The URL can be used to link to this page

84-199 GITY OF SAINT �ALTL Council File 1�10. ��/99 � � ouncil Re o ution �� Y Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS , a proposal is before the City of Saint Paul to grant use permits enabling the Metropolitan Airports Commission to proceed with runway realignment and expansion at the St. Paul Downtown Airport , and WHEREAS, the impacts of said realignment and expansion are of great concern to the City as a whole and particularly to areas borderin� the airport , and WHEREAS, it is essential that plans for mitigating any negative effects of said expansion be established prior to approval enabling such expansion to go forward , and WHEREAS, the West Side Citizens Organization has appealed the affirmative action of the Planning Commission in approving the special use permits in question , Now, Therefore , Be It RESOLVED, that the Metropolitan Airports Commission will provide support for an independent annual review of changes in the adjacent heron rookery, said review to be conducted for five years after completion of the runway alterations , and , Be It • Further RESOLVED, that the Metropolitan Airports Commission will annually assess and report to the City regarding use and projected use of the St. Paul Downtown l�irport , using as a comparison current traffic estimates as provided in the Downtown Airport Environmental Impact Study. Such assessments shall be part of ongoing evaluation of appropriate uses for this and other airports which may be designated as "reliever" airports. Results of the annual review shall be submitted to the COUIVCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays Fletcher ?�x�X DREW in Favor Masanz Nicosia sche�be� _ Against BY Tedesco Wilson Adopted hy Council: Date Form Approved by City Attorney Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY B� tilpproved by A�lavor. Date _ Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By BY 1 WHITE - C'.TV CLERK PLN�K -='FINANCE COl1I1C11 /f /1 CANARV - DEPARTMENT G I TY OF SA I NT PAU L J( �J' 9 BLUE - MAVOR File NO• U� /I • 1 Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date Metropolitan Council and to the City prior to sessions of the State Legislature , enabling timely legislative initiative , if necessary, and Be It Further RESOLVED, that Metropolitan Airports Commission shall adopt the St. Paul Downtown Airport (Holman Field) Operations Plan as the operations policy for this airport, and shall rigorously monitor application of the noise abatement program contained therein, and Be It Further ' RESOLVED, that prior to the opening of Runway14-32 and associated taxiways, the Metropolitan Airports Commission shall , in concert with the Downtown Airport Advisory Couneil , develop and adopt an operations plan, including specific noise abatement procedures and possible ground installations to mitigate noise, forthe revised airport configuration. 'Said plan shall be reviewed six months after operations begin on Runway14-32 and possible modifications determined jointly by the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the Downtown Airport Advisory Council. Both the initially adopted operations plan and the results of the six-month review shall be submitted to the City upon completion, and Be It Further RESOLVED, that the Metropolitan Airports Commission initiate discussions among controlling agencies to address the possibility of reassigning military helicop"�ers to another site, in light of the additional traffic to be born by the St. Paul Downtown Airport, and Be It Further RESOLVED, that no additional future encroachments shall be allowed in the 100-year floodplain , beyond that shown on final Yeas C(�,eW ILME Na s Requested by Department of: Fletcher y �x [n Favor asanz Nicosia Scheibel _ Against BY Tedesco Wilson Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY By A►pproved by �Navor: Date Approved by Mayor Eor Submission to Council By BY WMITE - GITV CLERK PINT( :FINANCE GITY OF SAINT PAUL Council CANARY - DEPARTMENT BLUE - MAVOR File NO. � /�� Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date plans prepared by Hoyle , Tanner & Associates , Inc. , for Howard , Needles, Tammen and Bergerdoff, and Be It Further RESOLVED, that a registered engineer or registered land surveyor shall certify in writing that the runway and taxiways have been constructed in accordance with the plans referenced above, and Be It Further RESOLVED, that the Metropolitan Airports Commission assume responsibility for restriction of construction activities to the hours of 7 a.m. to sunset, and Be It Further RESOLVED, that the Metropolitan Airports Commission shall ensure that any ash stored or utilized on the airport site be submitted for review by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in regard to content and impact of anticipated use, and that the Metropolitan Airports Commission further agree that any use of ash be in a manner approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency , and Be It Further RESOLVED, that prior to construction on the building areas, the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the City shall determine methods of providing emergency services in time of flood , and Be It Further RESOLVED , that should the railroad right-of-way be abandoned , the Metropolitan Airports Commission, the Department of Natural Resources, and the City will examine the possibility of elevating the access road to above the regulatory flood protec�ion elevation, and Be It Further COUNCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas Drew Nays Fletcher ��x In Favor Masanz Nicosia Scheibel __ Against BY Tedesco Wilsai Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Vassed by Council Secretary BY By Approved by Mavor: Date 3 Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council gy By PuBt�SHEO FE Q 2 5 1984 ` WHIJE - C�ITV CLERK PiNK � FINANCE COl1f1C11 CANARV - DEPARTMENT G I TY OF SA I NT PAU L BLUE - MAVpR File NO. ��-�� Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date RESOLVED, that the applicant shall secure site plan approval for each phase of the project prior to construction and the construction projects in the proposed building area also receive site plan approval , and Be It Further RESOLVED, that the Metropolitan Airports Commission will continue to work with the City to monitor the need for emergency services and will take appropriate steps to ensure satisfactory levels of service , and Be it Further RESOLVED, that all conditions outlined above be attached to the granting of the special use permits in question. CO�I�V��.MEN Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays Fletcher � �� In Favor Masanz � Nicosia Scheibel A gai n s t BY Tedesco Wilson Ff B 16 198� Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Pa s d Council S BY B � dlppro by INavor. D � F�8 1 19g�r Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By BY PUBLISHED FE B 2 5 i984 ,, . , ,. _ ' � � � �' • ' ' . : � ` ��.."',� � , ' - >3 l'. � i. . , , � �, � , � - . _ . ,, , . �: � � x.: � .. . ' . . . . . . t_ i / . . . . ' .. . . � . ' . ." . . . � . . . . � � � . - . . . . . . . . I .. . . I � ,., � . ..' ' - . . � , � ` - � `I . . . �/� t. . . ' . .. - . � � , . . � � � . � � . � . . . . ' ' . . . � , � � � �, � . r.� . ' . � , � ' � ' �- . � � .. � � � . � '. . . .' � � . � ' ' � � � � : � + . . . � . . . . . . . .� . � � _ ; ' . . . � , . ', December. l5, 1983 . . � , . � ' � � � Councilmnti� Chrie Nicas3a ` - � R�oo�n 701 � - • - City Ha13.. , _ . , ,�} , Dear Coua�ilman Nicoaia: . � . . , , - , , , At today's City Conncil s�etfng a l�aring wita heid and conclude�„ � � . � ort +,�s aPpeal to a "deci�ion of '.the Pl�w�ng Commiss�.o�a to a Specis�l. • � , , . •Caz�i�ition IIt�e permit ,�o the Metropol3ten A3rports Comml,ae�an to ; _ � 1 , ' expand t�he airport at Holanan Fiel�. After" eancivaion of the . � . heartng� the matter t�aa ref�erred Co a�BPe�ciai :ad hoc ccymn��ttee , . � coneisti�g of Council�pn�Tedesca,�,Coui�cil�mact &c�eibe]. and po`ursel! _ , und y�iu were- dea�g�►tad to act,�as �lsa�.s�m�n m� tha. co�dmit�ee. 4 , . � � qarq tru�.y yours, . , , , � ,. � � , � : ' ,,_ • ,�l,lbert :R. Olaan � : � ` _ , _ ,€itg Cler1a' ' � . � % ; . i' _ ' _ • j�lBOsdrm � ' . . � , , , . � . .,, . .. _ � . ect Counci].mgn 'i�tctor T�d�sca . : ,tbuncilman Jamea Scluib4]. � , -� , _ - - �- . , � ' , , �. i . , , , . � " . � , 1 ' ' � � t: �:. . . .. � � . - � . � . . . � � � � .. .. . � . . ' . ' ,- . . . . . •,Y �.t . . . . . . . . , .. . . . , . . .. . . ."'. . . . . . .. . . , . . , . . . . .. � ' . . . . � � � . 1'. . . . . . . .. � . . . . � - � � .. . . i � . ... � . , ' � ... �. . . � . . . � . . . . � . .. . . .. � � . � , . .. . � i .. . .. . � . . . . . . . . . . � . . . � . .. �. . � � ' . � . . . � .., '. ' . .. . . i . . . . . ' / � . . ' . . i . � . . I . . . . . . . . '. . . ' . . .. . � � . . . � � , � . � ,' . . I . . .. • . . � . ._ � � . . � ' � .. _ . �. � � . . � � ��f h - � � � . . . , � � ..� . . , , . . � . . • . , �� . - �. . . � ` . ti . . . i • _I ` . , , , , _ . , _ . , • �� ' � , ' ` ��- �� 9� ``r' °'" CITY OF SAINT PAUL $ m �� !�r �. e t"'�;�� ro DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ,�m ho DIVISION OF PLANNING ,eb• 25 West Fourth Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota,55102 612-292-1577 GEORGE LATIMER MAYOR December 5, 1983 Albert Olson, City Clerk Room 386 City Hall St. Paul , Minnesota 55102 RE: Zoning File #9481 - Metropolitan Airports Corrmission City Council Hearing: December 15, 1983 PURPOSE: Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Special Condition Use Permit to expand airport at Holman Field PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: Approve with conditions (12-2) ZONING COMMITTEE DECISION: Deny (3-2) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions SUPPORT: 6 letters received; three people testified OPPOSITION: 2 letters received; 7 people testified Dear Sir: On November 3, 1983, the Zoning Comnittee of the Planning Comnission held a public hearing on this application for a Special Condition Use Permit to expand the airport. A related permit to place fill in the floodway and to provide access for the building area below the regulatory flood protection elevation (RFPE) was also considered at the same hearing. The staff recorr�nendation was for approval of both permits subject to additional conditions. This recommendation was based on findings that the proposal met the requirements of the Zoning Code. The conditions committed the MAC to continue to work with the City to resolve airport-related problems. The applicant testified in support, giving a brief history of the project. In addition, two others testified in f avor and six letters were received. Seven people testified in opposition and two letters were received opposing the expansion. At the close of the hearing, the Committee voted 3 to 2 to recommend denial of the permits based on concerns regarding the health, welfare and safety of the adjacent area. On November 4, 1983, the Planning Commission met and reviewed the Zoning Comnittee's action. Mr. Wiederhorn gave a staff presentation responding to some of the concerns expressed at the hearing. The Planning Commission voted to approve the permit with the additional conditions by a vote of 12 to 2. (The related permit for placing fill in the floodway was approved by the same margin.) - - �- ��-�r� ; w ' : �,�, ? ;.'� rv^� ri?t'�r'�� i ��'��i'�� GFF:C� uSE ONLY : ; � ,:� � ,i'�T PAUL Fi le #r � ., Application Fee $ � ho 00 ' Tentative Hearina Date 1?_-1z: �"� �� g ,, Page 2 Metropolitan Airports Commission r anization Environmental On November 21 , 1983 the West Side Cit�zens � 9 eal is based ommittee, and the Conservation Committee�noS decisionPauTheuappon Society � osed to be filed an appeal of the Planning Commiss on the following f actors: (1 ) a noise abatement plan was supp finished prior to completion of the Fbeaharmed;�andn(3) theaairportemsnt and is not; (2) the environment w�ll unsafe and hazards will increase if the expansion is permitted• ber This appeal is scheduled to be heard before the Cimembernoflthe CitY 15, 1983. Please notify me by December 14 if any Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, . K neth E. rd Principal Planner - Zoning KEFmb attachments I , :.�.-->::; .. _ .. y . c'�l^ ' w�'�Y't[� �`�.- -. . . .. . ,. .. . .. _- �r. +: �... ' .. . . . : � � ..�.:. . - �.::.T s_...�.ti�n,�..... -..:�.�i,.:-v:-�.''�i�.+F •-r%'N*1Y .�..+.�..w enr�� ..a•Y4�- � � .� .. - .5 }. � .. . ... �.�. . . .� .:.'♦ _ �' � _ . . . . .. . - . . .'t r" .. . . �.... � v,.�.:c.. ' .�.:�.. T .../.�:. FE.P.T�'r: ., F�.':.r.jr r`f� ....w. ftp�lkY ,i L.... _ . . .. . . . . . . .. �� . .. .� Y �.�.-: ��. ' . . . , ..�. .. . . .. .,-�.� ...,�,,,t �� Ft� ...;�k •.� F^�Mxa.rg r _ �.� , . � � .,� . .... . .. . . � s � - iR '..s" � �4 . .~. -. -... � .. . �. . _. , . , .,..s .. ,., ':. . �. ..�._ . � . .. . . . . . < . .. _.J�.: _ � . .. , . . � � � . . . �.5��.�' � . . .. . . ... . . . .. .. � . . .. ' , Co= �y�� , Grounds for Appeal ( continued ) . See WSCO' s letter to the Zoning Committee which is attached hereto. .The Conservation Committee of the St. Paul Audubon oonseh7SC0 in which presented testimony at the 11/3/83 hearing, j this appeal. � � . .� �� _ �I . - F , .� ; '� :�� /' � � ~w-� CC�� 1�l. �:� � ,�� ,1<.�-�..%'�""1�`,�'"'� 1* , ` `,t''� � � �' :i.,��'.a�� , i � �� . � , �� `�'t.� � � - � � '_'��.