 7010.0060 MEASOREMENT METBOiDO Y. , Sub art l. Measurement 1 cation. Measurement of sound must be made at or within the ap licable NAC at the point of human activity which is nearest to the noise source. Al1 measurements ' shall be made outdoors. Sub . 2. E ui ment� ecifications. Al1 sound level measuring devices must meet ype 0, I , II, or S specifications under American National Stand rds Institute S1.4-1983. , Subp. 3. Calibration'�. All sound level measuring devices must, at a minimum, be ext rnally field calibrated before and after monitoring using a 'ca ibration device of known frequency ' and sound pressure level. � Sub . 4 . Measurement r cedures. The following procedures must be used to obtain rep�ces ntative sound level measurements: A. Measurements m st be made at least three feet off ' the ground or surface and �wa from natural or manmade structures which would prevent an acc�ra e measurement. B. Measurements mu t be made using the A-weighting and � fast response characteristCic of the sound measuring device as specified in American Nation 1 Standards Institute S1.4-1983. C. Measurements Imu t not be made in sustained winds or � in precipitation which re�ul s in a difference of less than ten decibels between the backgro nd noise level and the noise source being measured. D. Measurements m st be made using a microphone which � is protected from ambierlt conditions which would prevent an accurate measurement. Sub . 5. Data documer�ta ion. A summary sheet for all sound . ' level measurements shall ;be completed and signed by the person making the measurements . At a minimum, the summary sheet shall include: ' � A. date; B. time; C. location; D. noise sour e; ' E. wind spe�ed and direction; F. temperatur ; G. humidit�l; � H. make , mode , and serial number of ineasuring equipment; I . field cali ration results; J. monitored evels; and � K. site sk�tc indicating noise source, measuremen location, directions, distances , and obs�ru tions. , Statutory Authority: M s 116.07 subds 2,4 ' � I ? �• . � � ST. pAUL DQ�IATIC�IN AIItPCRT I�ISE ABAIII�TP/��tATIQ� pI�1N ' PIAIddIi� POR A 4�R AIItPatT � Tl�e St. Paul Downtown Aitport, BoLa�n Field, plays a very special r�le in the � Ztrin cities' air transportation systen. Iocat�ecl only one and cne-half miles from St. Paul's oentral business district and eight miles fraa da�mtown Minneapolis, it acts as the 'earporate reliever" for the area's major hub air- ' port, Minneapolis-5t. Paul International Airport. Of the six reliever airports in the seven-co�ty metro area, the St. Paul Downtown Airport is the anly one designated as an "intem�diate" airport. As a result it handles the mnjority of ' ind�ent business and oosporate fliqhts into and out of the ZWin Cities area. With neny of the country's biggest corporations bnsed in the Zwin Cities, cor- porate and private planes aeco�ted for slightly nnre thari 90 percent of the � airport's 135,000-plus cQerations in 1987. Rapid qro�wth in sir travel has broadened both the benefits and the problaas for ea�m�unities locatsd near metrcypolitan aiiports. A qrowing ooncern in recent ' years is noise. With noise oozxerns in mind, the Metropc>litan Aisports Canmission, w�rking with the (St. Paul) Downtown Airport Advisory Council, • decided in late 1984 to reevaluate the airport's noise oontrol program and to ' dev�elop and ar3apt a forn�al Operations/Noise Abat�snent Plan. Tfiis pamphlet pro- vides a brief background on the sirport itself and offers an overview of the c�perating procedures and guidelines spelled out in the noise plan. , AOIMAN FIEID, PAST ArID PRE� In a bend of the Mississippi river, just o�ne and o�efialf miles �outh of dawn- town St. Paul, lie the 540 acres that oo�rise the St. Paul Dawntaan Airport, , 9olman Field. Zl�e airp�rt actually is situated an a lowlanci fLooc}plain, with the river fozming its northern and eastern boundaries. Zb the south and north, bluffs rise fram 100 to 150 feet above the river valley floor. � The City of St. Paul bought land for what was first kr�wn as the St. Paul . Municipal aizport in 1926. Zfie field started out with a single, 3,000-foot run- ' way made of turf; but by 1928 twr� asphalt runways were aperating. The aixport was renamed eoLuan Field in 1931, in honor of aviation pioneer ' Ctsarles W. ("S�eed") Aolman, and assinred its full title - St. Paul Uaantraan ' Airport, Iio]man Field - after the Metropolitan Airports Oonmission took aver vperdtions in 1943. It was named a "teiminal aiiport" in 1936, the same ypar that the present terminal a�ninistration building and four new runways were � built. Sinoe the 1950's the sirport has c�perated three runways, with anly minor addi- tions and changes mad�e to the field. In 1987, ho�aever, vonstruction was , c�a�leted an a new 6,700 foot runway with an Instria�ent Iar�dinq S�ist�m (ILS) to ensure safer, m�re efficies�t handling of oorporate and business aircraft. A Weather Observation S�stea is also planned for installation in 1989. This is in keepiriq with the airport's r�le as oorporate reliever. � The St. P8u1 Downtown Airport i8 designated as an 'inte.miadiat,e" airport, serving national, state and local needs. �e airport will acooamodate m�ulti- ergine turbines and jets in the 60,000-�ound class, seatinq up to 30 passengers. ' Ba�wever, �ller-�e�qine private and c�ozparate aircraft a000unt for the vast majority of airport operations (takeoffs and landings). While many of these aircraft use the fieLd as a base, a greater share is "itinerant",or transient, ' traffic based �e. ZY�e table shaws operation totals fran 1965 through 1987. . . ' ' r Z$ �. ' i ' ' �� tT f� aod Iaodic�qs) S'r. PA� A�'. ffi�1N FIlLD � �I 965 to 1987 � Local Traffic Itinerant Traffic - � - - , zbtal _ Mil� � _ � !lil� Co�rat.iana , 1965 51,513 11,565 43.880 4,034 110,992 ' 1970 92.�80 15,632 ' S6,864 3,170 168,1�6 1975 54,928 11,957 , 67,375 6,551 140,811 ' 1980 45,028 11,872 � 71,825 5,551 134,276 '� 1982 24,103 9,277 I 39.039 5,068 77,477 1983 31,37b 9,891 50,985 4,866 97,1i8 ' 1984 38.279 3,816 !I 56,437 4.511 103,043 _ 1985 � 37,798� •3,3]3 ' 64,416 5;754 . 112,011 ' 1986 41,675 2,890 i 74,009 6,191 � 124,786 � 1987 42.134 2,649 •i 83,822 6.792 , 135,397 � i . Sairve: "Aircraft Operations. 1�47 pseseAt,• Federal Aviation Ar3�ninistarticn , Cantrol Tvwer, St. Pau]; ?s►irpart, Ba].msa Field. ' I - . • . ' , • ' . , � I . ' . � 1 � � ' " . ,^ � _ . 1� total of 104 sirgle�ngine aizcraft, 61 moulti�qine aircraft and 69 helivop- ' ters were bs.ged at 8olaan fieLd as of J�ly, 1987. The D.S. P►mny Reserve and the Mi,rmesota �y National Guerd t�ogether mnintain 61 helivopters and three bwin- engine aircraft, nostly for use in flight training. Also, included in the above � figures are three ZV Channel helioapters and an energenc,y respanse helioopter aperated in oonjtnction r,iith area hospitals. �ree private flight schools and three Fix�ed Base Operators, providing services and fuelinq for private and vor- ' porate aircraft, are also based at the field. 1� MAC � Zt�e St. Paul Downtown Airport is aar�ed and aperated by the Metrapolitan Airports Cannission. 'l�e �abling legislation for the i�iC was et�acted in 1943 giving it ' the responsibility to develap the full pot�entialiaties of the metropolitan area in this state as an aviation center by providinq for the m�st economical and effective use of aeronautic facilities and servioes. 1l�e N�4C today nanages six , reliever aizports in ai3dition to the Minneapolis-6t. Paul International Airport. The 11-sne�nber co�m�ission includes a chairperson, appointed by the governor, the • mayors of St. Paul and Minnea�polis ar their representatives, and e.ight n�nbers fram throughout the �aetro area who are appointed by the gov�ernor. , While it has tax-levying authority, the MF,� aperates and develaps all of the aitports wholly through user fees. These fees are partially made up of charges , for oamnercial lice�sing and leasing, fuel flowage and aamnercial airline ticket taxes. Z�e FAA, which has regulatory suthority over aviation, is partially funded bY 9�era1 taxation. � � D�C The (St. Paul) Downtaan Ai rt Advisory Council was fora�ed in 1982. 4l�e D�AAC , � advises the [�C and FP,A ori issues involving the vperation of the airport and its impact on surroundinq ooamunities. It studies specific problens, irekes proposals, � and keeps the public infonred. Tt�e council oonsists of 16 nanbers, representinq various users of the airport, the cities of St, Paul, West St. Paul and South • St. Paul, and five local canmimity councils; West Side Citizens Organization, ' Payne-Minnehaha Ca�maa�ity Council, Da�mto�m Cannunity Dev�elopment Council, Dayton's Bluff District 4 Caimtimity Council and District 1 Caanunity Council. �e aitport manaqer, 1�lC's manager of reliever airports and Director of Operations ' ' Work regularly with ootu�cil manbers. The FAA Zbwer Mariaqer and a MAC vamiissioner att�d oouncil meetinqs. , _ , ' _ ' - ' ' _ 30 - i �� _ i- /'�� I . �EI 1� SE ABAZ�NP PIAN The last 20 years hnve witnessed zinq qrowth in the air transportation ' industry. Statistics show thatl e than 85 peroent of all lonq�iistanee travel today is by air. Bigger and fas airplanes and an ever-increasing variety of flight schedules and stops offer avelers n�nerous a�dvantages. Rapid expan- ' sion, ha�ever, has also made hi� mv�or proble:ns far nnre camplex. One of the mo�t pressi� issues today is ise. ' In 1984 the 1�lC, workinq with �he at�d fed�e.ral, state and local represen- tatives, desiqned a Noise Aba t Pl,an for the St. Paul DoMmtown Airport. �e plan, offered here in suRa�ary, �in uced several new aircraft eperatinq proce- - ' dures and quidelines to aucpnent e already in effect. It specifically a,ddresses the three types of airc aft aperations nnst vonmon on the field: general aviation itinerant flic�h , flight instruction and helicopters. Flying done for instruction purposes Mas aqqravated the noise problem, because the ' flights are often repetitiwe in ture with many takeoffs and landings. .. The final detezmination for the fe aperation of the aircraft rests with the ' pilot, therefore oa�lianoe with ise oontrol measures is largely wluntary, and . the I�,C relies on the cooperat�on of aircraft owners and aperators and the FAA control tawer for the plan's s ss. Zn a�dition, w�eather and sir traffic aon- � d.itions sametimes make it unsafe use noise abat�ement procedures; and eertain types of aircraft may be unabl� fly safely at the sugqested minunua altitudes . or usinq reca�menae,d flight paths � �SFTISITIVE ARFAS NOI � ial areas near the t. Paul Airport have been particularly troubled Three resident by noise, so mc�st noise ab�te�en measures are planned with these catm�ities in ' mind, Rt�e first "mise sensiti area" of concern is located an high ground and enooc�asses portions of the West ide of St. Paul proper and West St. Paul, lyinq southwest and west of the air�or . 1l�e second area of eancern includes homes ' • built on the stee� banks n� t of the airoort, layvwn as Dayton's Bluff, as well as residential properties rth of the bluff. The third area include.s the eastern portion of the City o� uth St. Paul, locat�3 southeast of the airport. ' Mere height in relation to t]� a rport ma�ce� these areas espeeially susc.�eptible to noise whe� aircraft are tak' off or desoendinq to the field. �e n�ise , pl.an, therefore, calls for as f climbouts and aescents to the east/rortheast and west/eoutt�rest that weath�x air traffic oonditions will allow. ' The MAC also strongly disco� all late niqht and early morning fliqhts. The noise plan reoomn�ds a nightt' restriction lastinq fram 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. for aircraft flying the local tr fic pattern and fran 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. for , itinerant traffic. ' , � _ ' �_ 31 - . . ' •' ' ' 1 - LMAN FIELD � MAP 1 HO . s� r�o�. �o� ra� ' T � 1 � � � � � �� S� P,tTL . . � � • ' �I - ~0 . b 3� P�TL � � M �@ J� M � �M ' � N 1 . , � e 11�T S! P�TL , . � . ' � ' �OD'!H �? P�QL ' � � , 32 I ' � � Rf�WAY ISE i � Zb decrease the number of talc�eqff and landinqs over residential areas, the 1�lC ' dev�elaQed a nmway use plan fo� St. Paul Airport similar in principle to ane in effect at Minneapolis�t. Paul International Airport. Tt�e goal is to route arriving and departing planes camiercial/industrial areas ar� cp�n spnces ' as much as possible. "Preferr�d" runways are used as lonq as winds are calm and o�verall weather oonditions good. The St. Paul Airport has three ys; 14/32, 12/30, and 8/26 - shown on Map 1. � (Rurn�rays are n�nberec] by oa�a�s irection, measured clockwise from north, with the last zero anitted. Fbr e�c�i e, runway 14 is headed to the southeast at 140°). In ge�eral, rur�ray 14/32 i preferred in all cases and for all aircraft, � 14 being used for takeoffs and 32 for landings. Wh� safety requires, alternat� ys may be used. In such instar�ces, the ' runway plan for take�ffs deals fi st with planes that are leavux3 the area and, second, with those staying i a local traffic pattern, which are primarily training flights. ' � For aircraft leaving the area �nd headed mrth or west, the preferred runway use , (ranked first to last) is: 32, 30 26, 8. Pbr traffic headed south or east, the preferred use is: 14, 12, 6, 26. 1 For aircraft renaining in a lac traffic pattern after tak�eoff, runway 14/32 is - aqain the preferred run�ay. In r weather or traffic oonditions, planes may ' depart on 8/26, with runway 26j r eiving righthand traffic w�henever possible in ` order to avoid f lying over the! b f areas. � Arriving aircraft either fly the tandard ertry pattern for the rurn�ray designated for landings or follaw FAA oor�tr ta�wer directions. I ' ARIt -�ART�tE R�(IiFB Zb keeg traffic over areas wt�re the roise will least affect people below, the ' MAC identified three air oorri s to be used when approachinq or leavinq the field. Essenti.ally, these ro ooincide with groia�d areas of low population, ' industrial use, q� spaces arid 'stinq freeways. The three air oorridors are s on map 2. General aviation and flight training aircraft are directed use the following routes: arriving fran or ' departing to the north, the 3$E ilroad line oorridor; to the east, the I-94 oorridor; and to the south, the 'ssissippi River Valley corridor. Flights to or fraa the west use the earri assiqned by the s.ir traffic oontroller, pre- ' ferably the lrlississippi River V ley corricbr. Aelicopters use these routes: l' arriving fram or departinq to the north, the ' 35E oorridor; to the east, tl� I 94 corridor; and to the south and west, the Mississippi River Valley a�rri In addition, helir.opter pilots are advised to beqin the d�escent for land�ng as near the field as safety allvws. ' ' 33 - . . . ' ' ' , � , MAP Z - ARRtVAL-DEPAR'TURE ROUTE i � � ' � � USED FOR NOISE A6ATE#AE , ./ , �s�'�'°�'� . � / _ ' � � � �i ' � , � �M C�'l�0� , ' � N�� s��yE � ' � � e� � ... � � a� � � �, / ��c�os , ' o� � � � , / � I ' • � � fi � . � � - ' � .. / ;f - . , � � , . — 3�d — ■ 1�IINIlrI�Irl AL �lI�ID F1.IG�1' 'IItAL7C5 � , � Because aircraft roise heard an th� �r+ound obviously diminishes as a pl,ane qains � altitude, the l�rC established mi , ' altitude requireae�ts that serve to keep aircraft higher when appraaching!or leavinq the field. At the smne time, pilots are directed to folLaw aerial "t� ," ar paths, that limit flyinq over resi- dential areas. Zl�ese bwo provedur are particularly inQortant in limiting the 1 noise heard fran flight training ai raft. The quidelines for General Aviation and fliqht training airplanes are: � 0 4b es�sure suffici�t height o��i bluff areas, all departinq aircraft ra�ein an a straight course until they have cro�sed the d�arture end of the � runway and are at an altitude of 0 feet abov�e ground level (AGL). o Zl�e minimtan traffic pattern alti ude is 1,200 feet AGL, effectiv�e whenever weather penaits. � o Iow flights over residential a.r are to be avoided except in emergencies. ' o Pilots flying the traffic pattern should vary their flight track to av�oid passing over the same areas repea ly (also apQlicable to helioapters). ' In general, the MAC encourages p�lo to maintain as high an altitude as safety and FAA requlations and, instr�t flying will allow. The guidelines for helioopters diff slightly: � o Lfiaer mrmal oor�ditions, the mi ' altitude for flying the traffic pattern is 1,300 feet AGL for both da ' anal nightti,aie operations. ' o Helicapters weighing irore than�� 5, 00 pounds nay cb no traffic pattern work (training) when visibility is bel standard or the sircraft cannot safely ' maintain an altitude of 1,300 fee AGL. o The FAA oontrol t�ower will de what traffic gattern is flaan, based on . wind direction, landing sites � lable and other air traffic. � The Noise Abatanent Plan nak�es se al other reoa�mendations reqarding helieap- ters. Flight instru�ction is to be imited to naneuvers that must be performed ' at the airport to ocmply with appr riate requlatians. Trainir�q fliqhts also shouLd have an instructor or test p lot familiar with the airport's e�vironmPS- tal �erns as a crew me�nber. y, helioopter pilots are asked to follaw ' the noise abatenent procedures, spe led out in their aperatinq m�nuals, regazding pow�er settinqs and spe�d. , ' ' ' � I ' S - 3 - ' TURE PR�CEDURE 1 N6AA STANDARD DEPAR � •� u1S�w�th taktoff t�ap � � 1) Ctimb at ma�cimum prsctical rat�st V:+ 10 Knots i�d�cat�d a� pNd( s�ttinq to t.S00' sbow Mld IwN (AFt.�• � 2) At 1.500' AFL. aec�l�rat� to flnal spm�nt spNd (�►FS1 and ntrsd�aPs� �dl� attih.d� �d �� T�� .pp0 FPM manimum ciimb until r�uhinq 3.000' AFL. h ATC nquir�s I�1 oft prior to 3.000' AF� PowK �nay b� ��duc�d to avoid �xc�ss �AS. (SM � NptN 1 ind� 3) Abow 3.000' AFL. r�sun�nonnal dimb sM�dul�. 4) Obs�rw all spNd limit�and ATC instructlons. � Not�s appticsbl�to th� proadu� u�: Fg �s ususlly tound in th� si�crsft's fli�ht � t) Consult your fli9ht maAual. Fns� Sp�n+Mt spNd (V 1 � msnwl and is 9en�nlh► �qua! to. but n�vK I�ss than� t.25 Vs. 2) It is ��co9nized that aircrait performance will diNer wiM sircraft type a�d take-oit conditio��s. , Thereforo. the busin�ss aircraft operator must have tatitude to d�tKmine whether tak�oft ' th�ust should be reduc�ed Pnot to. durin9. o�aiter flap rotraction. • _ . � i t ' i �• _ � , � ' � ��VA �� ' AIO�ETMGT F�A� �Egy�lE llpl' AQ,IU�T ATTITtJOE MIAL� A�10'OYIIEl1 TO �, • WNTAN 1.000 FPIM fXJMO AT MIAXMAUM �CL� 'M�CTICAL,MTE AT �� yZ• 101As WIT11 �.000' AFL - T��oFS au s�- ; �ro�.soor. ; � � �,�. �.000� . 1 � ° � � � � ... .. � BRAKE LlFf END OF AIRPORT � aELEASE OF� RUNWAY BOUNDAFtY . Z ' . _ 36�- , � 1 . � �� ; _ �_, , � ,. �� . � A run-up is a ground test in whi ar� aircraft engine is run at mnximun ar hiqh pvwer Lonq �ough to ooc�duct a ety check. Run-uQs nozmally last fraa 10 to 30 minutes but can take up to �+n ur, ar�d the acoonQanyir�q roise can be espe- � cially bothersc�me t� people liv' near an airport. P+or this reason, run-ups at the S . Paul Da�mtown aizport are at present , restricted to one site (see Ma� 1 . The site is located at the a�proach �d of runw�y 26. Mechanics also are to limit the t�est to the minimtim time aeede�d. Tb further control qrour�d n�isg, noise plan prohibits run-ups between 10 ' p.m. and 7 a.m. except in energ ies or special circ�tanees. These restric- tions help to confine qround npi to airport praperty and reciuce noise during sensitive, niqhttime h�urs. ' � � • �X':I�ION , As oorporate reliever to Minne�po is-fit. Paul Internatio�nal Airport, the St. paul Downtaan Airport performs an iuQortant servioe for the 11ain Cities business coam�mity and makes a positivejo� tribution to the local eoonomy. Private and � corporate aircraft made m�re than 125,000 tak�ffs and l,andings at the field in_ 1987; and operations by corpor�te aircraft are projectad to incxease steadily. This e�ected qrawth makes it l�11 the anre nevessary to have an organized, � oanprehensive plan for noise aba t. Noise eontrol is an agoing eff , requirinq both cmmitment and sensitivity � to the public welfare. �e 1� a full time noise abat�enent staff to con- � tinually evaluate new and existi measu"res, plan new strategies and keep the , ca�mission infonned. Responsible planning, tiow�ever, reoognizes the r�eed to strike a balance between noise relief, airport efficiency, with safety a factor � overridinq both. In the future, ise ironitoring will be done at all reliever airports including St. Paul Da,m Airport. First priority for m�nitoring will be giv� to the noise sensitiv� eas surroiu�ding the St. Paul Airport. � The Noise Abatanent Plan resul�.ed fran the oombined efforts of many individuals - ornmunity me�nbers, airport ts, fed�eral, state and local officials, and � noise abat�aoent professionals. use oompliar�e is necessarily wlimtazy, the plan's success also depends oa' ation and c�onm�aiication. Irbre importantly. it fozms a basis for future actio as new and better n�ise aontrol metl�ods are found. ' r � _ � � � _ � � � _ � _ . � � � - � � �� ,, f��-�� "/ 9�sr� � �� 1 �y� ' cr � � � � , MMIT< � C1�• ClEM1( � � •�MI{ � f�N�NC( � C�C�� . e��w• _oc��..c..