�� `�' � a�'4d:i � 209 West Pa9e, St. Paul, MN 55107 292-8420 Zoning Committee St. Paul Planning Commission City Hall St . Paul, Minnesota - Dear Committee Members , e West Side Citizens Organization (Wh��e a��ltonthe�pro�o ed`expansion Th eneral concerns wit 5 has the following g . of the downtown St. Paul Airport: � 1 The project interferes Wi�h iandewill beedestroyedhandred ( ) and thirty-four acres of wet numerous species of wild life will be disturbed and uprooted. t2) The noise abatement plan, although promised, has not been completed. Noise is not onlyda�rerMetropolitan AirportfacLor. In October of 1982, WSCO aske Commission for a noise abatement plan to be completed P rior to the finalization of antatedrthatnaamajoraconcern s�atement. WSCO at that time s was the amount and frequencBefore�any step cancbertaken dents would have to live. ro osed expansion, including the toward completion of the p P four acres of filling of the one hundred and thrity- _ wetland, this important issue of noise must bneadhborhoods What will the nohsof1those who liverinuthem? g and on the healt The situation at Holman Field is already dangerous due to �3� ort s location and the height of the surrounding the airp � technically, surrounding areas including areas. Indeed, +� buildings in downtwon Sinistration heightyrestrictionsn of Federal Aviation Adm Increased air traffic will increase the potential for � �4� Statistics confirm that three-fourths of all : accidents. roximity to airports. The air crashes occur in close p Metropolitan Airport Comission has not satisfactorily ered the question of how secure residents and businesses , answ area will be. in the surrounding ��i�� S h � 5) C:zlorine stored by the ^ietropolitan Waste Control Co:-�--�ission a� the Pig' s Eye Sewage Treatment Plant is located at. the end of the proposed new runway. T:ne potential threat resulting from an airport accident close to or on the chlorine storage area is obvious . The above concerns were expressed by representatives of the j�'est Side Citizens Organization' s Environmental Committee at the public hearing. held on November 3 , 1983 . This letter is to simply confirm those concerns and we ask that the above be entered in the official record of .said hearing. Until the above concerns are adequately addressed, we go on. record, as being oppo�ed to any continuing plans to expand the St. Paul Downtown Airport. Yours very truly, � �� f . f • .. rbara i gler As y for . ��SCO Environmental Committee ��y-�99 * ` CITY OF ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA SPECIAL CONDITION USE PERMIT APPLICANT: METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION Zoning File #9481 PURPOSE: Expansion of airport LOCATION: Holman Field LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Sections 4, 5, 8 and 9, Township 28 North, Range 22 West ZONING COhMITTEE ACTION: Denied November 3, 1983 (3-2) PLANNING COt�1ISSI0N ACTION: Approved November 4, 1983 (12-2) CONDITIONS OF THIS PERMIT: (1 ) Applicant receives site plan approval for each phase of t e pro�ec prior to construction, and construction projects in the proposed building area also receive site plan approval ; (2) Applicant continues to work with the City to monitor the need for emergency services and takes appropriate steps to ensure satisfactory levels of service; and (3) Applicant continues to work with the City and the Advisory Corrmittee to develop noise mitigation measures. APPROVED BY: David Lanegran/PNJ, Planning Commission, Chairman I, the undersigned Secretary to the Zoning Committee of the Planning Comnission for the City of Saint Paul , Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original record in my office; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on approved minutes of the Saint Paul Planning Comnission meeting held on November 4, 1983, and on record in the Saint Paul Planning Division Office, 25 W. Fourth Street, Saint Paul , Minnesota. n � Mar � veney es man Secreta y to th aint Paul Zoning Committee Anyone affected by this decision may appeal within 15 days to the City Council . THIS PERMIT WILL EXPIRE ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF APPROVAL IF THE USE HEREIN PERMITTED IS NOT ESTABLISHED. VIOLATION OF THE CONDITIONS MAY RESULT IN REVOCATION OF SPECIAL CONDITION USE PERMIT. Copies to: Applicant City Planning Division Zoning Administrator License Inspector District Council Mailed: November 9z 1983 C,��-i9q � � CITY OF ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA SPECIAL CONDITION USE PERMIT APPLICANT: METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION Zoning File #9482 PURPOSE: Placement of fill in the floodfringe (RC-1) district and provide access for uib�lcTing area below the regulatory flood protection elevation. LOCATION: Holman Field LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Sections 4, 5, 8, and 9, Township 28 North, Range 22 West. ZONING CONa1ITTEE ACTION: Denied November 3, 1983 (3-2) PLANNING CONMISSION ACTION: Approved November 4, 1983 (12-2) CONDITIONS OF THIS PERMIT: (1 ) Prior to construction on the building area, Metropo �tan Airports Comnission and the City determine methods of providing emergency services in time of flood; and (2) should the railroad right-of-way be abandoned, the Metropolitan Airports Corrmission, the Department of Natural Resources, and the City will examine the possibility of elevating the access road to above the regulatory flood protection elevation. APPROVED BY: David Lanegran/PNJ, Planning Commission, Chairman I, the undersigned Secretary to the Zoning Committee of the Planning Comnission for the City of Saint Paul , Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original record in my office; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on approved minutes of the Saint Paul Planning Corrmission meeting held on November 4, 1983 and on record in the Saint Paul Planning Division Office, 25 W. Fourth Street, Saint Paul , Minnesota. Mar U eveney Bes man Secr ry to t aint Paul Zoning Comnittee Anyone affected by this decision may appeal within 15 days to the City Council . THIS PERMIT WILL EXPIRE ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF APPROVAL IF THE USE HEREIN PERMITTED IS NOT ESTABLISHED. VIOLATION OF THE CONDITIONS MAY RESULT IN REVOCATION OF SPECIAL CONDITION USE PERMIT. Copies to: Applicant City Planning Division � Zoning Administrator License Inspector District Council Mailed: November 9, 1983 PLT ,.,,,�,. �,�,��nCC' �� 7 • .;;,,�„.: C�.�,. ,..;.....�C;, l,F 5 � . ��-.;:�� 25 ��,est �ourth Street �� c��j'� St. Paul , ;Sinnesota 55102 T • ' A r;�eting of tre Planning Cor�r�ission of the City o� S�. Paul t�.as held on Friday, I,ovember 4, 1983 at 9:00 a.m. in the Department of Planning and Economic Development Cor}fer�ence Room on the 15th f]oor of the City Hall Annex, 25 i�;est Fourtn Street, St. Paul , 1�linnesota 55102. � COi�1MISSIONERS Mmes. Huber, Karns, Summers , Taylor PRESENT: Messrs. Brown, Bryan, Grais, Kadrie, Levy, f�cDonell , Pangal , Schmidt, Tobler, VanHoef C0�1i�1ISSI0NERS Mmes. Cochrane ABSE��T: t�lessrs. �Irmstead, Hyduke, Lanegran, ALSO PRESENT: Councilman Victor Tedesco; Lisa Roden, PED Administration; Y.aty Lind- blad, Allen Lovejoy, Rick bJiederhorn, Ken Ford, Larry Sbderholm, Chuck �t�1cGuire, Patricia James, James Zdon, Dorothy Schlesselman, Peggy Reichert and Barbara Quickstad of the Planning Division. . � I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Kadrie made a �motion to approve the minutes of the October 21 , 1983 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. h1r. Grais seconded the motion. The motion for approval carried with a unanimous voice vote. II. CHAIRMAV'S ANNOUNCEMENTS - . tdr. Bryan served as Chair in P1r. Lanegran's absence. - III. � PLANNING DIRECTOR'S ANNOUNC�MENTS ' Ms. Reichert informed the Commissioners that no decision has been made on the appointments to the reorganized Commission. � Ms. Reichert stated that due to the controversial nature of the two zoning cases involving the Metropolitan Airports Commission and their requests for Special Condition Use Permits it has been requested that staff make a breif � presentation to the full Commission. IV. CIB COMMITTEE � RESIDENTIAL STREET PAVING Mr. Bryan introduced Debbie Munkberg of the Planning staff who gave a brief presentation explaining the criteria used in evaluating the 1984/1985 Residen- tial Street Paving Proposals. She explained the criteria used to determine conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of each proposal . She distributed in . the Commissioners' packets, the charting of 28 proposals. t�10TI0N: Mr. McDonell made a motion to approve the Resolution and attached re- port entitled "Saint Paul Planning Commission Evaluation of 1984/1985 Residential Street Paving Proposals" , and transmit same to the Mayor and City Council for review and action and also to the St. Paul Long Range Capital Improvement Budget Committee. Mr. Bro��m seconded the motion. ��1otion for approval cari�ied with a roll call vote of 12-0. ' The following items do not appear in the order as listed on the agenda. , . �_r:_;u C�;_�_:;I_i i�E . �� /�� < G;�:,.;� �.'�;t,;uc '�:�ST - 40 ACRE S7UDY I�GTIOPd: I•Ss. Summers made a motion to approve the Resolution recommending approval of the Zoning Code Amendments as proposed in the 40-Acre Study pertaining to the Grand Avenue West area and to forward same . to the Mayor and City Council for their review and action. Mr. Brawn seconded the motion. t�fotion carried with a roll call vote of 12-0. IRWIN FINE & BEVERLY SIMON n9431 - A request to rezone property located at Southwest corner of Hartford and Snelling from RM-2 (multiple farnily residen- tial ) to B-3 (general business). � - P10TION: h1s. Karns made a motion to DENY the request based on findings 1-6, 8,9 and the staff analysis. Mr. Summers seconded the motion. � h1otion �" for Denial carried with a roll call vote of 12-0. NORTH CENTRAL FOOD SYSTE��1S, INC.�9475 - A request for a Special Condition Use � Permit for property located at NW corner of Hamline & St. Anthony to operate ' a Hardee's Fast Food Restaurant: MOTION: Ms. Karns made a motio�n to approve the request� based on findings 1-7�, provided that the subdivision and sign issues are resolved. (�1s. Sum- mers seconded the motion. h1otion for approval carried vrith a roll call of 13-0. RALPH E. DENt�IS n9473 - A request to rezone property located at 877 Grand Avenue North side between Victoria and Milton) from Rt�-2 (multi-family) to B-2 (business) to convert building to office and business use. MOTION: Ms. Summers made a motion to Deny the B-2 rezoning based on findings � 1-7 of the staff report and approve instead a B-2C rezoning. Ms. Karns seconded the motion. Motion carried arith a roll call vote of � 14-0. METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS CONU�IISSION r9482 - A request for a Special Condition Use Permit to expand the airport Holman Field) . • i�10TI0N: Ms. Summers made a motion to Deny the request based on concerns regard- ing the health, arelfare and safety of the adjacent area. Mr. Pangal � seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. McDonell , as Chair of the Economic Development.Committee felt it was appropriate for the full Commission to hear the staff presentation. Mr. Levy requested that staff highlight the sections in the EIS concerning the im- pact on neighborhoods and wetlands. t�1r. NicDonell introduced Rick k�iederhorn of , Planning staff who gave a presentation on the lengthy study of the airport ex- ' pansion, the EIS, and the major impacts on both the region and the city. Safety Zones - Mr. .Wiederhorn explained that the original safety requirements restricted development in Downtown to a minimum. New legislation has opened developable areas by allowing shortening of the new rurn��ay safety zones. Mit- igating procedures have been established. Neighbors express concern that the new run�ray would produce more traffic and more accidents due to the height of buildings in the area. There is nothing to substantiate this. Traffic will increase whether the new rurnray is built or not. With installation of naviga- tional aids, longer run�rays giving more space to take off and land, a clearer and more predictable operation will be achieved. Predicted emergencies will -� ��/9� , � ';;� i � '�•,; _'l ifi tfle Cd�cCli,y Gr the Clty' i3O t"�SrG�,� �.�_��di.r�y. Tf;e �lt"�.�Ot"t . �.� ; l T;��:i ��r rire ha�ards ��1ith the St. Paul Fire __, :�-_ _-r�t on a cc�i�;nuing * b3S1S. t�oise - It is agreed that the airport �rill be no quiet�r than it is row. Also, the frequency of airplanes landing and taking off ��ill increase, because of more planes. Nowevever, the intensity of noise vrill decrease because of the � higher altitude the planes will reach over residential areas of the city. Some lo.cations will be subjected to more or less noise intensity - less over residential areas and more over .industrial and transportation areas. Mr. ' Wiederhorn stated that overall airport noise �rould remain just about the same as now. As technologies change, MAC ti•rill monitor and evaluate the noise im- pact over a lorig •process. _ Floods - The proposal is to move the buildings out of the f7oodplain to form an island as such, within the standards of one-half foot higher. than floodstage. This is. acceptable to DiyR. The road to the buildings could be flooded. bletlands - One hundred thirty acres of ►,�etland will be filled. The EIS indi- cates that this wetlands area would be lost. It can be replaced, but not in St. Paul . Mr. Wiederhorn stated that the Department of �datural Resources is very protective of wetlands and they have not rejected this plan. Mr. ��1cDonell stated that he believes the wetlands issue has been covered. Re- garding the noise and safety aspects, the airport is not unsafe. Denying ,the permits will not r�ake the airport any safer. The airport will .gro�v with or without the new runway and without it, the airport ��ill be more dangerous. He stated his opposition to the committee recomnendation and would recommend ap- proval of the permits. Mr. Wiederhorn in answer to Mr. Levy's question about tower hours, stated that the tower is open from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. , but the airport operates 24 hours/day. Mr. Levy asked if the Planning Commission could prohibit use of the airport after 10:00 p.m. f�r. Segal , Assistant City Attorney stated t-hat the Federal government controls use of air and no city can force closing; it can only make recommendations. Mr. Brown expressed his support in granting the permits stating that there is not adequate reason for denial . All issues have been addressed, most satisfactorily, some not. But we have all the in- formation we can get. Some answers are not perfect, but are as adequate as can be. We are mixing two different issues - the airport exists and will remain. There is no choice in that. VOTE ON. MOTION TO DENY REQUEST: Motion to Deny the request failed with a roll call vote of 4-10 Brown, Bryan, Grais , Huber, Kadrie, Karns, McDonell , Summers, Taylor, VanHoef voting no) . MOTIOPd: Mr. McDonell made a motion to approve the permit subject to the three conditions in the staff report. Mr. Grais seconded the motion. Motion , for approval carried with a roll call vote of 12-2 (Levy, Pangal voting no) . METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION r9482 - A request for a Special Condition Use Permit for Holman Field zoned I-1 to place fill in the floodway (RC-1 dis- trict). � � MOTION: Mr. Pangal made a motion to Deny the request based on concerns regard- ing the health, welfare and safety of the adjacent area. hir. Levy seconded the motion. Motion for Denial failed with a roll call vote of 4-10 (Bro��rn, Bryan, Grais, Huber, Kadrie, Y.arns, McDonell , Summers, Taylor, VanHoef voting no) . '•',��:0';: ,!s. t�arns �,��e a ,:��tion to ap;�rove the reyuest. ��s. 5��.