� �j'i Y O F SA [ NT �A U L File N�. ltut ��ow Council Resolution ?resented By �� , Referred To Committee: Date � Out of Committee By Date - • WHEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council has determined that �ilitary helicopter traffic operating in training exercises from Saint Paul Down- � town Airport (flolman Field) undulq disturbs neighboring residents and businesses; WHEREAS, the City Council in Resolutioa #84-199, has previously ' requested the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to Work with the Minnesota National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve units stationed at the sirport to investigate the potential of relocating the helicopters and � helicopter training exercises from the sirpozt to other acceptable locations; and WEiEREAS, little progress has been made in such iavestigations; aad � ± WHEREAS, additional use of the airport brought about by runway improvements has highlighted the need to address the helicopter problems � more seriously than before; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT I'.ESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council � reiterates its pYevious position that military helicopter traiaing should be relocated from Holman Field; and that MAC, the Minnesota National Guard and the U.S. Army Reserve be requested to work with the City of Saint Paul to � facilitate such relocation; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Saint Paul should initiate discussions with MAC, the National Guard and the Army Reserve to jointly � establish and recommend an acceptable timeline and strategy to accomplish the relocation outside of Saint Paul; and - BE IT FURTHER RESOL�IED, that the �oint reco�endations be forwarded to I � the City Council by September 30, 1988. • ' COUNCIL MEMBERS Requested by Deportment ot: ias Nays Dir000d �ong In Favor Gos.its Rettmao ��,�;�i Against BY Sonnen ' ' Wilson Form Approved by City Attorney �opted by Co�:�c,l: [��r �r;i(ied F':,sticd Lp Cuuni-�l Sr�rct;�r•; By E3r --- i �f- 38 - I ' '' � � ��_,_� CITY � SAINT PAUL l�i� OFFICE O TRE CITY COIINCIL , JAMES SCHEIBEL NEIGHBORHDOD AND HOUSING COMMITTEE � C°"°c��r«'dp'c OF THE P ING COMMISSION ' A ril 6, 1989 � Before I comment on the heli ortlma ter s ecificall I want to enter in the P P Y• record some historical context whic I think is pertinent and important to our � thinking on this issue. When the C ty Council acted several years ago to permit extension of a runway at the Do�to Airport, we discussed at length the problems that existed then and continue nbw ith disruption of bordering neighborhoods by � military helicopters. The Metro�ol tan Airports Commission agreed that they would work with the city to shap� o erations to minimize intrusion on the com- munity, and that they would enter n gotiations aimed at eventual removal of the � helicopters. In our discussion of eliport location and of regulation pertaining to helicopter traffic, we must be m ndful that an unresolved issue already exists for this community. ' In addition to that context, ourlco sideration of heliport issues must recognize other factors. First, all usage, de isions at the Downtown Airport must be made with awareness of total traffic �dem nds on the Airport. While we have a respon- , sibility and a willingness to share in accommodating the air traffic demands of the metropolitan area, the SaintiPa 1 Downtown Airport cannot be targeted for every "reliever" or spillover demand just because it is conveniently located. The limi- � tations of our unusual downtown and neighborhood proximities must also be respected. The economic potentials associat�ed ith helicopter access must be balanced against and planned with sensitivity to imp cts on surrounding residential areas. � As a public airport, the downtown f cility accommodates and must continue to accommodate helicopter traffic. , Wh ther or not an official heliport site designa- tion is made is less important tl�an establishing licensing parameters and zoning � provisions that give co�unity issu s equal weight with aviation and accessibility objectives. This includes usage� li its and flight pattern definitions that respect the surrounding environment. ' � In regard to zoning regulations,l I avor an ordinance structure that incorporates the special condition use permit, e abling us to attach "reasonable conditions" to usage permits. As a part of thiis ocess, we need to clarify what conditions may , be placed through such a permit.' helistop at a central location other than the Airport should be examined as alternative when the need arises. � Helicopters have an intense impact hich is quite different than other aircraft. For that reason, I emphasize tha�t as a city must use this opportunity to address the following points: We must p're for federal and state licensure standards , which recognize local conditions. e must develop a local ordinance which maximizes our capacity for local control. �, L stly, we must consider the future possibility of a heliport in the context of to 1 demands on the Downtocrn Airport as an inner- city facility. � � � �� ' CITY HALL SEVENTH FLOOR SAINT PAUL. MINNFSOTA 55102 612/298-5679 fa�e y.t6 � � _. __. . _ . . _. , -� -_ _ . . � � . . . . �Jl�r: • . - •s,: ::'-�.'.�!�•3�i�:�7••Hr,rr.� :-u+�"1�" y f � . � REGULA710NS APR 27•79 US FAR 91-13 �• _ _ ;�- . ; �,,, .- •_ -� .. t; . fJ� �°PP°son 7 J',: :T ! ' : _ , C T�tNt 4�.i ''k'. Y�l� � �AT TC CLEARahCES AND L�STRL'CTIO�S _ ;,„_� ., „,` _. ,.__.-� 91.75 CO�IPLLa�CE WiTH A '- � i ' v , L ir� V �.t} �11 �,��•n 3n AYC clearance has been obtained. il0 E7:lot in co:nnu:�d:nay':e'•':�te ,:-,_ j t.`.;�h;¢��zr:ince, except�n an emer,ency, u:iless he cbtai�s:�.�1m2r�ed ` �. � _zar3nc�. Y.o��•e�er. escept in pesuice cor.:rolled tin?a�e. [;is e=a(:ra`n -. � � � d,es not pr.h+b�t him from cancellin,an iFR fl�,ht Plan :i ne i�=1- � }y + `:FR weatner c�r.::inons. It a pilot is uncer:ai:.of U�e �an r.,�f�aTC _ _ 9 t� , �; _;�_ �,�3;ance.he shall immedi3tely request clarific_t:on fro�n•�h i:r tr�f:ic .::nt:ol " + �1 g.�,ep;in an emergency. no person ma�. •��+rea in : - r i;e�ercised, operate an iircraft conerar; m an aTC �Sio,n an'aTC ele3rancr _' � . � , t � ic) E��h pilot in com:nand a�no deciates, ia an emer;eacS• t " ..i ;�et.'�'`s�� L.� ur instniction sha11 nu�itp ATC ot thac deciation as soun as poss: e• Y s P. � ATC. scbmit �i?-:.�a, ta'+;;�- ,� ! 4:f:G F=� td) Each pil�t in commandµ'ho lthou�h r.ot de�is�l f'�m�`e��by•g suopart? i;�ven priorit}'by ATC in an emergency, Q l+r�'�; s. k ,C ' r i. �� 1 d2ta�lc�report of that emergency within�8 heurs to c:.e chiet o[t"at�TC sri T , �ry� ' � �� [scility. .R.� a�.-f K �.�,4� �. ;<� .-� ,.r s '�,�� {, .t .�^.i� 7-a � -� 91.7^ aTC LIGHT SIG�AIS „�.�?�,;y•3 s'�:�t ."�° s:� t .� .4TC :==ht �::'�^�'h1�'e the meaning sho•xn in che fctlo+'in3 ti5:e. s Y • � e` r � � �'Fllh Ir=..2C[CG >laa:.in�'»ith rrs:-ect to �. � � �, , c _ - �.d :p2 Of I \Ir:a17:�L �Y � :3:L iidhi �� t 'l( ��' .� C:::. ; ai:c ,.,. _ :i.-c,_ '..,{, , ..�5 , � aircrsit on the sn:iacr � � � _ s,,�al :. . ,• J _ .� � --�. „ � - C.r... d Lo llitd. '�,t di� ; MFy:.� � � • _reen ' Clea:ed iur takeuif. � JI2]�: _ �" �� '�Kk i'� ; Rct::n i�r'.a�cir., ��oa .k �C".�'�' < 1 �:�.;�ceer. Cla�red co ts-� 'r i�',�:sf"-��-�� +;j e- "r � F11� �, ; io_,o•.�rci by steai: ;:"e1l d �� .,� r � ' at;�r�per ctziel. t ti �t,.�� : '� �`.¢�- � . •V�� C.':E�41:i to ot:�er a�r�:ait .4 �. Strsd: red Stop '. aad:or.tin::e circlin,. __iy� ��` - � `+t'�' � r a:r?^ct ur.safe—do r.ut .°i`�-.`- `+� - � Ta.�i clear o. CtL1'•t'3)'::1 I F:1�!':.�, rcd 'i !i^.d. <� use. :£ �a ; :� c�: \r,i� oliCable. - il F:as`�z;�^'�'i�r ' R�wrn to scartir.g coln! � P ��:` on a3rport. i �1 I' r i�, • �� .� alter:at:n�ted ar.d Exercise estresae ca::uon.i Esrrcise extreme caucion. 2-`-� � I r en. B e I � .� � FE aLTIT�DE3;G ElER4L 91.79 �tL`L�tl;�t S.1 ��PeiS�n a3y'operate an a:rcraft gr�ept w�hen necessary tor tal:eotf or landin;. pF,,;s the tcltoµ'in,slti[udes: uer unit fails, an emer•�enc�:I1::dir., �a, ��y^.�•nere. An atticude ailou•:n„ it s pc' ,'r.:. - aithout ur.due hazard[u perscns or pro�ercy on[he sur:ace. : ��b� Oti•er cun�este�areas• 0°eC�y congested area of a c:tY. tr,wr., or sett ement, ��`� highest ob:�tzcle W�hin aehnriz njtal rad�us ot 2 1t000 teecf of heoaircraft�e�nr �. �� r�i O�•er other than con�ested areas. An�lated areas.•l�`t��casee the ai crait escept ocer open water or sparsely poW' y rson, ves>el, vehicie, ur -;ay not be operated c:user[han 500 feet to an•pe s:ra°cre. .tar.chr r.�i:imo�s ,re;crib� , Helicn ters r.�ay be opera:ed ac less' �.�,ucced'•Y:�r�'�t • y(ia: Nr..•,::,[er�. P s� /A ' :1_raph:bl or ic)o[ehis sectiun it the cperat::.^. � Ea�� ^�,;c :� ,,�i::to persons ur proper[� on[he sur:ace. In a.'.d:��°. �`�' �:a:cs a P wita rocte3 or a:::;u�.:s �pec:uci:.: � helico cer s::ali cor.:ply �. � r�;�;�::�ed f�r helicuptc�s by the AdmL�stza:or. � 9 E1 .aLT:.`•Ir i rg TLtiGS {' aircra.[t sha11 .^.:��in the cru�a:r3�it•.:="=�r fl:.;".t ..person c,�:ratu:;an i��' is rrel ..t�`1�1��'�rafc, as the c�se m•ay br, by referc•n�c to ar al:ir..e!zr t - i set, µ'hrn o;-eciw:,— 1; bc1o+ 18,GU0 teet >ISL. t�— S ii The carrer.t =eportcd altimeter sening ot a stau�x :.lw�,t:=,::-<<• u,d w:thi❑ l�U nau�ic•t� mlles u:u:e aircratt: ( i w�O �� i � �' '1'r��l 1�' ►�AlNT 1�AU� � ^ /�� / ��,.. .,� (� �P � �'� % OFFI E OT THE NtAYOR �/ r- �� '� � � Q � , uia � �.V � � � • �� =un . '` e ' "e 117 CITY itALL f�T l��v' _� ...• SAINT AUL, AtINNFSOTA 33102 Ov1 •� c:FORCF u►ri��ra �6�2i :s�.��=, COUNCILMNN�NR � ` MAYOR � � t � KIKI � , �S • � � �� • � " �(� � Octobcr 11 , 19R8 •� � � ,r�- � Y A� � � ��y Colonel John Stillman • �� • Senior Army Advisor, Four h Army � � � Eighty-Eighth ARCOM � � Fort Snelling . � Saint Faul � Minnesota �� 11 � � � Uear Colo�iel Stillman: I 'A� '� 'I � � 1l Recer�tiv we received nl'bt 1'ication thr�t under" ��ou • �• . , r appi o al a � rroposal is going forha'',rd to acti�•ate an attack helicoptcr bt�ttalion at the Ssint Pa� l I)o�i�town .airi�ort IFlolman Fieldl . � It is our undersLai►di��q ti �t the Arm�• Reser�e is undertakinq some operational reorg�ni ation and tt�at the proposal for the Downto�n Airport is a par of the reorgEnizational effort. We � write to aslc for �-our ron ideraLion in vour comprehensi�•e ��lan��ing af Lt�e resicicnti 1 l�ro�cimities in which the Downtown Airport is. locaLed . , � Tl�e Sai��t Yaul DoNC�town A r.port , as �-ou may be aware , has the . uniq�ie characLeristic of einq literall� at tFie cente.r pf the ci L�-. Thi.s pro�•ides some ob.�ious ad�•antages of accessibility � � in whicli we would hope th Army Reser�•e might contir�ue to ' share � along with other u ers. It is the position of the City, however, that the' i mediate proximity of residential neighborhoods to the ai',rp rt ma es it an inappropriate site � or. elicopter operatio;ns � . � . City t�as communicated this position previouslsr , mosti � � notably .in Lhe contextl,of a resolution passed in 198�1 authorizing extension o'f ne of the airport' s run�:ay-s . We are informed that Pentagon of icials who reviewed alternatives in � this decision are aware o the C:it ' s but have y position, apparently c}�osen to give this community concern a low priority in forming a dec sion. � We ask for your assistanc not only in reevaluating the activation of an attack h licopter battalion in the Downto�n Airpoi•t , buL in urging co sideration of a pl�ase-out of � helicopter operations at hat site as part of the � � •.�►,�e . � . , _ I� _ I . . 1�. - " i;olonel John Sl.illmar� � . October 11 � 19�8 page 2 � reorganizational cl�anqes under�+n�•. . An airpor•i. located at the heart of an urbnn communit�• is nol an apNro��ria e oca ion or � I�c icopLec opernLions• ' We enter this request on bei�alf of our communit� in the spirit o responsible negotiaLion. We will appreciate your early � response. Tl�ank you for �•our consideration. � Very truly yours, ' '. �/ 1 S/i,,,-.�/,•,/: e Latimer Jelmes Sc��eibel �,�� CiLy Council President � -�� i 7'homas 1)imon�l . • Ci��' l:ouurilmember � GL:JS.TU. kh cc : Cit�• Councilmembers � Representative IIruce ��ento �igel D. Finney . � T�m Ksi��s�r � . � Ague•a AnLoniacles . H�est Side Citizens Urganizal,ion � . � . � � � � . � • . . � Z_ � N �� o�� --••«�v.