�.��=r� .e��n�=d ±ne motion. ;�otion for approval carried•v;ith a roll call �:�o�e of 12-2 , ` (Levy, Pangal voting no). /` l'I . GR�G Bl_EES BUDGET DIRECTOR for the CITY OF ST. PAUL ��7 / C � � a 1904 6ucget b) State Revenue Projections � c) 1985 Operating Budget Goals and Policies Mr. Blees explained to the Commissioners that no significant mid-yEar reductions • are anticipated for 1984, however it is possible that some will be made depend- . ing upon salary negotiations. The year 1985 will continue retrenchment. The 1984 budget's General Fund received 23% financing from three revenue sources and no increase is expected from these sources in 1985. Tf�e sources are: NSP fee (1 .4°6 to the city in 1984; zero in 1985) ; Federal Revenue Share (1984 - �4 milli.on; no growth in 1985, in fact a reduction is expected) ; and Fund Balance (remainder of allocated funds to departments. This fund is not gro�rring as department budgets have been cut, close to 100io expenditures have occurred) . The city budget relies heavily on State Aids V�hich law dictates maximum increase � of not more than 6�. Property 'taxes are tied into an indexing process and may not increase more than 5�. Ini1985 (maybe 1984) a $1 r�illion shortfiall would mean more retrenchment, possibly 40-50 positions depending on the salary range of those positions. t�1r. Blees asked the Planning Commission, vrith their expertise of looking to the future (elected officials tend to look to the current year) , to be more vocal and help in preparing goals and guides to facilitate the operating bud- � get, to review and comment on the document, and give direction to the City Coun- cil as is done with the capital budget. Discussion: Ms. Reichert stated the PED gets less and less from the General � Fund. PED receives 20� of its funds from the General Fund. Mr. Brown observed that the citizens' participation in the Capital Budget arorks well because it is composed of an ongoing group of people who can build on the past. The Operating Budget does not offer the opportunity to acquire wisdom from past experience. Mr. Pangal disagreed, saying that the same success could be achieved with the Operating Budget, but involvement would be necessary earlier in the process. Citizen participation is needed before there is already a document to which they ' are simply asked to react. In answer to questions regarding property taxes, Mr. � Blees stated that ��(inneapolis concentrated on keeping the mil rate the same and was able to collect more property taxes because of inflation, while St. Paul concentrated on maintaining the tax levy. St. Paul is at 70% of ability to levy taxes - Minneapolis is at 90°6. St. Paulneeds better planning, better stability in property tax and thus not have to rely •on state aid as heavily. Mr. Brown referred to the Potential Study Issues list given out in materials by � Mr. Blees, stating that there are so many issues they cannot all be studied and � maybe the City Council should set priorities. There is a role for the Planning CorrQnission in this area of study. I�ir. Levy asked how many positions were released in the past t�ro years. �1r. Blees stated that in January, 1932, the State Aid to St. Paul eliminated 55 mil- lion. T►�ro hundred positions were cut - 110 lay off notices ��ere actually issued. The other positions ��ere absorbed by attrition through an incentive orogram for early retirement in the Fire and Police Departments, by not filling vacancies, by transfers and/or retandnare now5ate140+sonnel . t�is. Reichert stated in 1978 PED had 300+ employees ',': : . ^'_�_�J S I';�S S /��/`/9 �_ . < ,;t;t-;e VIII . T�EW EUSINESS tds. Reichert explained the build up of old Planning Commission meeting tapes. The official record of proceedings of any body is the approved and recorded � minutes of the meetings. The body itself must decide hovr long the tapes are to bekept and make a motion to that effect. The tapes may be erased after . that .time. � MOTIOl�: Mr. Levy made a motion that the tapes of Planning Com�nission meetings be kept for two years and the approved and recorded minutes on file be the official record of proceedings of the Planning Commission. Mr. Ka drie seconded the motion. Motion carried ��ith a unanimous voice vote. IX. ADJOURNi�1ENT The meeting adjourned at 10:35 a.m. Submitted by: � Approved by.: Peggy A. Reichert � St. Paul Planning Commission , Deputy Director for Planning November 18, 1983 . � ---- --- ��- � � 9 ± y , j� ��.�_ �S �, ' _ _.>.``. � C. �_ , `: Y t .� �'� ;� [ I r r -:� - , 1fL �i i��, � L !.�i ,� ;��± � ,:. .� -K. '�' .c r z s , .�:,f.:�`�i.A�..� �A.s:s��t��'/� �..' ��,��.�.��^y`t.?- ' 'r:`,SS�„� , ,±;,� _ � 1�:.�j ��,,4'•=:: :=:_;;:_.-,::==�� :��i.��Y\.•.��iK�..f�r . .�,�,�1.%y�^�Y�'�'r� C1TY N��,►��i�� uF�KU �-::_ti�::�_=='�".%� ��-.�,---�_ S�int P�u1 ►��:^r�'0i� � S A I I�T T P A U L . November > 19g3 � � �REA CHAMBER � . ' OF COM:VIERCE i01 Norh Cen:ral To.�•cr =445 i�finneso�a Screet �1ty Of $el�t Paul Saint Paul, ,�linnesota Zoning Committee of the SS101 Phone: 222-5>6l Saint Paul Planning Commission " 25 West 4th Street Saint Paul , Minnesota 55102 � Reference: Zoning File Nos. 9481 and 9482 On behalf of the Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce and its Airport Development Task Force, we would like to take this opportunity to . re-affirm through the attached Chamber resolution statement , the Saint Paul Chamber's continued interest and support for the Saint Paul Airport and its proposed airport improvement program project. We believe the Saint Paul Airport is a valuable asset to both Saint Paul and the entire metropolitan region and its aviation community and that this airport improvement program will insure Saint Paul Downtown Airport's primary "reliever" role and benefit the entire Twin City aviation system through reduced traffic congestion and noise impact. In conclusion then , the Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce respectfully �urges and looks forward to the City of Saint Paul 's respective approvats of the airport project 's two Special Conditional Use Permits and MAC's commencement on this important airport improvement project which will result in a more efficient and safe aviation system operation and network in the Twin Cities metropolitan region. Res lly submitted; . _ _ � .�y,�Q t'�I� �v��✓ mos Martin David M. Woodrow President Chairman Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce Airport Development Task Force Committee BWH/em Enclosure .._-.. . .___,__ . _ ; __...__e.,.:, - _._ , _ _°� _...- :. ��G� � . f ��/9� , - �: ' , <: . ' +� ,a \' +. � �i f t . '�r ��d .l,� '. .{ �(;1. . JT�s'L.•1-�}'.s -;' -,"�Y'r:E'i,i�t (,:��r.?._..'., ::�_':iN�YyY��ij. ��53_r . ..I'r:ty,�� ,;5;::��,l'j:..`�.,�.,.•..,. •J"_..,i�,'.=:f J. , ��.. �q•i��jFy:��2.i.Z;��,:`..'�',..r��i,/Aj. ��s•'r�,:Y'-=Y� � G:'�IlP �t`�`*'•1,��{Y:r��yt,.;r�yi.�it`./�� a�.��_:1�i1%�I�'�f.'��'.rY�"l.� ' •'`j' "��f•,'�'.r��. �v;ti'_:.;.:�..y�.. . 'y�.��'.�;', SAINT PAUL � AREA CHAMBER OF CUMMERCE 701 North Ccn;ral Tuwcr RESOLUTION 44S �tinneso�a S'rcec Saint Panl, �linncsoia 55101 Phonc: 222-SS(�1 Wt1EREAS, the Sa i nt Paul D�wntown Ai rpo rt (Hol man Fi el d) i s a val uabl e . asset *.o ��th the bus i ness cor;muni ty and the ge�eral pub 1 i c and sho�l d � be developed to. its full potential as the reliever airport for business . ai rcraft and general aviation ; and ' WHEREAS, the planned improvements to the airport, a 6,, 700 foot realigned • runway and new building area, will hel.p to accommodate the projected increase in general aviation and increase Clie life expecCancy for Wol d-Chamberl ai n Fiel d; and WHEREAS, the improved airport would reduce the aircraft noise impact on Saint Paul neighborhoods as well as other metropolitan communities ; and WHEREAS, the new runway will ald in retieving airport congestion resutting in energy conservation for all atrcraft; and WHEREAS, the airport is a compatible and highly productive use of a flooct- plain and is conslstent with the Minnesota State Flood Plain Management Act; and WHEREAS, the funds for the proposed alrport development wiil come from . existing federal , state and MAC aviation fees and no citizen tax levy will be imposed; NOW THEREFORE� BE IT RESQLVED, the Saint Paul Area Chamber ef Comm�rce � reaffirms its position that the Saint Paul Downtown Airport is a valuable � asset to the City of Saint Paul and that the airport improvements are important in insuri�g safe and efficient aviation system operations in the metropol itan area; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Federal Aviation Administration, State of Minnesota and the Metropolitan Airports Co mmission are respectively , urged to complete the necessary Environmentat Impact Statement and that the involved governmental agencies review and approve �he necessary permi ts so construction of the new runway and building area can commence. . ��- � ��-c�. ., 6/80 � --- ��{ i9� ,� _ � + �:� `� ...1 � � e,o� �' .� � ��.��f� _ � � � 477 EAST fllIMORE AVENUE ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55107 2?7-7711 � ..r-;� � October 26, - 83 ' ' ' "'� ��' ,C !�� :1 Zoning Committee of St. Paul Planning Commission , 25 West 4th Street • St. Paul, rfinnesota 55102 ' ,. . .;:� � :� Subject: Expansion of St. Paul Airport I� . . � � � � Gentlemen: � � Peoples Electric Company would likl to go on record as being in favor of � the expansion of Holman Field. I, personnally have spent all of my life on the west side of St. Paul, either as a resident or as an employee/employer. Our company has been located in this area for over 40 years. We feel that the St. Paul Airport can play an increasingly larger role in the development of St. Paul. It is certainly far more convenient for those people doing business in St.Paul to use Holman Field than the airport located at Wold Chamberlain. More and more we are seeing the use of private corporate aircraft, both piston-driven and jet-driven. We believe the expansion of the St. Paul airport is a I.ogical extension of service to the Twin Cities as aircraft service increases. Yours very truly, PEOPLES EL COMPANY . ' �� ` N . i erg Presi nt NRL/ig _.- �-. . t c �. ' ,�'•> rn i r c- rs . � ' : - C��/�� i.� «N,., �/---��'. <-.,. ;l<-<<� �\.o\�;�CP.:�+�o � /��..h M�` � . �. / ��y � � A � 1 A••1.%V' '1\V• ' . . � .. . ' . . ' .. . . � . .. � . .. . . � b ... . .. . . .. . . . , f � � � �- �� nrovember 3, 1983 City of St. Paul Zoning Committe of the St. Paul � Planning Commission 25 ta 4th st. ' . St. Paul, Mn 55102 , � Ref: Zoninq rile Nos. °481, 9482 We have examined the statement submitted by the Saint Paui are Chamber of Commerce regarding these files, and we strongly support their position. We respectfully request your support of the staff recommendation on these • f iles�and urge the issuance of the necessary permits to allow work on this project to commence as soon as posible as a benefit to the twin cities area. _ Respectfully, / -Gc=��=�� . , Brian D. Addis President, Wings, Inc. _ _ Q `�1�C7�+ z.. Ccc—:a'= nin t�rtn ' —� . . _ , _ _ , ��-�9`� • : � .._. �. __ .� �' 1 � --� / . : � �„_,_..,. �.,,,J IN:7RUYEMT iL10HT TR41NlHO ST.PAUL DOWNTOWII A�R�OH' ST PAUL/.ttNNESOTA 551C7 6�2�22�•lSad November 2, 1983 City of St. Paul . Zoning Committee of The St. Paul Planning Commission . � 25 West 4th Street St. Paul MN 55102 � ' RE: Zoning Fi1e Nos. 9481, 9482 We have examined the statement submitted by the Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce regarding these f iles, and we wholeheartedly support their position. We respectfully request your support of the staff recommendation on these files and urge the issuance of the necessary permits to allow work on this project to commence as soon as possible as a benefit to the Twin Cities area. Sincerely, I F T �. '1 Nancy L. ergquist, President NLB/J P � .._ C��z 1 GenEr;l piticcs 3f,1 ��( . . � .'�.�� ._ S; P�_ . '.:.��,_;o'a 55144 612!i'�s 1110 � �,� . � �� E� , November 2, 1983 City of St. Paul � _ Zoning Committee of The St. Paul Planning Commission 25 l4est 4th Street St.� Paul , Minnesota 55102 � . Ref: Zoning File Nos . 9481 , 9482 We have examined the statement submitted by the Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce regarding these files, and we wholeheartedly support their position. We respectfully request your support of the staff recommendation on these files and urge the issuance of the necessary permits to allow work on this project to commence as soon as possible as - � a benefit to the Twin Cities area. Respectfully, ��i� �7 ��.�-w��-- David M. Wo�drow Director of Aviation/3M DMW:cs .,-_.�_----�—".._....— . __--, __.-_-__ . : _ _ _ . �.-�..�s' �� 2- ��yi9� V ' • STATEMENT OF ST. PAUL AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE �' ST. PAUL DOWNTOWN AIRPORT (HOLMAN FIELD) � ZONING COM1�'IITTEE OF .THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY �OF ST. PAUL . NOVEMBER 3 , 1983 For St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce: David M. Woodrow, Director of Aviation 3M St. Paul , Minnesota �� i�9 . � STATEMENT Members of the Zoning Committee , ladies and gentlemen, my name is David M. Woodrow. I am employed by 3M as Director of • Aviation. I serve as a member of the Board of Directors of the � National Business Aircraft Association and as Chairman of the Governing Board of �the International Business F.viation Council, Limited. I am also a member of the Minnesota Business Aviation Association. I represent the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce on � the Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council and am here today representing the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce as Chairman of its Airport Development Task Force, a group which . has been studying the St. Paul Downtown Airport development project continuously for almost fifteen years . Our task force and my company have submitted written state- � ments to this hearing supporting the issuance of the necessary permits as recommended by your staff. We appreciate the opportunity to add this short statement in summary. • There are well over fifty public agencies involved in the approval of a project of this kind. It is the legal, ethical and moral obligation of the sponsors of such a project to make certain they have followed a very detailed procedure of evaluation in order - 2 - �"��/_/�9 . . to assure the project evaluation has been thorough, fair and protective, and that public information meetings and public hearings have been carried out in accordance with the permitting procedures . The City of St. Paul who requested the init'ial evaluation over ten years ago, has been active in the proceedings since that time and your staff has been most diligent in their � � evaluation and most helpful in formulating a development plan which maximizes the benefits t�o the community and minimizes the negative impacts . We believe the project represents an opportunity to do something positive about sound abatement while improving the entire Twin Cities airport system and having the project funded 100$ with aviation user funds . If you believe the process of evaluation has been thorough and fair and protective, as we do, we urge you to take action now and we respectfully support your staff ' s recommendation to issue the permits with the conditions .as stated. � Thank you for the opportunity to express our recommendation. �e��-�q�, -- -_ -- - , ,. a � �,r�� (+'i� t ` ..� � " ?t��. �fi' .� ��. ♦. �r ..:- •c,. - ��,=.�'j�.�i..�'�.�,.�}::�f��%'�.-�}Sl'�, t ��.��.1 �y��r'�t f �,I �'� ��I�i[ - 4,`qt��it::;Jy�J(-2��i�`:.t:�'%�'�� . 1:��Y�a��14i'wC,•�� \.�.'`�!i3�qrt�'t'�%�/��• - _�-..�"ltirrjyr'�1�: •:;��+�� SAINT PAUL November � � �gg3 AItT;/1 C'T-1/1M13T�;R, � OF C;()MMCRC;1�', -701 Nunh C:tntral '1'�n�'cr 44S A9inneso;a S�rcct ��ty of Saint Paul Saint Paul, �linncsot� Zoning Committee of the SS101 Phonc: 222-SS61 Saint- Paul Planning Commission 25 West 4th Street . Saint Paul , Minnesota 55102 Reference: Zoning File Nos. 9��81 and 9482 On behalf of the Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce and its Airport . Development Task Force, we woul d 1 i ke .to take th i s opportun i ty to re-affirm through the attached Chamber resolution statement , the Saint Paul Chamber's continued interest and support for the Saint Paul Ai rport and i ts proposed ai rport improvemenl- program projecC. We believe the Saint Paul Airport is a valuable asset to both Saint Paul and the entire metropolitan region and its aviation �community and that this airport improvement program will insure Saint Paul Downtown Airport's primary "reliever" role and benefit the entire Twin City aviation system through reduced traffic congestion and noise impact. (n conclusion then, the Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce respectfuliy ' urges and looks forward to the Clty of Saint Paut 's respective approvals of the airport proJect 's two Speclai Conditional Use Permits and MAC's commencement on this important atrport improvement project which will _ � resutt in a more efficient and safe aviation system operation and . network in the Twin Cities metropolitan reglon. Re liy submitted; � . .1�y,� �� GV��e�.O mos Mart n David M. Woodrow President Chairman Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce Airport Development Task Force Committee , BWH/em Enclosure " , VQ � ` ` �� "�;'��`'` . ��•.:-; � ,:-.,•,,`1 i y;( ��,r� •_.�.ti �� • ltr,l�;.fj, � �. ,,� ` ••,..�t�.',?•{'1. ;±'j,\•,;. ii�s�.�� .ii. 1 ,1 �,. • • t �'1' » t� � 1�f+.F�1 y `��fs��,' �y .'� ��/ ��'J�1 .t�«•:�t��f�� 7 ��,'�r11r��l.,f.. ,r.�; t� � _� � �`v"l,T,-��};� ;°hlf""'S' `j�'t, S �Y��`'iYCl t��.`� � eptember 22, 19II3 `�4�;-��;��5'%� 1'�,�1�' ! ' �ti1'.�.iw, �..:t��t.� ., . SAINT PAUL AREA CHAMBER Department of �the Army � OF COMMERCE St. Paul District, Corps of Engtneers io� Korih Ccntril Tower Attention: Regulatory Functions Branch 4¢s Minneso�t s��eec 1135 U, S. Post Off1�e and Custom House � s�i�� I'iul,. Minnceot• St. Paul , MN 55101 sstot �boo�: 212•SSGI Reference: Permit hio. II3-80-30 On behalf of the Saint. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce and its Airport Development Task Force� I would like to take thisiopportunity to re-affirm through the attached Chamber resolution statement', the Saint Paul Chamber's canti�ued � interest and support for the Sa�nt Paul Airport and its praFosed airport im- ' provement program pro�ect. � We believe the Saint Paul Alrport is a valuable asset to both Saint Paul and the entire metropolitan region and its aviation community and that this �airport improvement program will insure Saint Paul Downtown Airport's primary "reliever" role and beneftt the entire Twin City aviation system �through reduced �traffic congestion and noise impact. , In addition, we feel the Fin�l Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the proposed airport �mprovement pro�ect adequately addresses the impact areas (environmental , socio-economic, etc.) associated with the total pro�ect and provides for the pratection and enhancement of the area's natural resources and quatity of environment. We would, however� 1tke� to point out our ob�ection to the proposed displacement of 500 feet of length at each end of the runway, an issue which was not addressed in the draft EIS. We believe and again submit , that airport operational safety. and area development considerations can both be adequately proyided for through appropriate safety zone geographic area destg- nation and not through displaced threshold limttations. In this regard, we respectfully request that due consideration be gtven to eliminating this displaced threshold criterla entirely. ' .. In conclusion, the Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce respectfully urges and looks �forward to the FAA, MnDOT, City of Sa�nt Paul and MAC's commencement on this important airport improvement pro�ect which will result in a more efficient and safe aviation system operation and network in the Twin Cities metropolitan region. , Respectfully submitted, . 1 �-�F.�r- Dav�d M. Woodrow , Chairman Airport Development Task Force Committee 4 � �l�C �`f i 9 9 , - . .. .. - , °'r;�..;= ;;;;r.: . ,, _ ';>v�' '•� cs';-,.,':::�;,,;,Z:,y;�:•�:;,r.:��:y � . {'i�` , >:' ,�� t . %t�'f,l�*��se�� frr�N�L��G��,'� �'Y��}��I,.�< i�� •w�,.�F�� i3}1>I��/'�'�.'':��:/��f'r''.'•"•jr�`•s''� . y 4,r�.J��t\ y�� . .:I�{�:.b:.�C��'� • ' ��`\1�.�'. Y.lt.�� .ff�/�.:�� r r{�� . ��'„+�T j}r�_�J.�.�:.:..;.�e'r'�� .?1.��t r.'.Yl��:r w�S'y:�l.i �- >�y�y'f��.t.�il� �;:":�ji'sl�r:i•.''ti,L:'1� . .,�•�-..Y„r.�„h.l'�`'./�'� ' �.�,as...,�,.'"..fa`. SAINT PAUL ��,rn c'I-TnM1;l:R. UF COI�'IMERC;r 701 Nur;h Ccn�ral "1'n«�cr • RESOLUTION 44S Minneso�a S�rcet Saint Paul, \9innc<<�+a 551U1 Phonc: 222•SSf�i WItEREAS, the Saint Paul Downtown A( rport (Holman Field) is a valuable asset to both the business community and the general public and should be developed to its full potential as the reliever airport for business � aircraft and general aviation ; and . ' , WHEREAS , the planned Improvements to the airport , a 6, 700 foot reatigned runway and new build(ng area, wilt help to accomrr�date the proJected increase in general aviation and increase the life expectancy for Wold-Chamberlain Field; and WHEREAS� the improved airport wouid reduce the aircraft noise impact on Sa i nt Paul ne i ghbo�hoods as we 11 as other met ropo 1 i tan commun i t i es ; and WHEREAS, the new runway will aid in retieving airport congestion resultir�g in energy conservation for all aircraft; and WHEREAS, the airport is a compatible and highly productive use of a flood- plain and is consistent with the Minnesota State Flood Plain Management Act; and WHEREAS� the funds for the proposed airport development wtll come from existing federal , state and MAC aviation fees and no citizen tax levy will � be imposed; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce reafftrms its posttion that the Satnt Paul Downtown Airport is a valuable asset to the City of Saint Paul and that the airport improvements are important in insuring safe and efficient aviation system operations in the metropolitan area; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Federal Aviation Administration, State of Minnesota and the Metropolitan Airports Commission are respectively urged to complete the necessary Environmental Impact Statement and that the lnvolved governmental agencies review and approve the necessary permits so construction of the new runway and building area can commence. 6/80 �,� ��- iq� . October 17, 19P,3 SAINT PAUL AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE � Oavid M. Woodrow, Chairman Bruce W. Haibasch, Staff - BRIAN ADDIS CAPTAIN VIRGIL KARL � Wings, (ncqrporated Chief Pilot, State Patrol Saint Paul Downtown Airport Room 124 Administration B�ilding Saint Paul , Mlnnesota 55107 Saint Paul Downtown Airport - 22�'898� Saint Paut , Minnesota 55107 � . 296-3170 GEORGE BENZ Vice Presfdent � RICHARD B. KEINZ � Amerlcan National Bank b Trust Assistant Commissioner 370 Mfnnesota Street Dlvision of Aeronautics Satnt Paul , Minnesota 55101 417 Transportation Building 298-6000 Satnt Paul , Minn.esota 55155 296-8046 KENNETN P. BERGQUIST Instrument Flight Training LT. COL. JEROME C. LITSCHKE 590 Bayfield Street U. S. Army National Guard Saint Paut , Minnesota 55107 Aviation Support Facility 224-4348 National Guard Hangar Saint Paul Downtown Ai rport TlMOTHY CALLISTER Saint Paul , Minnesota 55107 Airport Manager 296-4585 Satnt Paul Dvwntown Airport Box 1700, Twin Cities Airport DAN MEYERS Satnt Paul , Mln�esota 55111 U. S. Army Reserve 726-1892 Saint Paui Downtown Airport • Saint Paul , Mtnnesota 55107 BOB ENGELHART 291-0128 . � D r� ecto r o� Radio Navtgatlonal Aids Division of. Aeronautics ROBERT NELSON 413 Transportation Buliding Vice P�esident - Aircraft Division Saint Paul , Minnesota 55155 American National Bank � Trust 29b-3531 370 Minnesota Street Saint Paul , Minnesota 55101 DANIEL FLANAGAN 298-653b Sky Chef, inc. Salnt Paul Downtown Airport JAMES ROBINSON Salnt Paul , Mlnnesota 55107 Production Manager 228-1325 st. Paul Dispatch � Pioneer Press Riverview Industrial Park Saint Paul , Minnesota 55107 222-5011 � �%�=��-�9� _2_ DON ROTT . res ent COUNC(LMAN VICTOR TEDESCO �Don Rott Avtation Sales City of Satnt Paul 278 Atrport Drive City Hall Saint Paul Downtown Airport Saint Paul , Minnesota 55102 Salnt Paul , Minnesota 55107 298-5506 227-6733 RICK WIEDERHORN � RALPH ROUIE City of Saint Paul Box 323 Department of Planning and 8001 East Broadway Economic Development . Mesa , Arizona 85208 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul , Minnesota 55102 GEORGE SANBORN III � 292-6220 Presldent � Sanborn Aviatton . MARK J. RYAN Saint Paui Downtown Airport Metropolitan Council Saint Paul , Mlnnesota 55)07 300 Metro Square Building z28-� �37 Saint Paul , Minnesota 55101 291-654 8 GARY SCHMIDT Operations Technician BRUCE W. HALBASCH Saint Paul Downtown Airport Manager, Economic Development Saint Paul , tlinnesota 55107 Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce 224-4306 701 North Central To wer 445 Minnesota Street - RAY SPANN Satnt Paul , Minnesota 55101 Tower Chief 222-5561 Federal Aviation Administration Salnt Paul Downtown Afrport AMOS MARTtN Satnt Paul , Minnesota 55101 Presldent 224-0064 Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce 701 hbrth Central Tower PAUL R. THOMAS 445 Mfnnesota Street � 1. C. System, (nc. Saint Paul , Minnesota 55101 P. 0. Box 435b7 222-5561 Satnt Paul , Minnesota 55164 483-82ot DAVID M. WOODROW Director of Avtation 3M Aviation Department Building 670-1 690 Bayfield Street Saint Paul , Minnesota 55107 778-5302 ,�-.�� d�1-� I% . �� f �� - � , '� �"�.�{' cS�. � a.uC o�uc�u�on cSo�c�� `�. �."�- r�. � 30 Easi 1.Oth Street . St. Paul, Minn. 55101 "��i�� A CHAPTER OF THE �',•., NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY �� -` �- �� . " Nov. 3, 1983 On behalf of the Conservation Conunittee of the St. Paul Chapter ' of the National Audubon Society, I wisfi to express our concern about the proposed expansion of the St. Paul Downtown Airport•. We are particularly concerned about the impact this plan would _ have on the existing natural habitat. The clearing and filling of 134 acres of woodlands and wetlands would substantially decrease the available habitat for species such as deer, fox and a number of birds. The loss of the wetlands would decrease the feeding areas used by herons nesting at the nearby Pig's Eye heronry. The proposed changes in the runway would place the path of arriving and departing planes more directly over the rookery, thus increasing the disturbance to nesting birds and to birds flying between the colony and various feeding sites. We are concerned about problems associated with the increased air traffic. The expansion plan has not adequately addressed the effects of this increased traffic on safety or noise levels. In addition, we question the need for this degree of expansion. The use of a number of the proposed buildings has not y�t been specifically designated. • For these reasons, the Conservation Committee of the St. Paul Audubon Chapter is opposed to the proposed plan for the expansion of the St. Paul Downtown Airport and believes that alternate plans sliould be seriously considered before a permit is issued. ';;�'/JZ r�� i " ' Ellen Lawler Secretary, Conservation Committee St. Paul Chapter National Audubon Society .�r,._.-�--- ; �� ::., '�� . ,;; �s f � � ��'� � 99 � / � �� '�r� C.� G c'-:.C.<'t-c.rx S_�.. �+ a,-w I {�. . . .�_'r��ti.�Y ...•�'� � ,V 4/ �'V,' �(+s�.y.�.�'}f f�, �`�• ��.s=�. -` `�_�:'!^--- � � �4`.i '� � 1 _.., --=��,�� S�. �c�s L, �i:�.�'�, �5 t � � ` ' � �. �` � ., .� .,,�'„�r�..� r�\ �/;�i \�. �n, . V/ ��3�� '(ik� Sohr,en P��`�y Lu�r,cl1 �` � � Coor�ir�0.