+"*W►':� :"-'�'cilli��.- - .�. '�,1 � .��c•`�. � •° -- �__ �.. __.._.- _.. . . .,} � = ` . , r v_ , ' i' � •._ .E�' -� �r�� 1 'T .�� :� � ��n y� � +v; ''.„ �th a helicopterboom � � on the hori�on, will the U.S. h liport - '� infrastructure gr�bust� _ � BY PHIL SCOTT _�. � Hffi.IOORSRS IN UitBAN AMERICA ARE FA(:ED A CRU- I - el parado�wt�e they can land virtuaUy an here,they l� have virtually nowhere to land. But doa't b me arban � oongeation for tbe sorry atate of the U.S.hel port iafra- _;�;: � $tructure,ge]icopters may have caught as u awares. � In an earlier day,when sirplanes were ne and flight , captured the public imagination,people¢oul 't wait to become paet of aviation.Overnight,sirfi�'Ids upported � by private and government funds—s�rou np all � across the country; the air-minded built the elds with the rnnviction that if they couldn't come�o th sirplanes, the sirplanes would come to them. Thle a' lanes did � oome,aad they bmught with them mail,a�d en freight, and then businesses and jobs. In those hars economic timea, t6e airplane was a symbol of praspe ty, a eleek harbinger of the future. � � During tbe po�twaz era the romance ebbe as the tide of jumbo'"people movers"swept in.Airports gan w be regarded as noisy,bothersome places.So w n the heli- oople�'s star began to riae, its technology ving ma- , tnred during the Korean and Vietaam w no public- , snpported infrastructure of landing sites e erged as it } did with airplanes. Aelicopters weren't wel me down- M fown. � Nevertheless,since 1953 the three largest 'tiea in the U.S.,New York,Chicago snd L,os Mgeles,h ve had heli- � copter airbne.s.Thoae sirlines sccount for u to 5ve per cent of tbe commuter traffic between the ci 'airports � :�. aod their downto�vns.The last 20 yeara hav se�a dra- .�- mstic climb in urban he6port operatio that � •} . growth rate wn71 wntinue. Many U.S. c9tiea ve recog- niud that the helicopter can apur ecoctiomi expansion; � like the Douglas DC,3 of yeaterday, tioda 's Bel] Jet- Ranger sad McDonnell Douglas 500 are$ym lic of good tia►ea ahead. I While the U.S.has 3,500 heliports,the�" n vary from Z � , a full-service heliport to nothing more an grass pad � aad a windsock," says Pete Peduzzi,'d' tor of the � FM's civ�ta�t-rotor office. ! Md according to a report released last ear by the = � FAA,"In the majority of cities the lack af hel copter land- -°�� ing facilities within key urban activity cente has imped- su .— C.J — . � . •,� ed t�e helicopte�'a poteo- rta bcstion and ita noise- tis] as s valusble and mitigating river spproach, etfioent means of urban manY people don't know it transportation." eusta. In fact, while ihe "I don't think that we FM study aays the hel'r bave a real heHport infra- port has received no public ativcture,•� P�edursi aays. oomplaiats� •�It has been "F•xoept for various parts the focas of s bt of politi- of tbe oountsy, we don't �1e�j ublicseesahelic(�t�'I' eal exposnre," asys have good IFR or VFR fa- �" � -` Weedon Parris, the FAA's �.�� but doesn tget the idea that �� p� f�= �e Fbr instance, Peduzzi New England Region. says, of New York City's it has taken o�f from some�here "�� mP��n� aiz betiports,only one, the hsve been foc�sed," says new New York Downtown and needs to land somewhere. Parris, "is the helicopter Heliport at Wall Street, is utivity out of Logan[Air- a firat�lass facility. Last port]. The activity is year, the heliport's firat year of operation, it logged �queezed out of the TCA and interjects itself on populat- 55,000 operations, and the number of operations is ex- ed urban areas at busy times and at bw altitudes." pected to incresse dramatically as the port opens new The Boston Metropolitan Dis�ict Commission's plan to services and facilities. recover land for the Charles River Esplanade has put To make up for lost time and to catalyze the growth of Nashua Street Heliport on the endangered list One busi- the heticopter infrastructure,the FAA,in its 1983 Rotor- ness, Massachusetts General Hospital, backed by the craft]�aster Plan, proposed that 25 urban heliports be atate and the local helicopter pi7ots'asaociation,has pre- devebped in the U.S.by the year 2000. vented the heliport's extinction;but it is likety that Nash- 19�e FAA slso commisaioned a atudy of four U.S. heli- ua Street Heliport will be dead vPithin tbe next Sve yeara. ports to deter�une the ingredienta of a heliport's success "In a way,that's an advantage of the helicopLer,"aays or fa7ure.'l�wo of the heliports chosea for the atudy,Indi- Ronald Bunch, director of heliports and tecbnical pro- anapoBs Downtown Heliport and New Orleans Down- grams for the Helicopter Association Intemational. town Heliport, were funded and b�u1t through the Na- 'These helistops can be located on land that requires a tional Prototype Demonstration Heliport Program minimum of inveatment,so the�re more easily relocated (whoae purpose was to"promote the integration of heli- t}►an an sirport." copter nse into the urban transportation infrastruc- A heliport already deceased: Cincirmati's Western � ture'7,�vhile the other two,Boaton's Nashua Street Heli- 3onthern Heliport,oace situated on the upper level of a port and the Westem&Southern Heliport in Cincinnati, 10-atory parking garage.In better days its 35,700 aquare Ohio,were already in exiatence. feet once hsrbored 22 helicopters, whose pasaengers Those four were chosen becauae they beat represented were presumably attending a Bengals game at nearby the wide variety of beliport8 in the U.S., says George Riverfront Stadium. Bolduc, an FAA airport planninB sPecialiat in Washing- Although designat�ed for public use, the heliport was toq D.C., whoee office commiesioned the atudy. If the built with private funds and waa privately owned. With FAA hoped to schieve the positive by analyzing the nega- it8 2,SOQaquare-foot hangar equipped with complete tive,then it c}wse its eubject8 well.Of the four,one heli- maintenance facilities, and a passenger lounge with di- � port's future is m doubt;one ia closed;and one ia rated by rect acxess to the street, pilots o�nsidered it one of the � � tbe stndy as"unauccessful." best rooftop heliporte in the L'.S.,although it had no fuel- Z9�e Boston b�eliport ia the one with the unclear future. ing facilitiea. Ii8 number of operations was modeat, it8 Fublic}y owned and opersted,the heliport began life as a erowth rate slow.But during its greatest year,1980,the .,�: governmenUuse helipsd in the early 1960s. It'e e �eliport logged 7,420 operations.which regreseated a 27- � �'� uare-foot eection ot a parldng lot,bordering the perrent jump over the previous year.Unfortnnately 1980 - „' ,t�at.vas cordoned off and given the pmp- was also ita last year of opention. Whik the heliport rt tnarldngs. Comprised of one landing pad and brought in about$10,000 a year,it oould bring m:40,000 a �� parlang epace for two medinm�ize helicopters, year as a parking lot.When the sponsoring basinesaman � .�' . haa no landing or parking fees.Tbere ia no fuel, died,hia succesaor chose cara over choppers. ce or hangar apace available, eitber. Paeaen- The third heliport We FAA et�died�vsa New Orleans rclief from the�vind,rain or tnow can hud- Downtown,the second National Protot�pe Demostration �� " th a bua sbelter. 6eliport to be finiahed.Publicly o�vned aad operated and ` `'14e Naahue Street Heliport—s lbminute walk bw7t to FAA standards, New Orleans Doantown Aeti- � '�� '�dowato�vn Boston—ia aa popular sa it is Spartan. port cost=2.2 aullion to build�—paid for by the FAA. �� od seven heliport8 in the Boaton area,Nashua Street Because of the 1970e o�1 boom,planners of the South- - ts tor an eatimated b9 per'cent of the city's helico� east Louisiana Airport System Plan estimated that by � -� tions.The users are largely those corporations 1985 between 46,400 and 104,700 helicopter operations � '' � le for the economic recovery touted as the would take place in southeastern Louisians annuall�by use�tts Miracle."The heliport's number of oper- 1985. Some 30,000 operations into New Orlesas Down- timated at between 10,000 and 12,OO�annua�- toa n were forecast for 198 i. ' �ds that of many aua�aaful,large heliporta. "I don't think the number of operations �vould have 'pDots talk favorabty of Naahua Street,although the�� ever gotten that big," says Rich Cub1b, the heliport's wsat fnel to be avai7able and more parking. The public manager. "I think the guy who made the projections for doean't talk much,if at all,about the heliport;because of the World's Fair was the same guy who made the projec- ' 40 ... . , 1i.1 - . , _,�_ �, , �ci'e✓ � ' •.i ; •�• ' 'a-. • r 's„��`v +.i.F� :�' :s',c' , . � �� ooe for the helipori" � �ough �vithin a few bbets af do�vntown New Or- 1Mne(it'a just south of the Superdoa►el,the beliport's his- �eould be calkd wythu�g bnt Tbe Bi�Easy.Virious Problema delaped oonstrudion foe years,and when _ � me�truction fini►11y began�ffie siEe had been moved from _ �tiptimum bcstion ne�r oti�e�transportstion eentera ,�ri�reduced tc 82 seres�vm s reoommeaded 6.b�ce�es. �`�Yr2Y on, tbe p�ed a b�d ' ; ;� ad without reawn.�were lot8 oi�thsx � penetisted into tbe g i i d e s l o p e,Lte po�ver�nea an�d ad- oetfis�ag s�gns�„stya G��o."Oae oi the bi�eat�vas s . rn�o antenna bebe�inQ t� Am4alt. GKting that bw- r:: ered was the accomplishmeat I'm prond of the m�t�� s�' � z The heliport ia alao poorly located.Pi7ota must fly over � the citq to reach the helipa�—leaving s slim aafety mar- :,� gin.According to the FAA heliport study�"It ia becoming .r_ � ,;,. generally accepted that no arogle-engine heticopter -`-_ iL ahould attempt to use the heliport and that it ia only mar- _ , �n gitu►lly safe for twin�ngine aircrafL" : ? � ?'I� And,of rnurae,the oil-boom bust has sltered the traf- ,�� fic figures considerably. Inatead of �,000 operationa, �r.. '� tsere were 2,000 operationa last year. Yon guesaed i� >, t3�is the heliport that the FM rated ae"unsuccessfnl," atdwugh Cnti710 is quick to point out that operations for � tbe last eix montha of 1988�vere up more than�0 percent over the same period tast year. The one unmitigated auccesa story in the FA.A'e atudy - is Indianapolis Downtown,the firat National Prototype � Demonstration heliporw It atarted ont in 19�as the Bee -� L'me Heliport, so named because the land was leased �� from a part of the old Bee I�e Rsilrosd yard.Rxbuilt at a f :' � coat of$6 million, 90 percent of�vhich csme from FAA � grants,the heliport ia a rotary-wiag pilot's Vslhalls. , � A three-story bw7ding honses a reoeption desk,rental- car agency, conference room and a weather-briefing room connected with the heliport's own sutomated � weather observing/feporting system: The third atory houses a 5(�seat reataurant that offers ateak dinner for two and a helicopter tour of the city for$80. A storage hangar and maintenance hangar also grace the heliport; � Indianapolis Downtown is the only tnajor helicopter '4 maintenance center between St�Louis and PittBburgh. f As the Bee Line Heliport,the facility logged 3,000 0� erations a}•ear;but the new Indianapolis Downtown has � more than tnpled that figure,and it ia eapected to grow. � City officials nse the heliport to market Indianapolis to white-collar businesses,and several conntzies,including r,, Japan (see �idebar), have studied Indianspotis Down- � � town's development. The FAA's study identified six key factors that affect the succeas--or failure—of all heliports: location, d� mand, local-govemment attitude,public attitude, finam � cial backing and integral plaaning. "Before we build heliports we ahould carefully look at the market that they're going to serve," aays George Bolduc. "It's nice to say Lhat we're going to have a heli- � port in a big city,but unless you're going to have it used, it's silly to put in a big facility when the public interest is not there." The public's attitude is the thread that runs conaiatent- , ly through the FA.A's stud�. While uncomplaining, the public is also uninterested.People on the ground see a he- licopter yet seem unable to make the connection that the machine has taken off from a certain somewhere and will certainl�• need a place to land. A small place,to be sure, � �, `i q but a place big with opportunity. � � p .