�p� Fl55t, Coprd�na��' � � 64 '� -925�- or �q8-45�(3 , 6�t �- �9$6 Nov. 3, 1983 The Pig's Eye Coalition objects to the issuance of a permit to - expand the St. Paul Downtown Airport. Our objections are : . 1. Removal or filling of 134 acres of floodplain forest and marsh. � 2. Removal of habitat utilized by wildlife. 3. Possible significant effect of destroying wetland used by herons nesting at Pig's Eye Lake. 4. Possible significant effect of increase of peak noise levels on rookery. 5. Safety considerations regarding bird-aircraft collisions. 6. Mitigation sites are contrary to the Army Corps of Engineer's ' . own policy on it's civil works projects , that mitigation must be implemented in or near the project area. Because of the above statement, the Pig's Eye Coalition reconunends other alternatives be considered by the Metropolitan Airports Co�nission regarding the construction of a new runway and floodproof bsildings on filled wetland. � Memb er Board of Directors � Pig's Eye Coalition �� , � �-^ r � 1 �.,-� � �j' %`�-��.7�� V %��--(~j� �-,�:/.�i.��- , `.. � �� r: ' , � ��y-� 91 Z i , , . . - � , �;`.: �:� , � . i�� -,C ►�-��t �C-� ,� '� �:.. �.. ..!..��,��. '� ��.�� L�.��t��=�'�'�� 209 West Paqe, St. Paul, MN S510T 292-8020 November. 3, 1983 Zoning Committee St. Paul Planning Commission _ City Hall St . Paul, Minnesota Committee Members, The West Side Citizens Organization (L^]SCO) Environmental Committee has the following general concerns with regard to the propos�3 expan- � sion of the downtown St. Paul Airport: (1) The . project interferes with the environment.: One hundred and thirty-four acres of wetland will be destroyed and � numerous species of wild life will be disturbed and uprooted. (2) The noise abatement plan, although promised, has not been completed. Noise is not only an irritant but a health factor. In October of 1982, WSCO asked the Metropolitan Airport � Commission for a noise abatement plan to be completed prior to the finalization of an environmental impact statement. WSCO at that time stated that a major concern was the amount and frequency of noise with which resi- dents would have to live. Before any step can be taken toward completion of the proposed expansion, including the � filling of the one hundred and thirty-four acres of wetland, this important issue of noise must be addressed. What will the noise impact be on surrounding neighborhoods and on the health of those who live in them? (3) The situation at Holman Fi.eld is already dangerous due to the airport ' s location and the height of the surrounding . � areas. Indeed, technically, surrounding areas including buildings in downtown St. Paul are already in violation of Federal Aviation Administration height restrictions . (4) Increased air traffic will increase the potential for accidents. Statistics confirm that three-fourths of all air crashes occur in close proximity to airports . The � Metropolitan Airport Commission has not satisfactorily ' answered the question of how secure residents and businesses in the surrounding area will be. �-��- �� 9 ( S) Chlorine stored by the �;etropolitan Waste Control Commission at the Pig ' s_ Eye Sewage Treatment Plant is located at the end of the proposed new runway . The � potential threat resulting from an airport accident close to or on the chlorine storage area is obvious. The' above concerns were expressed by representatives of the k'est Side Citizen's Organization ' s Environmental Committee at the public hearing held on November 3 , 1983. This letter is . to simply confirm those concerns and we ask that the above be entered in the official record of said hearing. Until the above concerns are adequately addressed, we go on record as being opposed to any continuing plans to expand the St. Paul Downtown Ariport. � Yours very trul , ,� . , r � � . ' . B' bara e ler As 1 y f r WSCO Environmental Committee . �-��- �q9 , ;��tiUTES GF ��?� ZO�;i'�G CO'�'�I7TEE ' IN CITY COU�;CIL CHAMBERS, ST. PAUI, MIN��ESOTA 0'1 y0'JE��BER 3, 1983 PRESENT: Mmes. Karns and Summers; Messrs. Bryan, Levy and Pangal of the Zoning Corrmittee; Mr. Segal , Assistant City Attorney; Ms. Lane of the Division of Housing & Building Code Enforcement; Ms. Beseman, Mr. Ford and Ms. James of the Planning Division Staff. ABSENT: Messrs. Armstead and Lanegran. � The meeting was chaired by James Bryan, Chairman. METROPOLITION AIRPORTS COMMISSION (�9481 & #9482) : Special Condition • Use Permits to expand airport, to place fi 1 in the Floodway District, and to provide access for building area below the regulatory flood protection elevation. The applicant was present. There was opposition present at the hearing. Ms . James showed slides of the si�te and reviewed the staff report with a , recorrmendation for approval of the permit to expand the airport subject to the 3 conditions listed in the staff report, and approval of the permit to place 1 .5 million cubic yards of fill in the floodway. Staff also recommeded approval of the access road below the RFPE subject to the two conditions listed in the staff report: Five letters were received in support. Nigel Finney, Director of Planning and Engineering for the Metropolitan Airports Commission, gave a presentation on the history of the project and reviewed the proposal . He stated that in 1972 the Metropolitan Council , which is responsible for preparing an airport system plan for the Metropolitan area, completed such a document indicating that the St. Paul Downtown airport should be developed� as a jet reliever facility for the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. �Based on that recorrrnendation, the Metro Airports Commission initiated an Airport Master Plan for the St. Pau1 Airport which was completed in 1976. In 1977 an environmental impact assessment report was initiated to review the environmental impact of the proposed development. In 1977 the Metropolitan Council completed the . � second versi�on of their airport system plan. One of the most critical issues that came out of this document was the determination that Minneapolis-St. Paul InternationaT Airport is going to be the only commercial air carrier facility in the metro area for the foreseeable future. Any consideration of a new major airport was dropped at that time, and the Council indicated very clearly that the Metropolitan Airports Commission should do its utmost to maximize the capabilities of the existing reliever airport system in order to attract as much of the general aviation traffic as possible away from the international airport and to allow that facility to fulfill its function as the air carrier for the metropolitan area. The environmentalassessment report was completed in 1978 and the state environmental impact statementwas completed at that time and was approved by the State Environmental Quality Board. In 1980 MnDOT and the Federal Aviation Administration initiated action on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Federal 6overnment, and in 1983 that �1-= ��9� '?ctropolitan Airports Corrmission (�9481 & r9482) Page 3 � Anoka County was still in the plan when the EIS was drawn up. The whole hearing .process should start over based on one reliever airport. If the permits are granted without all citizens' concerns being met, the public � can arrd will hold the City and the Metropolitan Airports Commission responsible. He requested postponing any permits until these issues are resolved. . Vivian Hart, 383 E. Bernard, reported that over a year ago WSCO wrote a letter to the Metropolitan Airports Commission asking that a noise ' abatement plan be completed prior to the finalization of �he EIS. WSCO stated that a majar concern is the amount and frequency of noise with which residents will have to live. What will the noise impact be on surrounding � neighborhoods and on the health. of those who live in them? This question . has not been answered. The noise abatement plan needed to be done before the EIS was completed; but since this has not happened, the noise abatement plan must be completed before the permits are granted and expansion at the . airport takes place. . Merrill Robinson, 787 N. Fairview, Vice-President of Pigs Eye Coalition stated that their main objective is the preservation and protection of a very rare and unique heron rookery adjacent to what is known as Pigs Eye Island #2. He presented a letter in opposition and recommended that other alternatives be considered. � Ellen Lawler, 807 Como, representing the Conservation Corrmittee of the St. Paul Chapter of the National Audubon Society, testified in opposition to the plan and recommended that alternate plans be considered before the • permits are issued. Lee Gray, spoke in support stating that the proposed runway would be safer and would reduce the noise. �� Sharon Anderson, 1058 Summit, testified that she was not speaking for or against the propo�sal but felt there could be a compromise: The f act that .. it is completely funded by aviation user funds should be considered. Progress .cannot be stopped. Hearing no further testimony, Mr. Bryan closed the public hearing portion , of the meeting. � Ms. Karns moved approval of the permit� to expand the airport based on findings 1 through 12 and subject to the 3 conditions listed in the staff �report. The motion f ailed for lack of a second. Mr. Levy moved denial of the permit to expand the airport because of concerns regarding the health, welfare and safety of the adjacent area. Ms. Summers seconded the motion, which passed on a roll call vote of 3 to 2 with Ms. Karns and Mr. Bryan voting against the motion. . Mr. Levy then moved denial of the permit to place fill in the Floodway District and to provide access for the building area below the regulatory ��`�� 9 9 ��etropolitan Airports Commission (r9481 & n9482) Page 2 , document was completed and reviewed in both draft and final versions and was approved by all federal review agents. Cancurrently with the application to the City, they also submitted the DNR and Corps of Engineers applications. Those have been granted. At the current time they are t�orking with the Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services to develop an acceptable mitigation program for the filled wetlands. Some sites have tentatively been identified, and they are now in the process of designing some water control structures in order to upgrade these areas into more productive wetland habitat. David Woodrow, 3M Oirector of Aviation and representing the St. Paul Area� Chamber of Corrm erce as Chairman of the Airport Development Task Force, � presented a written statement in support of the staff recommendation to . . issue the permits with the conditions listed in the staff report. � � Floyd Nielson, 517 E. Annapolis, spoke in opposition expressing concern with the wildlife habitat and noise. � Barbara Ashley, Chairperson of the Environmental Corrmittee of the West Side Citizens Organization, presented a letter from the district in opposition. She stated that the expansion to the airport in general and in particular the new hangar and the new runway will increase the runoff and will reduce the flood storage capacity both at the airport and in surrounding areas. At present there is no provision for treatment f acilities to guarantee that the water quality in the Mississippi River will be maintained, and they would request that treatment plans be included in any expansion. She also expressed concern with the wetlands; there are no conclusive studies to show that by creating a wetland elsewhere you can effectively minimize the effect of the loss of the wetlands in the area where the expansion is taking place. The expansion will result in the destruction of habitat, and the environmental impact statement notes that those animals not killed � during construction must relocate: WSCO is concerned with the safety � features and implications for potential hazards given the fact that now there is only going to be one overflow airport. The District feels that � there has �not been- a succinct and clearly st�ated need demonstrated f or the . expansion of the airport and there are concerns and issues that have not � ' been adequately addressed in the expansion plan. Ms. Antoniatis, 399 Curtice, testified in opposition stating that there will be an increase of approximately 50% more planes coming into the area by 1990. The airport is already dangerous due to its location and the height of the surrounding areas. Surrounding areas including buildings in downtown St. Paul are already in violation of Federal Aviation Administration height restrictions. Increase in air traffic also means increases in emergencies. The long term effects in the area of safety have not been addressed in the environmental impact statement. Harland Barry, 516 Humbolt, WSCO , stated there were many unresolved issues such as noise that have not been satisfactorily addressed. The environmental impact statement estimates show jet operations at Holman Field by 1990 will be more than triple the present . These figures were arrived at with the assumption that there would be two reliever airports; , ��-�� 9� �'etropolitan Airports Comnission (n9481 & r9482) Page 4 flood protection elevation. Ms. Summers �econded the motion, which passed • on a roll call vote of 3 to 2 with Ms. Karns and Mr. Bryan voting against the motion. Submitted b __--� Approved by: _ Y� �— ; . /� ,/ /� / / /�✓� . .. .._l Patricia N. James James Bryan, Chairman � ��- , �� ., - - - . � .,., „ <� ,� ( 4 1 } ��p 2 . . , ', ;,,:., '�'' �C`'�.�,I` :�„ -9 ° � -�� , - - -- .- - ----- - - --- ---------_ FI';�I'�GS CONT' D. 9. The Economic Development Cormiittee of the Planning Comrnission has reviewed the proposal and has recom�nended that it be approved. They have found two areas where additional conditions might be reasonable to fulfill the spirit and purpose of the Zoning Code and to protect adjacent properties. These two •• areas are noise and saf ety. 10. Thus far, the airport has required minimal fire and police services from the City. With the expansion an increase may be likely. The Economic Development Committee recomrnends that the applicant continue to cooperate with the City so that satisfactory levels of service can continue to be , provided. to both the airport and the surrounding corrmunity. 