� ,,,, � �.- — :.�haie.>-.aw��ti:; . - � r � i � � I ... I � 1a : ! r' ' � ; � �� ; I EDITED BY ERIC WEINER � 'I� Mnss�cxuss[TS Po[rr Atrrttox- cluded that the Pprt Authority's land- "unreasonable and contrary to feder- ' ity has suspended iLs controversial ing-fee structure at Boston's Logan al statute,"thus reaffirming an earli- program that raised landing fees for Airport was illegal. er decision by Administrative LaW general aviation sircraft at Boston's Meanwhile,Massport has vowed to Judge Burton Kolko. Massport had Logan Airpork Massport chose that fight the DOT decision and has ap- seven days to comply with the DOT's � � �; action rather than risk losing more pealed the case to the U.S Court of ruling or the airport would lose�10.2 than$10 million in federal funds.The Appeals.The Pbrt Authority has also million in federal sirport improv� +', i move is a milestone in the debate over begun working on a new landing-fee ment funds during the current fiscal � I an sirport's right to set policy versus structure that, according to Mass- year. ' � the federal government's responsibil- port Director David Davis, "will rely "It seems apparent that Massport ;� ity to manage the nation's sir trans- on peak-hour charges and off-peak intended...to impose unjustified addi- 1 portation system. discounts." tional costs on smaller sircraft in an � Masaport's decision came after a In a 12-page statement,DOT Depu- effort to discourage their use of Lo- � • bng-awaited ruling by the U.S. D� ty Secretary Mimi Dawson called gan," said Dawson. In a statement � partment of Transportation that con- Massport's landing-fee structure that is expected to send a signal to other sirport authorities considering � ; radically new landing-fee structures, , ' � CITATION V CERTIFIED � Da"'s°n S�d, "Clearly, a�rt p� prietors have some regulatory au- ' � thority, but the exercise of this au- : ( thority must not hinder or obstruct � ± I the dominant federal policy." I . The DOT had earlier requested that Massport delay implementat�on i , of the feea until the agency could ' i! : complete an investigation, but MaSS- j port went ahesd with itg Program for Airport Capacity Efficiency (P�ce) � and enacted the new fees on July 1 of � i last year. Costs per landing were in- � creased to E88 from$25,plus a charge I of 47 cents per thousand pounds of j , landing weight As a result of the ' new formula,fees for larger aircraft �. , decreaeed (to =500 fmm about �00 for a Boeing 747), while fees for ' amaller aircraft increased fourfold. � Since implementing the new fees, � � pn's on-time ran)dng among the na- �TC tlow controj and good weather Seneral aviation traffic has d� do�n's ZJ baaiest airport8 improved to during the period. "The reason on- �� nent, with the largest '�IZ trom 21, time performanoe has improved is be- �Op�n landings by siagle�engine sir- , • Bat the Nstional Buaiaeas Aircrsft cause the airtinea are giving them- P�es, according to Masaport. Com- L�ocisdon,one of eigt►t parties that seives 1Sminute cushions [in the►r muter flights decreased by three per- cent,says Massport,but the regional ;:,lBed briefa in Lhe csse, diaputes schedules]so[hey aren't fined by[he airlines' seat capacity increased 10 jWsport'a claim that it was P�cE DOT,"says V�'est. percent because they sw-iuhed te � �at kd to decrea8ed congestion. In a statement issued soon after larger airplanes. �bte West,-NBAA'a vice president the DOT ruling, MasspoR Director According to Massport, delays at for govemment and public sffairs, Davis said,"The Reagan Administra- � an have also decreased. From sttributea the impro�•ed on-time per- tion decided to put its muscle behind a g ' � formance to "more realistic schedul• small group of pri�•ate plane owners July through September of last year; ing by the sirlines," � well as the who are concerned solely- w•ith their for instance, arrivals racked up an FAA's East Coast Plan. im ro�ed ou�n comenience ' "6.4-percent on-time rate, compared P with 69.5 pereent in 1987. And Lo- ------ -- - -- ---- - +-- ---- _ - - - - � c��.. �„� :, ,.. _. �,-{.G — ��.�..��..�— - � , Josx R.Grsaoia. TawcY J.VwN Sr$axsvsos � Jexas D. Oisox B ESTI FLANAt3AN DsviD J. ZuHaa AgCgIDALD SPENCEB S?EVEN R.KRUOEB Roaasr M.Sa�as ATTO EYS eT Lsw J�acss P. M�csars Roata'r L.C=ossx P�uL E. Ksxixssi LHON�RD M.ADDINO?ON 35i00 DS CEN?ER EISZABETH W. VpHACS � Roazirr R.Bears CHBISYOPREB J. GFiAPCT I�.V�ss.'t$a G�tsrr MINNEAPOLIS� INNESOTA a6408-2113 Jo�t P. BdYLE Atasx D.BraxeRD Ross G.Fox�t$i.i. RICS�RD A.PETERSON TELEPSO E (612) 336-7121 CtIRISTOPHEB C.FOY ROHEBT.I. CHBI91'LNSON,Js• CsaYrt SCHERH GLO�'EB Fasxs J.W�t.z TELECOPI R (912) 339-6697 Ssxaa S.GoDFaEY � Taox�s D.C�a�.sox pr ComisaL Fa�x= VooL GxsaLSS S.Bsi.r.ows Mw$urvs W.V�rr Pvrt$x,Ja. Wsan B. I.awis JOBN A.BII8?ON,Js. J�Dtss C.DIBSCS.ss Rsrssaa � RoHasr L.Ma�s,Ja. GEOaos MALONEY Scorr D.Eu.�s LEOxaan W. Sixoxsa' Ca�a�s C.Bagpaisr Gaogoa O.Loncss Apr 1 13/ 19 89 ,JAMES I.BESY E.JosErs LsFevE III �1�-�oeei Gsaooar D. SouLE RoBEaT'J. Fi.sxeoex � C�THY E.Goai.tN I neoe•ie'+a� Pszaica B.HBxr�ssz CHHISTINE K.SOL40 Tixara: A.Suusvex TsMia�r L.Pusr I BB� F. �cE RECEIVED � � APR 141989 , Ms. Kathleen Zieman, Cjha r Neighborhood and Housing Committee ZONING St. Paul Planning Commis ion c/o Mr . Roger Ryan, Ci�ty Planner IV ' Department of Planning a d Economic Development City Hall Annex �, 25 West 4th Street � St . Paul , Minnesota 55 02 Re: Metropolitan Counci 's Twin Cities Regional � Heliport Feasibi}it Study Dear Ms. Zieman: , We represent C dor Corporation in the pending federal court action �gainst the City relating to the City' s denial of a sp�c' al condition use permit for the � proposed Midway Helipor . Condor Corpora ion, and its president , James R. � Riley, have asked us to present the following comments to the Neighborhood and Ho sing Committee in connection with its consideration of th City's response to the Metro- politan Council ' s Twin ities Regional Heliport Feasi- � bility Study, and the f ur "alternative" City zoning amendments which are id ntified in the "Heliport 40-Acre Study" circulated by 'th Division of Planning prior to � the Committee 's public eeting on April 5, 1989. Please make this letter a pairt of the record at the Committee 's next public meeting on pril 17 , 1989 . , , The comments� m de here are limited to private hel�iports, and are not ntended to address the subject of , I . , � ; , ' t"� -1 " � � BEST 8t FLANA�3AN � Ms. Kathleen Zieman � April 13, 1989 Page 2 . ' u� blic heliports in any way. � First, as a general comment, it is apparent � that, with respect to private heliports, Alternatives A, B and C posed in the Division of Planning's 40-Acre Study � totally ignore the thrust of the Met Council 's study, as well as the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the professional consultants, Edwards & Relcey, Inc. , who � were retained to conduct the study and present the tech- nical report. (They ignore, as well, the substance of the technical reports presented to the City by the same consultants in connection with the Midway Heliport pro- ' posal . ] The thrust of the Met Council report, as to pri- � vate heliports, is that, at minimum, private heliports are fully compatible land uses in industrial and commer- . cial zoning classifications, and that because of the � versatility and unique operating characteristics of heli- copters, locating or siting private heliports in those areas, and not public airports, should be the primary means of accommodating helicopter use in the foreseeable � future. It now appears, as evidenced in the 40-Acre Study, that the Division of Planning, which waited 18 months for the Met Council Study, has embarked upon a , course of ignoring all of the information received. Next, with more specific reference to the zoning � "alternatives" presented, Alternatives A, B and C are not alternatives at all, insofar as private heliports are concerned. The zoning amendment suggested in each of these "alternatives" , which would permit private heli- � ports only "at airports in I-1 and I-2 districts as spe- cial condition use—s�,is pure chicanery. First, a "pri- vate" heliport cannot be established at a "public" air- � port. Second, helicopters are already legally permitted at all public airports, and the City has no authority . whatsoever to restrict or regulate their use at public� � � airports as "special conditions uses" . ::'' Finally, and perhaps more to the point, � suggested Alternatives A, B and C are nothing more than a ' thinly-veiled attempt to require that all helicopters be , ' � V� � � � � � BEST ' FLANAC�AN � Ms. Kathleen Zieman � April 13 , 1989 Page 3 � � based at public airports. In our judgment, if a major metropolitan community �uc as St. Paul were to attempt to impose such a blanket r striction, it would be over- � turned in the courts. It is time for 'th Division of Planning, under the guidance of the Commit ee, to pay some attention to ' the Met Council ' s study,; a d to the City' s own paid con- sultants. Reasonable re�st ictions on private heliports in industrial and commerci 1 areas hold the answer, not � an ill-advised prohibitiion of the private heliport use . Yours very truly, � �� Frank J. Walz � FJW:emw I' 6004Q ' � I� i � I � � � �. i ' � , I ' , �� March 9 , 1939 ' . � MAR i 3 1989 � RECEIVEC. � , ,� ��G�`�c.r� : YI�R 1 3 1°8,� __ , zt.,o�.i?��C�-c.