11 . Noise is a problem for some with the existing airport. Noise will increase even without the expansion as use of the airport increases. Applicant � believes that the new runway alignment will redirect some of the noise away � from residential areas. ' � 12. Applicant has agreed to participate on an advisory conmittee of airport users�� and neighbors to recommend ways to control disrupitve noise. The Economic Development Committee recorrmends that the applicant Hrork with this Corrmittee and take other measures as necessary to mitigate noise. G, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 1 through 12, staff recor�nends approval approval of the Special Condition Use Permit to expand the airport, subject to the following additional conditions: 1 . The applicant receives site plan approval f or each phase of the project prior to construction; and that construction projects in the proposed building area al.so receive site plan approval ; 2. The applicant continues to work with the City to monitor the need for emergency services and take appropriate steps to ensure satisfatory levels of service; and 3. The applicant continue to work with the City and the Advisory Corrmittee to . develop noise mitigation measures. -_'�_=====0, i =_-_`_�====r r�== ��! �� ,,:'�� C0�•„'�i i I�� ,7FF r� r: � ( �- , Fi�t =94�i r°!�2 i . APPLICA��T: �•iETROPOLITAP� AIRPORTS COr��1ISSI0�dS GAT� OF i;E�,RI��G: il/3/33 2. CLASSIFICATION: Special Condition Use 3. LOCATION: Holman Field 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Sections 4, 5, 8, 9, T28N R22W 5. PRESENT ZONING: I-1, RC-1, RC-2 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: Sections 60.614(2) ; 64.300 Subd. 3 6. STAFF INVESTIGATION & REPORT: DATE 10/27/83 BY Patricia N. James A. PURPOSE: Special Condition Use Permit to expand airport. 6. PARCEL SIZE: Airport, 360.8 acres; runway, approximately 23 acres; building � area, 8 acres. � C. EXISTING LAND USE: Airport, including runway and taxiway; vacant wetlands. D. �URROUNDING LAND USE: North: Industrial uses; river (I-1) East: River (I-1; I-2) South: Industrial (I-1; I-2) West: Industrial , railroad, multifamily residential (I-1, I-2; RM-1) E. ZONING CODE CITATION: Section 60.614(2) states: "Airports, private and comnercia , �nc u ing heliports and helipads and other aircraft land fields, runways, flight strips, and flying schools; together with hangars, terminal . buildings, and auxiliary facilities subject to the requirements set f orth in the "GENERAL PROVISIONS."" Section 64.300 Subd. 3 states: "The planning comnission or the planning , administrator where delegated may impose such reasonable conditions and limitations in granting an approval as are determined to be necessary to fulfill the spirit and purpose of the zoning code and to protect adjacent properties." F. FINDINGS• 1 . Applicant proposes to construct a new runway and taxiways at the existing airport. In addition, an 85-acre building area will be prepared for future ' development. 2. The runway and part of the building area will be completed �ver the next three years . Development of the rest of the building area will take place as airport users require over the next 10 to 15 years . _ 3. The condition that must be met by the applicant is to comply with Section 62 of the Zoning Code, the General Provisions. These standards include parking, lighting, site plan review, and performance standards regarding vibration and glare and heat. � 4. The Zoning Code currently has no parking standards for airports . 5. The Final Environmental Impact Statement states that "In all cases, the lighting of the airport is of such low intensity or directed ati�.ay from sensitive areas so that there will be no impact." (p. 114) 6. There appear to be no problems with vibration, which is not to be perceptible without instruments at the boundary lines of the use. 7. Heat and glare do not appear to be problems associated with airport use. . 8. Ap�licants must still apply for site plan revie�ti� for the project. �d,� �'`�-i�9 .-. �o ww.+ .. . . ._ ..-v +r�.� . .,.... _ . _ .� .. —_ ��,4 - 6 . C S�6'NC . A q B . ��x °01 �i'�C �*� i°; R � O �8� ooi � . om y_� D 'c1 OO D"-"- COA Z ( A ,n � � ` �t*i O N q � � � O �� m Z Q ` , � �f N p� . � • • _ � 9 ' �• �� \ � � A- ,� � 9� + . oG.� . '�. � , � N � �� $ + -� � .. �0�U . N y N . �i I ��`` \ � �Z r� \ � 'O � � �� , \ •� ON N � �� arom � �z ,fl�� . p(�� TNN ' .. \\ , ��'i � �o = \�' \ �on � � t �� • �, C�Rrl a � . ■ � ._ '1 r" D$ � , N \ AN a 4 moQ t '�'pp �� . �10 . '°o � `J�o � 9� o s ! J f� � \ ' � �•-0' � m � N t -S6 W ` � (TRU[)100 t3{80 � � ' � s / \ \ - � i � �nrosc �� ,•°� __�'•.r�z�w4r �p � _1 ,_ _\ .._. _ ---• ' � , 1�.. x � ,+�\� � ` � � � �/ . . .�, v - �� R1 � ___ P` i. . 7 9+' �� . � � .� \.e • �O:! � . / / 9� '� � �' � • h� \� �� f0 � ♦ � 7 � � �� ° � �� \ .�o fo . , � .s�9�1' '�� $ 1 � ,. �...� .� . �.�; -:� ;.,�.:,. A�, , ;, � � ,.� >.,� , . �� 'tify � �1`•;;••��' ' . � ,\, � � �.\\ :. r ,��\y\ � ; ��X 1 ,L\��`�"i\ %� ,; \ , � �, , ; � ��. �, �;. / oo.� .�� '�, ��.\`, \� � �pc�i ,^�\\, l =..C� r \'. . � � / ��m . �� .�\'� \ �°�'jJa ('��g.z \�\�� I V f�1$N � � \ V � �°� � �•g` �RC ,\ ` � \ v . i. L.,-, lc � G tr rn � $ C�/y,yf,< � n u . � �. D � r''. i 2 ° � �� m C7 `��l' D � �� r m � ---._._..,_.. ____, .. .. Q . �_ ----- --._.� _ . •_ . , ^ ,.,.-i ___.;�'��___. • . - � ..... . � . ��, b HOLMAN FIELO � `:, � Pr�Qpa�� o�tiT r-�.�� ~��. ��._� j�I��`. . �, . . _� ��-�`/��r 9 APPLICATIOV FOR SPECIAL CONDITION liSE CITY OF SAINT PAUL, P•1IPJNESOTA F ROI�•1 METROPOLIT�N AIRPOR�S COMI�IISSIOi1 FOR SAINT PAUL DOWNTOWN AIRPORT-HOLT•IAN FIELD PRI�ICIPAL G'SE IPJ AN I-1 INDUSTRIAL DIS^RICT • JANUARY 1983 � _95`� 1 . �'� �'�-� � � cor�iEr,Ts 2�ge I Special Condition Use Form 4102 1 ° II Attachments to Paragraph "C" of Form 4102: Special Conditions • C-1 Proposed, Use Description 2 o C-2 Project �Phasing � a . o C-3 Erosion Cont�oi Procedure 5 III Separate Attachments � • Set of Plans and Sections Including: a. Improvement Plan with Slope LiMits b. Typical Cross Sections c. Airfield Cross Sections d. Runway 30 & 32 Infield Cross Sections .� e . Taxiway "S" Cross Sections f. Taxiway "B" Cross Sections g. Building Site Cross Sections • Access Road Profile � Eaton Street Extension Profile � � Airfield Improvement Plan and Flood Plain Cross Sections IV Data Previously Submitted • Copy of Draft EIS (Submitted November, 1982) �� 9 `' : ! ' ;',�'1'LICATiON FOR Sf'EC[AL CO�'�DITION USE CITY OF Sf�INT PAUL ZONII�'G OFFICE USE ONLY File �{ ��. .r..�..�J Application Fee $ ��.'� _/,-�, �`•_�,� ' � , � Tentative Hearing Date Number of Lots or Size of Parcel: Application is hereby made for a Special Condition Use Permit under the provisions of Chapter �� , Section 60.614 , Paragraph (2) , of the Zoning Code to�� constn�ct and�operate runways, taxiways, holding aprons, and associated building area to acco�mrxlate aircraft storage as sho,an on the pro?�osed plans, sections ard nrofiles which are separate� attached. A. APPLICANT � Name Met.rot�olitan Airports Conmission Phone (Daytime) 612-726-1892 _ Address p.0. Box 1700. 'Itiain Cit� Airport Station. P-�T Zip__55111___ _ Property interest of Applicant (Owner, contract purchaser, etc.) Owner _ Name of owner (if different) _ * Contact Person: Nigel D. Finney, Director of Planning and �gi.neering B. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION -- � Address/Location Saint Paul Downta�m Airport-Holm�z Field Legal Description: Lot Block Add. � Sections 4, 5, 8, 9 T28N R22W Present Zoning I-1 Industsial Lot Size C. SPECIAL CONDITIONS � Explain how you will meet each of the Speciai Conditions. Attach supporting materials (diagrams, site plan, letters of support, etc.) AttachmP.nt C-1: Proposed Use Description Attach�nt C-2: Proiect PhasinQ Attachment C-3: Erosion Control Procedure Attached separately are plans, sections and profiles. Please see the "Contents" for a cor�lete list of submitted data. _ If you have any questions, please contact: _ Saint Paul Zoning Office 1100 City Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 4102 (298-4154) - 1 - 1/1/82 �-�---�'�- r 9 q . • ATT?CH,-IENT C-1 . PROPOSED liSE DESCR=rTION T:-�is application is for a pernit to construct a new primary runway, 6 , 700 feet long and 150 feet wide , associated taxiways and 85 acres of grading with an access road for a building area to accomriodate aircraft storage, maintenance and apron areas. Portions of the project �all within the flood plain fringe and other portions fall within the floodway for whic:� a separate but complimentary application will be submitted. Only one set cf: separately attached plans, sections and profiles is submitted to supplemerit both applications. The plans with slope limits and sections have been developed from � prelir�inary profiles developed using 50 scale topoaraphy with � one-foot contour intervals. �Due to the bulk of this data, it has not been .submitted with this � application but �s �vailable upon request. These profiles are prelininary; hoe;ever, there can be � but small grade variatior.s in the final designs as they are rigidly controlled by the Federal Aviation Administration, Minnesota Department of NaLUral Resources and the City of St. Paul. The FAA has primary control over specific features such as runway and taxiway locations and grading. The T�IDNR and City have control over embankment fills in the river corridor and ;�inimum . elevations for flood protection for the building site area. Gr3ding has been modified from FA.A standards to neet Zoning Code Chapter 65 general airfield requirements where those requirements are more stringent. The building site has been raised to a minimum elevation of 710 feet, which is well above the 100 year flood elevation. Grading along the river bank will be done in the runway safety area (250 feet left and right of the runway centerline extension) of the Runway 32 approach. Additional grading is . proposed along Taxiways "B" and "S" which will smooth out some � man-made mounds in this area, thereby redLCing obstructions to �lood flows. This grading caill present a much more pleasing and natural appearance along the river side of the airport. '�'he wetlands protection is discussed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement in Chapter IV-I. The final EIS should be conpleted in the later part of January, 1983 . All drainage from the site has been designed so Lhere will be only two outlets to the Mississippi River. Both of these outlets are approximately where the existing runoff row �lows to t�e river. - 2 - ��--� �9 . � �ne out?et taill drair. tne re'ati,ely s,:�all area between prcposed ':'�.,",,?c�'�S "Sn cll� "B" . T:�e Cti^.E� 011'tIF'L W1�� 2::��_ t;@ rl.t�er �.:' _ _ � cu'_�:ert under the Runway 32 end. This cul�ert wili 'r.Gndle all flows fron the building area , areas betweer. Runway 14-32 and . iaxi;Yay "A" and some areas east of Runway 14-32. All drainage from the building site is separated from the airfield drainage until it enters the general airfie�d drainage system by a culvert at Rur.way Station 162 Right 400* feet. Runofr from this westerly side of the building site will drain to a ditch and closed drainage system then run beneath the building site back to the ditch between the runway and Taxiway "A" . This system will allow the potential for containment of ar.y chemical or fuel spills from the building site. This ability nay be required by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, riinnesota Pollution Control Agency, Corps of Engineers , or t?innesota � Departr.lent of Natural Resources. Chapter IV-E of tne Draft EIS . discusses the requirements of these agencies relating to water qualitl�. . The southerly and westerly side of the access road will drain towards the existing wetland on airport azd Port Authority . property. . Two culverts drain into the westerly end of the buiiding site. One a 42 inch concrete pipe from the airport and the other a 54 inch metal pipe from under the railroad tracks . Runoff from these culverts will be routed under the westerly end of the building site then ditched to the existing wetlands on airport property. Culverts, swales and ditches will be designed for a �ive-year storm in accordance with FPA criteria. If a higher year � �requency storm occurs, runoff will pool behind individual culverts , thereby spreading the peak runoff over a greater time and reducing peak flows . It is expected that storms of greater intensity may flood some taxiways; however, the majority of flooding periods will not be from local storms but rrcm general river flooding. � The access road to the site is proposed to be �roM an extension of Eaton �Street. The access road will tee from this street, then cross the Chicago Pacific and Rock Island tracks at grade and rise to the building site area using grades and criteria from the subdivision regulations. Prelimir.ary profiles of these roads are attached separately. The Eaton Street extension is shown ending in a cul-de-sac which has the poten�ial to be extended toward the Port Authority barge channel area. This extension would provide an alternate access to both the Port Authority property and airport building site. This app�ication is net ior any s�eci=ic builcin_g sitecvork but cniy for a general site preparation. Individual site plan � applications will be filed ror each propo�ed develonr�ent. - 3 - ��99 . • � ATT:C:?l�1Ei1T C-2 PRO�ECT PHASIIJG Is it estinated t:�at the entire project shown on the attached plans r�ay be construc�ed in several stages over a 10 to 15 year period. The initial development stage can be estimated and a .•proposed construction -phasing of this stage is presented below. The limits of the anticipated Phase 2, II & III construction is shown on the attached Improvement Plan. Phase I - 1?83 Construction Construct the structural embankment necessary to support the following pavement areas: 1) Runway 14-32 from Station 130± to the Runway 32 End. � 2) Taxiway "A" from the Runway 32 End to Runway 8-26 . � 3) Taxiway "B" Phase II - 1984 Constructionl � � 1) Paving and completing the non-s�ructural shoulders etc. of the embankment area constructed in Phase I including runway construction to Station 115±. 2) Grading the building site area from the west end at the railroad property out to the Building restriction Line right of Runway 14-32 Station 140±. 3) Construction of the access road to serve the building area noted above. Phase III - 1985 Construction 1) Conplete Runway 1�-32 from Station 100 to Station 115±. 2) Complete Taxiway "A" from the existing Taxiway "�9" to Runway 8-26. � 3) Construct Taxiway Stubs "A-3" and "S" . Remaining Stages �he balance of the projec� should be completed witnin the 10 to 15 year period note� be=ore. There are not sufficient data to project a realistic schedule for this work. This work will Gepend upon several indeterr�inate factors whic:� can not now be accurately forecast. - 4 - �_ �� 9Q Y • ATT�CH�?ENT C-3 ERCSION C0�ITROL PRCCLDL'R� �,;^en construction is co�;�plete the finisned sites caill be either �... . paved or turfed . With the gentle slopes proposed no perr�anent erosion problems should exist. The most vulnerGble period ror erosion will be during construction until slopes and surfaces are 'stabilized. To reduce this erosion potential ar. Erosion Control Procedure will be developed. A sample of such a procedure �ol?ows: _ General Requirements A. This work shall consist of temporary and permanent cor.trol measures as shown on the plans or ord�red curing the life of the contract to control water pollution -- which may include � but not be limited to the use of pipes , berr�s , dikes , dams , . sediment basins, f�ber mats , netting, gravel , mulches , grasses , slope drains , and other erosion control devices or metliods. . B. The quantity of work required under this section will depend upon many factors , among whicn is the amount of silt canicn raay be exposed to erosion. The cor�tractor ' s attention is called to the fact that siltation of streaMS, in many cases, leaves a muddy slime which, depending upon the severity of siltation, adversel�� affects the ecology, smo�hering and killing the aquatic plant growth which normall�f provides sustenance for insects and thus for fish. The elimination of aquatic plants also reduces the oxygen content oi the water. C. • At the preconstruction conference or prior to the start of the applicable construction, the Contractor shall subr�it for acceptance his schedules for accomplishment of temporary and permanent erosion control work as are applicable for clearing and grubbing, grading, culverts and other structures at watercourses. He shall also submit for acceptance his plan for disposal of waste r�aterials. No . work shall be started until the erosion control schedules and methods of operations have been approved. D. The Engineer has the authority to limit the surface area of erodible earth material exposed by clearing and grubbing, to limit the surface area of erodible earth material exposed by excavation, borrow, and fill operations , and to direct the , Contractor to provide immediate permanent or temporary pollution control r�easures to prevent cont�r�ination oz adjacent streams or other watercourses , lakes , ponds , or other areas of water impoundr�er�t. Such work may involve tne construction of temporary pipes , ber:�s , dikes , dams , - 5 - ��"� 9 � r a sedi..�er.t basin, s�ope drains , and the use or ter��porar�� ::�ulches , :�ats , seeding, or ot:�er ccr.t�ol devices or :�e�hccs as necessary to control erosion. Cut slopes srall �e seece� and mulched as the excavation proceeds to the extent considered desirable and practicable . E, The Contractor will be required to inccrporate all permanent • erosion control features into the project at the earliest prac.ticable time as specified on the plans, and elsewhere in the Contract Documents. Ter�porary pollution control r�easures shall be used to correct conditioris not foreseen durir.g the design stage �that deve.lop during construction; that are needed prior to installation of pernanent pollution control features; or that are needed temporarily to control erosion that develaps . during normal construction operations , but are not . . associated with permanent control features on the project. F. Where erosion is likely� to be a problem, grubbing operations , shall be so scheduled and performed that grading operations and permanent erosion control features can follow irunediately thereafter if the project conditions permit; otherwise temporary erosion control Measures may be required between successive construction stages . Under no conditions shall the surface area or erodible earth material exposed at one time by g.rubbing exceed 750, 000 square feet without prior approval. G. The Engineer will limit the area of excavation, borrow, and embankment operations in progress conunensurate with the .� Contractor' s capability and progress in keeping the `inish grading, mulching., seeding, and other such pernanent pollution control measures current in accordance with the accepted schedule. Should seasona� limitations make such coordination unrealistic, temporary erosion control measures shall be taken immediately to the extent feasible and justified. H. Under no conditions shall the amount of surLace area of � erodible earth material exposed at one time by excavation, borrow or fill within the right-of-way or project limits exceed 750, 000 square feet without prior approval. I. The above 750, OOO� square foot limits of erodible earth . material to be exposed at one time by grubbing, or by � excavation, borrow and fill operations may be increased or decreased as determined by the Engineer based on his analysis oi project conditions and on the Contractor ' s proposed schedule of operations. - 6 - �-�y-��9 . � �. ;:� �:;e event oi conflict between these r`qu,�rer�ents anc pcl'ution control laws , rules , or regulG�i:;::s of other reCeral or State er local agencies , the �ore restrictive laws , rules, or regulations shall apply. K. The. erosion control features installed by �he Contractor shall be acceptably maintained by him. ERUSION COPITROL STRUCTURES A. Stone for erosion control shall be provided on a prepared subgrade and sand base to the grades indicated and as shown on the contract drawings or as ordered. • PERIMETER DIKE � A. The area under the embankment shall be cleared, grubbed and . stripped of any vegetation and root mat. B. All dikes shall be machine compacted to 90�� per AF�SHTO T-99. . C. The perimeter dikes shall have positive drainage to a Stone Outiet Sediment Trap. D. Stabilization, as speci�ied by the plans , shall be in accordance with the drawings or as ordered with Stone that . meets AASHTO M43 size No. 2 or 24 placed in a 3 inch thick layer and pressed into the soil. E. Periodic inspection and required maintenance shall be provided. ' SEDIMENT TRAP A. The trap shall be constructed in accordance with the sketch attached at the end of this paragraph. B. Area under embankment shall be cleared, grubbed, and . stripped of any vegetation and root mat. The pool area shall be cleared. C. The fill material for the er,ibankment sha?1 be free of roots or other woody vegetation as well as oversized stones , rocks, organic material or other objectionable material. The embankment shall be compacted by traversing with equipment while it is being constructed. D. Sediment shall be removed and trap restored to its original dimensions when the sediment has accumulated to 1/2 the design depth of the trap. ReMOVed sedi*�er.t shall be aeposited in a suitable area ar.d in such a �ar.r.er that it will not erode. � - 7 - ��f-��i q � j �. _:e ..��uc�u�e s�^a�_ be i::��ec��c a=ter eac� ra_:: ar.c r=^ ' rs _ �..�G d..� ..1GCe G� .:C�A�e�• r. Ccnst�uction operat=ons snall be carried ou� in =uca a ,:�ar.ner �hat erosicn and water po�lution are :�inimized. G. The structure shall be :emoved and area stabilized when the . , remaining drainage area has beer properly stabil=zed except for the trap contiguous w�tn the Peri�^,eter dike. h. All cut and fill slopes shall be 2 : 1 of flatter. I. Outlet crest elevation shall be at least 1 . 0 feet below .the top of the embankment. STnr�E OU i LF7 ScDI"!E?!T TR�P* �^` • =xcavate, :f necessar�, �r �� storaae . ' � �� '�� • �+�,�=1os.' .'S:`, �� • � • �� . :o:✓ ��,. � � ` �: _ar*_:: �:nban�ent • . • 4;�� /� �• , . \ � \ i:.� .3. / / � / ^ � \ �. �,4'p,x�ai d t� .,:r„y' � ' • �;�r- � ` �` . . � , .•.'t y� • . . � �� . � o ': : �;.. . • �� • ��:.,,• .+��. _, `'�,. . , � .:: �\� ;c ��, . • . \` • • , - �;,'.. .,.�'• �`` c` ^'= _ . •:•:;':':.: v:• ` ' •._ ",�,y;�` ` ` • • . . . � • .'::.?::,.� �; `y�!.. � p `'?�il,ll!il�� `' , , t �4�:.;.. , �.Y� e° �� \ . . �,. `..,:', v,�:;f• � ^•F,r:. �\ . . • . . . \�:. '' ��,��.• `�`+F� �T :.' .�, �• �'- • �. ..�, / •.p;d�.. :: �M.•n�r-.-, _ l<. , • � ��:;,`:��iiid `.�v_�`r•��i.f'. • � . . ' � `g �'�t:�� %'• �,� ' ' �/ • �.'at:� _•� r: � � "n /�� Cutaway to,show straw��'�� :;`.� ' '� �':.° { � � , � `. x, `_•};• � ,i .'! ba3 e cars . ��,:s��: �,.:•• � '''��.a . • �' �� =1�b.;J'r'�y�;s;�,t�-.:'.�,,�.�% . � �'��` ' �V��, i � .` � • ' Stone� , � ,.X ��, • . `.w . . • �, ' � ` . � �• • "G �1:� . . , . ' . . , . .��. . --- --*-- « ;.enct:� (ft.l = ,_. _ .. � .. . .;ti. 6 x Dzainage Area (bc.) .:?:';::i�'T,� :rtia..+ • , • •••;�y,.�';�:•,..;.�;.�.::ti•:•:i;t.:..�:.;��,:•::.;'.;;.�•:r;::';:::"�=r.,� � . . ' � �-�.�V ��w:w:�i��.T� ' :��::: �,ari::�r�r--�-' 7►2A. ,t,��'�.!`•je:, ,.;: %'*.�... --�5r.,- ;. ,f I . ;,�: rC:;}:;:.:;;?r_'•' .:L•c'.:.•:;:::T;:: , , . . ' � , : :��.•�� .+:7' � :�:'.L'.� � ,. . _ • '_' ..•'..� ..,..•.•. ` . ' �,'.t:"':: ' . � � . '�:' ��«:•:..• .:�.:'.�'t':•::':•:' : .`�.�..�. •;�:.: ^' . ' '• �iL .�i•��V�...'.i��I��r':i:y�:iti.�V�4:.•�,�.'�'��.�iir.+...� �X�end �or� _.�to� � sar�h er.i;anicneat 'L.'.?�AT_''Gi7 VOT� - Drascings shov st:as�r bales used _`or core. 3ales are ancaored as pe: S�and3rd aad Specifications _'or St:aw Bale Dike. Other aaterials (e.g. , tjnoer or c�r.crece bioc:�) aay also be used :or corP. ei�ly anc^or a11 core aaterial co 3round. — � — ��-�9 � � r � S �i�(':I Y ✓1'9J u ��:�1..� . ... St.2"c'vJ �ale Q?;;e5 shall be COriSt?"LC`�� iIl cCCO�.^..criCB '.d_�:7 �l72 sicetch attacZed at the end oi this paragrap�. �?. 3ales shall be nlaced in a row wit:� ends tightly abutting the adjacent bales. C. Each bale sha11 be embedded in the soil a r�inimum of 4" . � D. Bales. shall be securely anchored in place by stakes or re-bars driven through the bales. The first stake in each bale shall be driven toward previously laid bale to fcrce bale�s together. E. Inspection shall be frequent and repair or replace:�ent � shall be nlade pror�ptly as neede�. _ . Bale.s shall be re:�oved when they have served their usefulness so as not to block or impede storm Flow or � drainage . � STRA'�1 BALE OI KE* .:.. �;�^ � �, 'r't� r r �.9 FZOW .�� ..+.r f yit,?r . c►+)'# ��'� :t;�� r�'� � � �.� � • s {:��•.. •�, //fi// .��`�"/�/�. �Y//� �'�� {��t . �� /� �Y�':' !�C`�� x,!� � Y/�� / / / /C. n 4 verticzl fac� r�iBEDDING DETp.IL . � . � . r� � �` �y • � j . .S.i .-.��::,1 . N;��i �••"' -'�.�,�-� AngZe first stake toward �''` � � r�� _�_?�•� . A � previousl� laid bale -"� "'"' - �'' '�": .3�,z• _} •.-._,„ �. ,f��:m r: =�;,°�,`:; -_.._.- - - � - _ , � �" .;�;,�:.'�.._-•=-::,:,,�� . % -. ..'s'".�;;�;r:i ;Y?._ - � �'"��,�'�_;�, t" Wire or nylorl F1ow -----� •, �,:• .:.,�;.;.��,_-� bound baZes �'r.,_^�.- .?•?.;,},;C_..._.. placed cm t�ie ��. �.f,�".�%. �/ :�''S�-'- y M' � N r ^�~ ' . �-��Y�� '--� �i0nl.�u . r �.i <:. •f Y?►�;�=�:.�~—�� r 1 _ I�' � •r� ..� ��_f � '�:��c�—�— ` ;�;'�:s�:. : 1..r � .q --�0;'1,-��=.•=!�„••- . �r � � �.r�ir �!r�c �� f tlfl�, ,�>.•..�k-•.•=�'�'�--��-__ '��=�="s� Z re-bars steel ickets or 'f': ��7 r��e•'. r�+ s2.� . . ir.� r.{;�, �. ,��L ..::'�--*.�— P ;��; �?tiy�,�' ;''��r�r�.��z ' 2„ x 2" stakes 1 1/2' t� 2� ��y� ?i��`'�1uf��Mr — ].A Q�L'T.d -�.�,�'�';i�o�.�;w� _ ��-_�,.--z.��-.=.'� ��– � �� - 9 - , .. CITY Or �;=,ItiT P,�t;L _�;:\.��: CITI' ?LA'�til'�G CC'.;'�.115S1Oti . .,,, ; . �� ;. �.lc ��"/ �9 • ��s :` . _ . �c... ;h St:..et. Samt Fz,. �.��n � „ a ;Siuj G�? :9R 41 ,1 :,:C�r:��E l-�T1MfR h1�1YOR • �•iE��10P,AP;DUt� Oc�ober 27, 1983 ,� T0: � � James Bryan, Chair - Zoning Committee i � � rR0i�1: David McDonell , Cha�r - Economic Development Committee ,/� _ I RE: St. Paul Doi�rntown Airport Conditional Use Permits As you knoti�r, the Economic Development Committee has spent over tti•�o years si�dying t�;e impacts of the proposed run�ray project at St. Paul Do��rnto�•,n kirport (holman f�ield) . This study has included a comprehensive analysis of issues relating to . � economic, environmental , aviation and public safety considerations. Officials from the Metropolitan Airports Commission, P1innesota Departmen� of Transportation, and the Federal Aviation Administratior� have been very helpful . �,e have a better , understanding of the impacts of the runway project, thanks to �heir cooperation. I believe ihat all of the major issues of interest to the operator, users, �nd neighbors of the airport have been studied. Eased on that study, I am sum;��zrizing our conclusions about the runway project and our recommendations for the disposi- tion of the requisite permits from the Saint Paul Planning Com-nission. As your com�nittee considers granting these permiis , please consider our points. GENERAL ASSESSMENT. The Economic Development Corrunittee believes that as pro- posed, the runway project is a sound proposal that deserves to receive the requisite permits from the City of Saint Paul . The impacts of the project in the region are clearly positive. blhat negative impacts tnat wi71 exist generally accrue to small areas of St. Paul that are closest to the airport. We believe that these negative impacts have been minimized to the greaiest extent possible through careful planning of the airport and through proposals by MAC which appear to be acceptable mitigative measures. Although the committee has a generally positive assessment of the project, � � we recognize that there are some aspects of the proposal ; notably noise and safety, which will require constant attention by MAC, MnDOT, airport users and neighbors if the potential impacts are to remain minor in the future. We feel that MAC, as owner and operator of the airport (and permit applicant) must commit to an onqoing effort to insure that future use of the airport is as non-disruptive and hazard-free as possible. This assessment is based on a series of conclusions about specific issues of con- cert to airport neighbors, users and city staff. These issues are presented as follows. 