� �y��.0 ' l � � � :��:�rs e��c� As a long time resident of the Westside , I am very concerned ' about the recent discussion of a heliport going in at Holman Field. � As a child I remember how low the planes flew over my family' s home - it was scary ! ,�s a teenager I was fascinated with airplanes and helicopters . My mom and I would go to Holman � Field and watch the planes and copters take off and land. We use to bet on which ones would come closest to the tops of buildings and trees . At the time that seemed very ' exciting. Until I spent time in San Diego . I lived in an apartment which was later destroyed by a jet liner crash. That was devastating! ! ! I real ' z there robabl won' t ever be 'ets landin at Holman � i e p y ) g Field, however, �aith the homes and businesses as close as they are to the downtown airport I feel it �s too risky to take any , • chances of an air disaster occuring. Actually, I feel it is ridiculous to allow more air traffic over the lower Westside . From what I understand the proposed heliport would be strictly ' for "joy rides" . If these developers iaant to play, let them take their toys to a safer spot - preferably away from our � neighborhood! I urge you to do anything and everything in your power to STOP this heliport from going in at Holman Field. , Si rely, `� �� / ;� �k'i� � /'� eb Seivert ' 16 Ottawa Ave . St . Paul , MN 55107 � . ' , ' � � � _ ' S . , - - - - - - - - ;_ /�� v-- , � The West Midwa Heli ort Task Force Y P c/o Midway Coalition/IIistrict 11 ' ' 1558 West Minnehaha Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55104 646-1986/646-6077 �` February 23, 1989 ' � Mr . James Christenson Chairperson of Planning Commissi n St. Paul , Minnesota 55108 ' Dear Mr . Christenson: � , The West Midway Heliport Task �Fo ces contests the findings and the methodology used to arrive at th findings in the current draft of Metropolitan Council ' s Helipo�t easibility Study. � The Committee Studying helipo�ct easibility is dangerously flawed in it ' s make-up which is heavily � co centrated with users, developers, planners and FAA representatives , but has no representation from the ' community groups in the Metropolitan area working to abate problems resulting from heliport operati including: The Downtown Airport Commission, the West Midway H�li ort Task Force, and The St. Paul � Airport Noise Coalition. � The result is a "Feasibility 5t dy" which reads like a marketing , proposal rather than an objecti e study undertaken to decide whether a course of action is suitable. We contend that the current study is an embarrassment to the Metr politan Council and raises questions about that organization' s abili y to plan for the region' s future. � During the course of this study an "alternate" member of the committee who frequently atte'�d and votes at meetings in which the � seated member is also in atte�nd nce, has found himself in legal disputes with municipalities in St. Paul aND Sunfish Lake over his attempts to establish privatei h li�ort facilities -- yet no where in this study are the issues arisi g out of those lawsuits addresse� . , Tne committee has chosen to ilgn re the public furor and concern over safety and environmental issues loss in property values, loss in � livability and, most importan�tl , the inability of local jurisdictions to control activi ies at privately owned heliports . The West Midway Heliport Task F rce is a coalition of citizens and ,' businesses opposed to the estab ishment of privately owned heliports in the light industrial areaS o St. Paul and Minneapolis. � We urge you to take issue witlh he Metropolitan Council Report for the long term best interests of the City of St . Paul and the Metropolitan area as a whole: � Sincerely,� The Flest Midway Heliport Task F rce 1 cc : State Representative Ann ' Wy ia cc : Steve Keefe , , cc : Governor Rudy Perpich S � - ---"- , �i.. _ _ . . • ;�-i�=_' 1'1 ' _ _ � ��i__ ' P��o�o Q Pf��oo� D�str�ct F�ve Plaan�ng Coanc�l 1075 Arcade 3treet, Seint Paul, MN 55106 (612) 774-5234 , � M8M0 / DATE : April �4 , 1989 TC : St . Paul P;annin�3 Comm�ssien � City Ha�i Annex 13th F�oor �5 West Fourth 3t . � St . Paul , MN 551t2 i FROM: Pat Rife , Commun�ty Organizer RE : �. Heliport ' B . b79 E . Geranium ' At the April 11 meetinq of the District Five Planr.ing Council the following actions were taken: � A. A moti�n was passec: to not support commercial helicopter use at the St. Paul Airport as long as there , is no required tower attendan� 24 hcurs a day and as lcr,g a:. theie are �:o iegulaticn� on ccmmErcia� :1E11CG�tEZ'S `1Sl:lg t2"iE �8C111t17. � . i� T"v��Gri ��5=;.i �� SilOW :.0 �.OL:1:_li OpFO51t1J1: �C _,.c � i?QL1ES� �::1 3 N:�1:�ci,f�r.i��I_c'j. l.5? P�r::lt �O ci�CW 3-F.o:: �ccapa..�, �f �, _t�_de.zti�_ str�.��_�u�� a� 57? E . � v Z_d::i.i Iil . .._ . ��>ur.c�ime�r�?� Jan�.;e =e��%:ar_ _ou:��im�mber T�m �_::;,r:1 � Cour.c��;nembe� �eyer Go��t� �.3r.ea Ar.�or:iades � � � � � �- s Z� ' � ST. PAUL D(71IiNTOWN ADVI90RY IL (DMC) ' A�GNEA I+tTI'ONIADES ' INEST SIDE REPRESFNfATIVE FFbrusr 8 196� .� The Heliport Advi�ory CommittF sppoint�d by the Metropolitan Council ' has been highly criticized lby e public for not having coamunity pazticipstion in the Regional blic Heliport Study. The meobers of �1�5 CO�O�Lt@E �QC1UdE seversl sirport users, �nicn is a co�flict of � interest and, obviously, a vie int in opposition to the comnunities , that would be directly sffe�te by heliports. . � rJhilF the consultant, frocr £es on, l�as�achusetts, oaintains that the � "community was considEred", th s statenent is ineonsistent with the Study. ' I have tAoroughly rEad thE �tu y and throughout,the St. Paul Damtown. . Airport aas �uggested as the m st appropriatF site for a heliport in. � - St. Paul. FurthFz, a recocmien ation wES made to condutt s �feesibiiity , : , itudy encouzaging a hE 1 ipert s te at the Dova�to�m Aispot.. . � ?his Study was not intendEd 'to locate a "site" for a heliport.; �Md - ' : _ , feasibility studiEs are only g nted when there hrs heen a requ.est for � � � . : such s facility in a certain 1 Ption. Therefore, the actions of 'this Committee sre overstepping t�e urposf of thF Study, and this places� • . , • • the Mest Side and othez neigh hoods directly affeeted by the eirpori � � , � ' in a most w1neZPb1E positio�. . � �v R�ONOu1D�IDATION: : . - -- - .. ' f . ��'� �r� "ThF pest Side Citizens 0=gan,izP ion opposes the recoamendation in the _ �,�' �' Heliport Study conduct�d by the M:etropolitan Coudnil 'that enceurages - �� a fpasibility study to be c�a�de t the St. Paul Do++mtown �irport. nifs� : " ' (� recommendation i� inappropriate as the Study is not .intended� to� locate . , . ``�7 a site, but which it doF� suggE t and imply. 1�ereforE., hE, ask that' ' ,. , U� this portion bF ren►oved from th Study." � , . .. , , . ?he St. Paul Devmtor�r► Airport i a "Corporate Reliever Airport" for I general aviation. ��e havE erre type of genera3 aviation aircraft taking off and lEnding at thi� Field. The numbers of flfghts are continuing to grow as this activity is gra�ua ly being shifted to this arEa from the � HinnESpolis�St. Paul Airpert. . Let oe emphasize to WS00 and ,th �est SidE Community �t2sat the ,aetieons , of the HFliport Advisory Commit Fe are not to be taken lightly. � Otherr•ise, ' Me may be faced with the �arn� s tuation that the Iierr�Me Park neighborhbdd° 2ccently� experienced. . . `:'.y ::. ,:�=',i, 1 ` 1 /�- / �� L�` E��_ L�1� �-��-�� . �� - �� . � -�� / 1 � s3 - ' � , � CITY OP' �3AINT PAUL ' OFFI(7E OF TAE OITY COIINCIL . � KIKI SONNEN � c,00saYmemb�r � MOLLY O'ROURKE , I,e�61�tf�e A1ds Aprtl 10. 1989 . , McDonald Family ' 2083 Marshali St. Paul . Minnesota 55104 Dear Members of the McDonald Family� , Thank you for sending me the note about your support for locating a heliport in ou� neighborhood. I forwarded the note to the , City's Planning Department so they can make tt part of the public record. If you want to know more about the hel �port study. you can cali ' Roger Ryan. City Planner, at 228-3382. Sincerely. , ' K Kl SONNEN � Councilmember KS/rt� , cc: Roger Ryan � � , , � r _ s � - r CTI'Y HALL SEVENTH FLOOR SAINT PAUL, MINNFSOTA 55102 612/298-5378 ' •.��s � �' O � ` � (� ��,D C� . � ,1. g9 2 ' . � 4'1� 0 Ma�cta 30. 1989 � g�, Q►QR �`MEl�� ' Page Tao � ' % �p�N�S��NEN / �� K�� `�� Meanwhile. Condor Corporation. a heli pte� business, has sued the t'�j�V�� , 1 w the City Council 's decision to deny� a Condor heliport at Cleveland an University. The lawsuit is in fede�al cou�t and a decision is not expected ' for several months. lf you have any questions or concerns about these issues, please call me or my Assista�t. Mo11Y 0'Rourke. at 298- 378. � Since�ely. . ' I • ; 1K1 SONNEN Councilmember ' ' I' t(5/mb � � �� -;� _ �— --��,��\ �9-'�' - —�� --�� c� � , 1 � �,� -�; �.,.- � � I 1�-0.� � u� a �-�� _ ` �� c�- -t�j' � . c� P�-�'�-�-- � � _ � b� 1�� r- 1� , G� I —�,�--� - �,,� � � � � �a' -� � . . (� , C„_,,,� � - �, `T� � �� b �' . � . 1 �; —� s � �a � 1 � � U �'I � �� I G � � �i��.�� 1 . � . � � � - � , � � � � 1 � _ � 4.•`'T* °';, CITY OF SAINT PAUL � o ' DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ; _ _� ; DIVISION OF PLANNING ' �i "� 25 West Fourth Streel.SaiM►al,MinnaWs 551� �� 612-Z28-3270 GEORGE UTIMER ' MAYOR MF.I�iORANDUM , DATE: May 3, 1989 T0: Neighborhood and Housing Committee , FROM: Roger Ryan � ' SUBJECT: Frank J. Walz Letter At the April 26, 1989, Neighborhood and Housing Committee meeting, the ' committee asked me to respond to the comments of Frank Walz� representing James R. Riley, in his letter of April 13, 1989. My comments follow. ' I. Mr. Walz states: "The thrust of the Met Council report, as to private heliports, is , that, at minimum, private heliports are fully compatible land uses in industrial and commercial zoning classifications, and that because of the versatility and unique operating characteristics of helicopters, ' locating or siting private heliports in those areas, and not public sirports, should be the primary means of accommodating helicopter use in the foreseeable future. It now appears, as evidenced in the � 40-Acre Study, that the Division of Planning, which waited 18 months for the Met Council Study, has embarked upon a course of ignoring all of the information received." � I do not find any statements in the Met Council report or the consultant's report for the city substantiating the statement that "private heliports , are fully compatible land uses in industrial and commercial zoning , classifications." There are, however, two proposed model zoning ordinances in the study. I have commented on these in the 40-acre report that they are inadequate and need to be revised. The Met Council is in � the process of setting up a Heliport Model Ordinance Committee to evaluate and recommend changes to the ordinances. I do not agree that the study says that private heliports located in ' commercial and industrial zoned areas rather than at public airoorts should be the primary means of accommodating helicopters in the future. The study does say that private heliports are and will continue to be the , most dominant force in the region. . ' � -S� � 1 I r Neighborhood and Housing Comnitte ' May 3� 1989 Page 1�vo ' On page 5-50� the study states: "The growth of heliports has b en almost entirely through the private ' sector. The very nature of he icopter operations encouraged the use of large numbers of small� pri ate heliports rather than a small number of large public heli�ior s. In fact, a single� centralized ' heliport or new airport to ise e helicopters� in the minds of many operators, goes against the ve uniqueness and versatility of the vehicle, and such facilities a e not cost-effective or practical. ' Helicopters are� by their nat e, conducive to private operations and generally small-scale f;aci ities. In this, they differ from fixed-wing aircraft. Priva�e elicopters and private heliports are , and will continue to be the' do inant force in rotary-wing activity." I expect the existing pattern of egional heliport locations to continue , into the future. This pattern wo ld be permitted by the proposed zoning code amendments in the 40-acre st dy which would permit heliports at ; airports and helistops at hosp ta s. Table 2.01 froa the study lists the 1988 helicopter landing facili�ie in the region and Figure 2.01 shows ' their locations. Helicopter land ng facilities were at private heliports and public use airports. Of the 6 private heliports, 13 were at hospitals, 2 at private businesse , and 1 at a government facility. There ' are 10 public use sirports wheze elicopters may land. I want to clarify one point abc�ut the Met Council's study. The study ' proposes a plan for up blic hel�po ts, not private heliports. In the chapter on Heliport System Analysis, page 5-51, the study states: ' "Private heliport development hould generally not be the concern of the Metropolitan Council. Th establishment of private heliports should be dictated by corpoira desires� market forces and other , private sector issues. This nimizes the regulatory burden on users and maximizes helicopter vers ility.". ' In the chapter on Recommended Pla and Policy, page 7-11, the study states: Private heliports are regull,ate on the federal, state and local level. ' This public heliport system pl n makes no recommendations as to the location or size of future he ports." ' In short, the study makes no plan recommendation for private heliports; this is left to the private secto and federal, state and local levels of government. The study also prqpo es no regulatory role for the Metro Council. ! ' r �� _5� - ' Neighborhood and Housing Co�ittee May 3� 1989 ' Page Three II. Mr. Walz also states: , "Next� with more specific reference to the zoning 'alternatives' presented� Alternatives A� B and C are not alternatives at all� ' insofar as private heliports are concerned. The zoning amendment suggested in each of these 'alternatives, ' which would permit private heliports only 'at airoorts in I-1 and I-2 districts as special � condition uses� ' is pure chicanery. First, a 'private' heliport cannot be established at a 'public' airport. Second� helicopters are already legally permitted at all public airports� and the City has no ' authority whatsoever to restrict or regulate their use at public sirports as 'special condition uses' ." A, B, and C are alternatives as far as private heliports are concerned. , In all three alternatives, public and private heliports are permitted at airports, but differ by permitting helistops not at all in other districts in A; at hospitals in B; and in B-4, B-5, and I districts and at hospitals , in C. As to private heliports not being able to be established at public airports, the zoning ordinance permits sirports in I-1 and I-2 districts. , Airports may be public or private. Heliports located at the airports may also be public or private. As to the City having no authority to regulate helicopters at public , sirports as a special condition use� since helicopters are already permitted there, the intent of the proposed ordinances is to require a , 1,000 foot buffer space between any new heliport take-off and landing area and residentially zoned property and to also require that noise from any new heliport facilities not exceed state noise rules. III. Mr. Walz last statement is: , "Finally, and perhaps more to the point, suggested Alternatives A, B ' and C are nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to require that all helicopters be based at public sirports. In our judgment, if a ma�or metropolitan community such as St. Paul were to attempt to � impose such a blanket restriction, it would be overturned in the courts." The effect of alternatives A, B, and C is to allow helicopters which want , to be based in Saint Paul, to locate only at Downtown Saint Paul Airport. This is because helicopter noise can cause problems for neighborhoods. Once a heliport is established, the City has no control over intensity of ' use (number of flights, flight paths) . Downtown Airport is at a large site and new helicopter facilities can be located away from residential areas. ' RR:rm � ' � � ^ ' , -T�le 2AI L�F I�s in 1hs Twin pN�s � . A. Helipa�ti n the Studp Areo ' Narne an t�e Pubiic,/Private 1. Hopkin Pdice , in, MN Govt. PV ' 2. U�iwratt�r of Mime�ota I Mediool Cenf�r M1 Ils, MN Mediobi " PY 3. Ad�r�ance Mocl�lne Co. � �1 MN 8usinass/Corporate PV . ' 4. Prudentid hklistop PI , MN Bu�iness/Corporate PV 5. North Mernorid Hospital i�sdale, MN Medicol P'V r6. �St. Pwl - R�er i, Medical Center 5t. aul, MN Medlccl PV ' 7. United Children's Hospital St. aul� MN Medical PV 6. Smford Fiospital �ar ington, MN Medicol PB ' 9. Woo�nia Ridgeview Hospitol W ia, NIN Medical PB 10. Abbott�larthwestern Mi lis, AAN Nkdical PB 1 l. Un1tr Hospitals,lnc. hAi lis, MN Medical PV ' 12. Mercy Hoapital C Rapids, MN Medtoal PY 13. St.Francis Hospital opee, MN Medfcal PB ' 14. Methodist Hospitai Mi olis, MN Medical PV I5. Fairview Ridge Haspital Bur ville, MN Medical PV , 16. He�nepin Camty Medical I Center Min lis, MN Medical PV ' B. Airport in the Study Area , Narn� Lrooatjon I. Mimecpolis-St. Paui International Air Minr�eapolis-St. Paul ' 2. Downtown St. Paul Airport St. Paul, MN 3. Airlake Airport '� Lakrvtlie, AAN , 4. Anoka-Blaine Airport Ano{w, MN S. Crystal Airport Crystol, MN 1 6. Flring Cloud Airport ! Eden Prairie, MN 7. Lake Elmo Airport Lake Elmo, MN ' 8. South St. Paul Airport South St. Paul, MN 9. Gateway Airport Anoka, MN � 10. Forest Lake Airport I Forest Loke, MJd , 2-9 �^� C� J i 1 Ai 1 : ' ��' r•---•--•�—•— —•—� � w w.r� ww � ►�.�oo�t ' � � .--«• � . � , . . 1 � • �n.w•'�' � 111cporta i '""" ��. ..." --- . � f ot 8��d H�Ocopt�r• � � r � -� • r-- --r-..-_ � , , . •M04A :7 't�Nhi• 1 � 1 � ��1• � �N�W �N/ � ��rr�r • ' • N•� 1 ' . . � ! 1 � �� ! w.� ' •) • �w�w�t � . �. �•��•• tNMN tM� } ARTR �N�l � . � � � aw � �� ...• , . � ,.� .� � 1 � .. • . I '' '� w.s�«wsto� co. � � iN�MRU tiK��N , .....s.... �"w' ; u � � w.�:+:T• —r---- ' : ..«..•.«.. ""�'� -f ( y � LL{ q � i Mu� �. '�Y.«►t� •�N� ' �►�M►t�l '.I �INMENN r0 •M��• 1��.' . :�«.� f I •,,• ••� ywa.rw iwr� • i � �.�..••� � ' �� ::u �• � �� .n ' I � � �� =� � aa� .Ma.c�•u .�r.. �.•.� ��.0 ;�� +at � + ... � ;� '. _ , »«.... • .� � ,,�....�•,.,. . � «�.. �� ' � .KM�� N. � � , -� � �►�� ~ tMi��Q� � � I ! !h ..w �' ''��`—� �arsfi► ee. � .w►..� ' �•w.ti.•�._�_. '«..r��...� a � � • I ; 1 MrUMN� � N� ' {y tr_00 ' w1l�r� ( � ! 1 f-_� � �N»��1� �� , • L� � n w�.« + ' . � , .— _ • s�w : I��►'�w�.s r:� � �«.. ;� �nw ��.n.��.�- . _ � - � t�' � �� .. �iwt � . ' •CrK�� M'�� _N�N�� ' � ( •K's�'c..w.�w. � �� w�s■�� 1 .. ;�• , •• .•H•C • . ' 1st�ru�bf , ' 1t NM 1 CM� �\ . ' /.iO��K'Y� � :�H��l��t '� � , I��RY��0��.' �� . ; ..iV ; MNIt/ lM��N�N�f � �� ' I . � ' '� I � 1 ...M,�a .�.•. � ��OT• CO. j �..'1 ��NK� : �.�.1� . ...�1 •.�� ' A . N�V��t . fMK�4 • ..�i♦ � 1� MuN . •N�/ ' . . JL � ' ��•��C• ! N��O� ' �� IM �•�K��N�l• ��N�MN •�AGf• � ! ' J u.� , `�.a�.s� . ,� � - .. ....� : � � ��.N _.�_______�•__- _ _ __ �_._�� '� _.�_�____, _;r.L��i , � I'�yi y . � I � .. _:. � ...� -. -.� : . � ;�.�r••.�' � �� - fMG:�t�• I �w.i l�I � •.�.�• a•.. I .. •. � — •.�S.N � �� ; •..�• � � .��i...A �% �t•1� ,..��. ., i»M u�T� r.0. ' ' � � , 1 1 �1 � � , ��W�[hMN �r��:��i� ' :.j� � '.��=� '�� J, ' � �.��•...• � .•�i• ,iM�•rf� �� YI.�. •' .\�M� . . .�♦ � .�• •�� .�� • » ` t •I��.��1 • � �'�� ' .��• ..� �/• ' + • �- ..N � ' , ��_...� ' _' _ ' _ _ _.- ' _ _ ��.�__—__ ,— : � -�_•w'. ~T' .�J -� • • � . .. .,. : � �, . , » , . ... , i Twir� Cities ' Figure Landing Facifities and Regional Helipon � 2.� 1 Feasibi i ity Study � 6ased Heljcopter Locations " °�rd °� � �� C,�.� � Edwards end Kelcey. hc. I 1 �� '� � ' MINUTES OF THE NEIGHBO OOD AND HOUSING COAIl�ITTEE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SA�NT PAUL� MINNESOTA� ON APRIL 5� 1989 ' p$�1�: Mmes. Zieman, Hirte� Gei ser� Treichel and Mr. Levy of the Neighborhood and Hous�,ng Co�ittee; Mr. Ayan, Mr. Soderholm� and � Ms. Pound of the Planr►in Division etaff. , ABSENT: Messrs. Anfang, Horak, V oef, and Miller. ' The meeting was chaired by Kathy 7�ie an� Chairman. , Heliport Yublic Meeting Mr. Ryan gave a staff presentatiom o the background of heliports and , helicopters. He stated the definiti ns of the words "helistop" and "heliport". Mr. Ryan discussed the et Council's study and what is being proposed by the study. He also d�sc ssed the two model ordinances proposed ' and the zoning alternatives. Paul Savage� 2170 Carter Avenue, �si that the Met Council study does not adequately address certain issues ''an that more research on the bad ' experiences other cities have had'wi h heliports should have been done. He asked that a cautious and conservati e approach be taken when drafting the zoning ordinance. He said that a' li t of specifications should be established , considering safety factors, adver�e ffects on adjacent property� noise limits, realistic distances from l�ou es, and that it should consider allowing helistops only at primary hospita�s. ' Rebecca Niedzielski, 520 Lafayette R ad, stated that she is a noise specialist with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. She said she had recommended to the task force that any model zoning ordinances include a noise assessment in ' reference to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency noise rules. Then she read the noise rules and stated that it was verified by the attorney general's staff. (Memo is part of the file'.) She recommended that when requiring a ' noise impact analysis for the propos d zoning amendments that at the very least it be in reference to the stat noise rules. Ms. Zieman asked what the most would be in comparison to the very least. Ms. ' Niedzielski answered that the Met' Co cil study recognized that the Federal LDN contours used around airportslar inadequate in this instance. She said the state standards would be the nex level to be considered after the federal ' standards. Mae Sylvester, 162 West College, �.eg slative aide to City Council President Jim Scheibel, read a letter into the record on his behalf. ' , � � - s � - ' Heliport Public Meeting April 5� 1989 ' Page T�vo Agnea Antoniades, 399 East Curtice, stated that she is a representative ' appointed by the District 3 Council to the Downtown Airport Advisory Council. She expressed concern that there was no public representation at the meetings of the Met Council that she attended. She voiced her concerns about the health� safety, and welfare of herself and the residents who live near the � Downtown Airport. The Downtown Airport is a corporate reliever and any general aircraft can land there. Turbo-props, helicopters, jets, and flight school traffic use the airport and it is noisy to neighbors. There are five ' neighborhoods near the airport. MAC has pro�ected the following daily operations: 431-504 in 