1 . AIR TRAFFIC ASSUI�iPTIONS. An airport without air trarfic 'r,as relati��ely few impacts associated with it. Also, many of th,e impacts ircrease in 5ere�it or severity in direct relation to the amount of airplan�s usi��g ine �ac�li�y. Tnere`ore, the amount of air traffic projected to use �he airpor� is a �:ey variable; one that demands careful and confident analysis. • ��., . . .. . . � . . ...�1 . .. �, ..,.i. I i ✓.�'�„ •..... .. � ��i�-G� i_G �`t"'�I l� l��(�� / .[ G „ , .r, _-', �.� � . _ ,�� ; ��nDOT has concluded that by 1990, air traffic will increase 2i;� over existin� levels if the run��a is not built and ��rill increase 42� if it is b�ilt. 7he � j�t/prop mix of aircraft will stay about the same less than 10�� of tne opera- tions would be by jet aircra�t) . These numbers are based on several ��irGOT . analyses. The projections are consistent �-�ith national and regional trends, and appear to be sound for purposes of planning the physical facilities at the airport and the operational procedures necessary to minimize noise. Z. SAFETY ZONES. The Planning Commission may remember that ��rDOT originaliy re- quired that MAC and/or the city establish very stringent safety zones at �he runway ends. Safety zones that met MnDOT's tough standards put severe devel- _ opment restrictions on lands near the airport, including do�,�rntovrn and the Space Center area in the East CBD. The Planning Corrcnission �•ras concerned that � the "development potential ". lost by imposition of these stringent safety zones could counterbalance whatever economic benefit the rurn�ray project and/or the airport itself might produce. � � Thanks to new enabling legi5lation by the State Legislature, 1�nDOT is row able (and apparently willing) to accept smaller, less severe safety zones around the airport. MAC has proposed to further shorten the most offensive zone by shortening the usable length of the new runway. The result of these actions is very favorable, and should allow for �an estimated additional 12,000,000 sq. ft. of "development potential" in downto�rn and vincini.ty of the airport. From an economic development standpoint, this is significant. A corollary discussion relating to smaller safety zones was the potential safety hazards introduced by allowing mor.e development to occur. Although this is a some�•rhat subjective conclusion to draw, ��re believe that safety of the flying public or airport neighbors would not be significantly compromised ►•rith additional development and/or additional aircraft traffic that is anticipated. There is � ample evidence from the Twin Cities and other areas that the airport is not an inherently dangerous one and would not become one with the runway project. 3. SPIN-OFF ECONOMIC BENEFITS. The Planning Commission and the community at large � have been eager to learn exactly how much economic benefit would be induced by improving Holman Field. Addressing this issue in the Environmental Impact State- ment that was prepared, MnDOT concluded the following: A. The economic impact from general aviation has not received careful attention by economists, researchers or the aviation community. tieaningful literature on the subject is especially sparce. B. The question appears to be whether or not such a facility generates a little or a lot of benefit. There is general consensus that there is little nega- tive economic impact. C. One indication of the economic activity generated in �'r�e bus�ir�ess cc;�;�,unity by the airport is simply the very large investment that the large co�panies maF:e in supporting their aviation needs. In short, ir the co„�r4r��s using it did no� profit from it, they �ti�ouldn't invest in airplanes, pilo�s, sup- port staff and equip�nent, etc. � _ _.��. _ �.�,.: � r � :._ ��r�.,!� C�� .�:� ..}ep /d��{// GI . - . .,.. . , �.1'i�L�J r (�.�r �,� ��r�'J� i, 1..�'id�t��flL� I L�Se rET�li�� ls l� �V �� ! . .'+ �L ��.I f' �: � . �� .. . .. , � D. It is easy� to document economic savings to airlines, passengers, and o�her users of lti'old-Chamberlain Field if congestion-related delay there is avoided by more efficient use of Holman Field. l�;e be,l,ieve that NnDOT made an honest effort to discern information about this sub- ject that apparently does not exist in any meaningful way. Through its research (►�rhich was thoroughly documented in the EIS and supporting documents) , t�1nDOT came to a series of qualitative conclusions arhich are hard to substantiate,- but harder still to refute. 4. Ei�tERGENCY SERVICES. The Economic Development Corrmittee found no indicatiorf that emergericy police/fire/rescue services that ��ould be required by the air- port from the City of St. Paul would hamper the delivery of those services �o city residents. While we can assume that emergency calls vrould increase ��rith � � more activity at the air ort, the current number of these calls is so small � that a 50� (or even 200�� increase �rould only be a handful more. t•1AC has expressed a willingness to `continue to work with the city police and . fire departments to constantly monitor the emergency needs of the airport, and to jointly evaluate facilities , operations and training procedures to efficiently provide for the needs of the airport and the community. This co- operation should be encouraged by the city. 5. FLOOD HAZARDS. One of the primary objectives of this project is to provide for on-airport services in an area of the airport that is not subject to flood- ing. While moving/encouraging development out of the floodplain is a positive impact, there appear to be several areas of concern about flood control brought . about by this proposal : A. Providing for a non-floodable building area and a level runway will re- quire the deposition of 3 million cu.yds. of fill in the floodplain. This obviously will alter the heights and flows of future flo�ds in St. Paul and . throughout the region, although the amount of change is apparently within the applicable standards set by the Minnesota Department of National Re- sources. ' B. There is. a specified amount of fill that can be deposited in the St. Paul floodplain without violating DNR's standards and causing the potential for damage from severe floods. This project utilizes all of the city's remain- ing "fill amounts", and vrould preclude future filling for riverfront pro- jects throughout the city. The Planning Commission should review local and state floodplain development policies/standards and reconcile potential con- , flicts that might exist in this regard. 6. �dOISE. By far, the issue of greatest interest to neighbors of the airport is potential for undesirable aircraft noise. Unfortunately, this is an issue that is necessarily talked about in somewhat amorphous and subjective terms. It i5 very clear that some noise vrill exist; that people �•�no hear it have varying degrees of tolerance for it; and that efforts by neighbors , users , �iAC, and the city to make noise less disruptive will require action in the immediate `uture and over the long ter�. The whole issue and ��hat �.�e expect to be dcne about it can be surrrnarized thusly: _ : -. .� ��, . _ .^ , � =� �� , � � .�� SE ��,-T- �.. (1,�� '9 ._ y, _ � .,. ',�ny peop�e (nctably those ��.ho. live close by in Ca��ten 's �luff and tne t�lest Side) believe that �exis�tin� noise levels are too high and too fre- � quent, and that additiona�ra�fi'fic will nake it 4;orse. 6. IrAC' s response has six basic points: 1 ) A large amount of anticipated noise will occur even if tne runvray pro- ject is not built. It will occur from the added use of the existing facility. 2) The new run��ray alignment will redirect takeoffs and tnerefore redirect sor�e of the existing and "new" noise to areas of the city that are less populated. . . � 3) Over time, a new generation of quieter airplanes will replace the cur- . rent fleet and reduce overall noise levels. 4) It �will be possible to arrange flight patterns and�other "operational . procedures" to insure that the most noise-sensitive areas are affecied as little as possible. Tne extent to ��rhich this can be done is un- ' known at this time. �) The city should be working on provisions in its Zoning and Building Codes to encourage noise insulation and to insure that areas around the airport are developed wiih noise-tolerant .land uses such as industry. 6) Items b-e above should basically compensate for the fact that more air- craft will be using the facility. The result will be a "noise pattern" around the airport that is quite similar to what exists today. The • � combination of frequency, intensity and location of noise will be al- tered somewhat, but the overall impact should be about the same. C. There is a feeling by many neighbors that F/`,A and h9AC do not or cannot con- trol flight and ground operations to the degree necessary to insure minimum disruption. � �. The most promising strategy to address noise issues lies outside of any action that might be required by local or state permits . MAC has committed itself to �rorking with an advisory corimittee composed of representatives of airport users and neighbors to recommend ways to control disruptive noise. This committee is a cooperative effort. Its influence over N.AC, FAA, or airport users will come only by the degree of consensus it achieves and by the credibility it develops as a meaningful forum for addressing the noise , issue. The Economic Development Committee recognizeS that aircraft noise ��rill al�-rays be an issue in Saint Paul . F�AC 's response to date has been sensitive to the issue by recognizing the need to address noise. It has prepared a complete znalysis of poten- tial noise impacts; has identified several long te;�m actions �hat ti•;:iil mitigate the i�r�pacts to certain degrees; nas organized a mecnai�isn (the a�visory co��n;��ee) to � facili�ate communications and reco�.n�nd short-�erm ritigation technicu�s. :,opefully, tney ��ill be able� to achieve favorable results. : _ , Ch��r- - �:,r�;r:g ��„�::�i:��e �l.—�,� CJq _ . _: . �'J1 UO'�:t"�i.�..�� „i 1"rC1't CC'ridl i.10!ld� USE ,'�Gri:il LS �/r � _��__ �.. .. .. ,� ,;o;�e of these actions (individually or cumulatively) will make �he airror� a� quiet as sc��e would like. However, they are things tha.t can and should be built u;�on. '�,hile the airport will never be completely silent, it should be as non-disru�tive as possible, now and in the future. Like the emergency services issue, this ��ill require a continual effort by t�"�AC, airport users, airport neighbors, and the City of St. Paul to monitor the situation and cooperate with one another to keep noise- mitigation actions up to date. It should not stop ��ith issuance of these permits. P.ECOF;��IENDATIOW. The Economic Development Committee recommends that if the p�rmi�s are granted, the Zoning Committee and Planning Commission express their desire tnat the tletropolitan Airports Cornnission commit to continued monitoring and evaluation of the need for- emergency services and noise mitigation measures at St. Paul Do:m- town Airport. Future evaluation should be done in conjunction ��ith the City and airport neighbors. Although MAC's proposed activities to address these issues �appears satisfactory at this time, we believe that they will require constant study . � as use of the airport changes. � Dt�1cD/bq � � . cc: Economic Development Corrrnittee Members Councilman Tedesco Councilr�an Scheibel James Qellus Peggy Reichert � Patricia James Rick Wiederhorn .�� '• �� - �:. ` . i,-,\.� \ ' -j I 'k�" �� '�; � ��:' �_`. , . ��'�/°9�:� i� i+��-:.. � . �\ �L--�> � . �. � � � �� ..�' � - - - .fi�.�.... ,'� -;- �:,� , . . ,, _ . � .- , . , ',` ;� __ �.__... n � -�-�r_. ._.. . ..�_ � � �- e„�. � ��.•�;' - . . - \ :�--��g--_ ... _. . ._ ... �. .. .,�'` .`. �,°�_ �.ti � �\\.` \E' � . .� . --- ^< �.'� -• �� '�. �1 f\. /. _._ ' ` _ ��,ER � �, '`,, . ., �\ c• \ \ � \ �_ �r . ' T \ � .v� .. c�� \ Q \. �� `` '`` •` C � � i\ 6 � . �:j ' � �. S C' �� '- �L(f, n, .li �� >� a � � +*^""'�fr:.r:l.�/ S � ' ^�°��'' `� �' �cRO .�' ,\��'�� __._.._ —.. '�a.�` / _/1\ ,�` •� .� . �.._ y , / T. �� ...7,. . T ' � ��v� �{ . ., 4 � � �. �� / \��OQO ~�_- \\, "" { ,. . _ .� .�, \\ � �` '�'�""�'►\�\ . �� .\\ - � `��; !y✓'/M r� . •��a• . �t.' ^ _ " ' � � - . �'1 . .. .�. . r � \ R �!� t\� � ..�. . . �.� � \. �� VN}��}�� /�/^ �� \ � ` �•1'4 `�� \``-�r`�`"\�/I��'`.^^ �*V,� �� •� . • •�♦ ♦ ~ . � 'e'`v� � \� S, C ��r' `�y� ., .L ��. , . . N ^�. �I�J � �,, ..NENTUCKY _ $T � � , . �, �\ \ '••., \ `\� �`� � �`�. � ' ., � ` `' i. 1 � . . m il � .. w �` t�`� _ . `,• \ `,� � � '� _ lo ••' � :�j \ ` . � rExcS ��"`4r`'=__� �,\ "'� ,'� � __ � � �' ` �/ y /.. �� ..:'�d� ! \\\ �\ � ._ . . ,[ ^� \ ' �� / � "; �\ � . _ � `;��,, � . L � �. - _ _ .� _ __ . . - . . ,. --- -- v.�r:r--•.. ....� ... �.:..._.._.. � . .—..�-.�. . ..��._-.. ___. _ ...- _ . .,._ _.. ' �� a� �� i �� ; ��I � � �� \ �. � a..,� �..,�.. .�., ,.�v i •. / � � � / \ \� . — � , . - - l ,�� / �I� ' � ��\ � , � �°' � ' � e� , � ; \ „ ' � • ' \ � � � � : ' . , � � , ' � / � /, . , : ; / i � � � n � � " I ♦, \\ � / ��— �� - " f� , � ( \\\ . . / \ \ Im � � / -- -- t I � �� \� �' \\\ \ � ' �� i� ` � � ! \`\, • � � Y ; � /- �� ' \� \ � � ` � < • � \,�. , �..\ � i ••� s�' � � \\ � . � , !/ %� \ \ ' � � , � � �\ `'�1 . , � , �� . 1 , \ \\ � � . � , � �,,\\ �\. ��` � � . � . , ��\�`t�, : j �� t '�� ,, 1 � ' \ \``. �'\� �.{� . rt� \ .\\ �`\`\ � ' � \ � \ / 1 ' ' :�; � .. 1 _ _— / • '.\` i � i — . .`� _ _� _— . . '_.�� , , ' � _._ \ I , 1 j `/ � �� F--__"" \ 1 ' ! • ' '�\' �, � ; � / ,\ � f-1,,,C-i / � - ---�- <<�.1. . 1 y`1 .. ' ' ,% � �'`-.� �/ �•. _ `\' ' �• P � � �� i / • ;� . _ / � �T��_ . � / �� T ` '\� a I I � / i' �`�s�t_j_'-' / / ��1\ i ' ; , /i'�/ / �///,-/ / , j �ti'�'�- i/ /� / / /1�_ � '\�\1�\. `�'� � , 1 / / i' ;1 / / �'.� \, '� , , � � �\ , ' -�----� � ; / / ; � � ;�, - � � /: /'�'._�� / ; ,� � / �„ � '� ,.. .' . �-� � \�� ;'1� �, �; `�;'t. '�, �o oSE;��;�� ='�rY �;� i % �=./ � � � t '�_� \ � , � \�• . � '� 1�.� i�'� il ��v!„��l1/\��. �`!'�\'TY� n�� //' \�IC��1� � s� \`TiJ l� /' / / � AREA �� 4P APPLICANT �}`� �e-- �EGEND -- --- ZOt�lIP:G DISTRICT BOUNDARY r, p�� .D�-�� LG�:l1� SUBJECT PROPERTY PURPOSE �S� ��,� C-�-- O OhE FAf�ILY PLANl�tNG . � DJSTRICT r�•. •'!` J . c",p r' ^ T ti�•:Q r�f�1 I LY FILE No. -f-: , . , ,. --- - �� o � / ' _ =, - �: ,� �� t.�UL±;i=�E FAi,!ILY ,�; DATE '' � c �. r� COT.'.(.'. LRCI!`..L ; _ ..,r.,, r,`(�,�T� ; ; r. : . _ ;�. _ _,��r-., '.�. t,�a� r;o.. � .. . ... ... ' ' `'_ '" 'J t _' � � ' � ��.