1988; 440-524 in 1989; 448-545 in 1990. These increases will increase the noise to the neighbors. She recommended that a ' cap be put on helicopter operations at the Downtown Airport and that the military should move from the sirport. Hortense Quesada, 696 Concord Street, stated her concerns about the noise at , the sirport. She wanted to know how many helicopters the heliport would accommodate. Mr. Ryan answered that the recommendation is for a helistop at some time in the future when there is a demand for it. Ms. Quesada then asked ' how many helicopters would land in a 24-hour period. Mr. Ryan said that no pro,jections were made. Ms. Quesada asked who it would serve. Mr. Ryan said that it would be a public heliport and it would serve corporations and other users. ' Paul Mandell, 145 West Robie, expressed concerns about Holman Field becoming a corporate reliever for Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport. He also ' expressed concern about an increase in military operations. He said the sirport should not be recognized as a heliport. He asked that a heliport or helistop be more than 200 feet away from residential areas. Mr. Mandell also , stated that landing fees based on noise should be pursued and also the removal of the military helicopters. Herb Abress, 132 East Stevens, stated that he doesn't see how more helicopters , can be added to Holman Field when the existing problems aren't being solved. He expressed concern about the Downtown Airport not having a fire department or an emergency operation. Mr. Abress read comments out of a notebook he has ' been recording in for several years. Warren Spannaus, representative of the Condor Corporation, said that Condor Corporation has been proposing a private heliport, not a public heliport, for , the use of inedical helicopters for hospitals. He said he hopes a reasonable set of standards and criteria for the use of helicopters is established. Maureen Heap, 1841 Dayton Avenue, voiced her concerns with the 40-acre study , and with using a special condition use permit for a helfport. She said there should be no heliports at all until there is more known about it. She said , she attended Met Council meetings and that the meetings vere dominated by helicopter providers. Mary Villars, 2149 Temple Court, said she felt the 40-acre study was a summary ' of the Met Council study. She also felt that a special condition use permit wouldn't work for a heliport. She said there were no provisions for enforcement of noise, flight patterns, or altitude in the study. ' _ 60 - 1 ' Heliport Public Meeting ' April 5� 1989 'I Page Three ' Duffy Pearce, 1850 Feronia Avenue, lsa d that the original Alternative 1 which would prohibit heliports, before it w s revised to Alternative A� is the most suitable alternative. ! , , Scott Heiderich, 1966 Portland Avenue� said no matter where a heliport or helistop was located there would be a roblem with them flying too low. Mr. Heiderich said a comprehensive study, hich could take several years, needs to ' be done before allowing any heliports r helistops. In the meantime, heliports, other than at the airport� hould not be allowed. Helistops at hospitals should only be allowed as a ariance. A clear definition of airport ' and heliport are needed so heliport c ot come in in the guise of an airport. Paula Maccabee, 1961 Selby Avenue, �'sai land use feasibility needs to be done, the moratorium needs to be extended, a d a balanced approach is needed. ' Richard Peterson, 413 Stryker Avenue, sid he felt the heliport issue is not only an economic issue but also a qual ty of life issue. rMs. Zieman listed the meetings schedul d regarding the heliport issue. She then closed the public hearing. , Ms. Hirte was concerned that not evl�ry ne that should be was being notified of the public hearings. Ms. Zieman said that after listenin� t testimony she felt that the , alternative of no heliports should be ncluded as an option for the next hearing. I , Mr. Levy asked if there was any way to limit the number of flights and the timing of flights at Holman Field. �Mr Ryan said there wasn't. , Ms. Giesser requested that either PED r the Planning Commission call Congressman Oberstar's office and s�ea to the staff person on the transportation committee to get a very clear explanation of what the FAA can ' or cannot do and to get as much inform tion as possible. Mr. Levy asked when the moratorium �xp res. Mr. Soderholm said it expires ' October 9. I Ms. Hirte asked if the moratorium coul be extended. Mr. Soderholm said the moratorium could run up to 30 months a d that October 9 would be 24 months so ' it might be possible to extend for 6 m re months. Submitted by: Approved by: ' Rog y �' Kathy Zieman, Chairman ' � i ' �� — � MINUTES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HOUSING COI+�iITTEE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBIItS� SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA, ON APRIL 17� 1989 ' PRESENT: Ms. Treichel and Mr. I.evy of the Neighborhood and Housing Committee; Mr. Ryan� Mr. Soderholm, and Ms. Pound of the Planning , Division staff. : @BSENT: I4mes. Zieman, Hirte� Geisser; Messrs. Anfang� Horak, VanHoef� and , Miller. The meeting was chaired by Imogene Treichel. , Heliport Public Meeting Mr. Ryan stated that after the last meeting, another alternative was added. ' This alternative is called Alternative AA and it prohibits heliports. The zoning amendment would define heliport as part of an airport� airports would be a special condition use in the I-1 district, and heliports separate from ' sirports would not be permitted in the city. Mr. Ryan said he received a letter from Frank Walz on behalf of Condor Corporation stating their comments and recommendation on the alternatives. Mr. Ryan asked that the letter be � made part of the record. Mr. Ryan then gave a report on his conversations with Congressman Oberstar's office and with staff of the Los Angeles Airport. Los Angeles owns the airport and regulates approach and departure paths, minimum altitudes� and landing procedures through operators agreements. If an ' operator breaks an agreement the airport can e�ect the operator. Merril Robinson, 787 North Fairview� said recently two airplanes and a ' helicopter flew near his house under 1,000 feet. The helicopter made more noise than the airplanes. He said the quality of life in Saint Paul needs to be protected. Duffy Pearce, 1850 Feronia Avenue, said there was concern among the people ' attending that the committee is so small. She said she wanted to make it clear that they are in favor of prohibiting any new heliports and helistops ' and are not trying to stop helicopters from landing at any existing airports. She also voiced concern about supporting rationale and felt that there is insufficient evidence available to determine whether or not and where ' heliports should be placed. She also said she is concerned about noise, safety, and pollution. Agnea Antoniades, 399 East Curtice, said there was noisy traffic pattern work , by airplanes done last Sunday at the Downtown Airport. She said neighbors were frustrated because in the past they had to call Minneapolis Airport to complain about Saint Paul's sirport and their statistics were buried with , Minneapolis. They finally got a complaint line but it only takes recorded messages. There is no response to the complaints. She said they are not allowed to call the tower. She was stunned and glad to see. the National Guard ' recorded complaints and, the Guard admitted to flying over residential areas. A FAR, Part 150 study done by MAC for the FAA talked about transferring all general aviation traffic from MSP to Downtown Airport but did not say how it could be done or how it would affect noise. Some people are frustrated ' working with MAC and the FAA. No additional activity should be added to the airport. An EPA booklet on problems caused by noise was cited. She said there is no need to lower property values. She also said the only time � helicopters should be used is for medical purposes. She said the public �o 'Z , ' Heliport Public Meeting ' April 17� 1989 Page T�o should have been included when the tudies were being done. She said she ' hopes the rationale is not that as 1 ng as it's not in my neighborhood, let it be someplace else. ' Lana Cromey� 712 Concord� said a hel copter hit the tip of the trees one morning as she was waiting for the b s and that it scared her. She thought it was going to crash into her house; he wanted to know why they fly so low. ' Larry DuPaul� Merriam Park Center ' e pressed concern about the noise. He said the heliport needs to be stopped �ec use there is no limit to what they can ' do. Jerry Wildes� 125 McKnight Road, sai he wanted to mention a couple of things that hadn't been discussed. He said the most important thing to him is the , quality of life in Saint Paul and he didn't think it should be sacrificed for 21 helicopters in the region. He sa d there are a lot of military helicopters constantly flying over his neighborh od. He said the noise is deafening. He � said a lot of people will move out t e neighborhoods where there is a lot of helicopter traffic and move to the s urbs. He said it wasn't worth risking the quality of life in these neighbo oods and the money that would be � involved 3ust for 21 helicopters. Scott Heiderich, 1966 Portland Avenu � said he was sorry there weren't more committee members at the meeting. H said he wished the full Planning , Commission had been at both meetir�gs to hear the comments made. He felt that a11 Planning Commission members st�ou d get a copy of the complete testimony. Mr. Heiderich then made some commelnt on the letter from Frank Walz. He said ' he agrees with Mr. Walz about the st tement that the amendments and alternatives were not written exac�tl the way they should have been written. He said that he hopes before the I�la ing Commission approves a final alternative that the wording willlbe changed so everyone will be able to , understand it. He expressed concelrn about training flights and altitudes. He said there shouldn't be any more hel orts, helistops, or helicopter activity than there is now because there is n way of controlling it. He asked that , consideration be made to Alternative . He said that no airports should be allowed in I districts: Holman Fiel would be grandfathered in; helicopters could only land at existing helistop and Holman Field. If the International , Airport moves out 70 to 80 miles in e future, then heliports for helicopters taking passengers to the airport wil proliferate. 911 emergency service could increase in the future; we hav to be careful before we allow it. The city can not rely on the federal gov ent to come up with some magic way for � city's to regulate helicopters in tw months. Alternative AA is the most restrictive and should be adopted. ' Robert Gremore� 1879 Selby Avenue, s d that any siting of a heliport needs to be responsive to citizen concerns. Hearing no further testimony, Ms. Tre chel closed the public meeting. ' mit bX: � Approved b : y � Roge y II Imogene Treichel, Chairman � - 3 -