The URL can be used to link to this page

276956 WHITE - CITY CLERK � �� PINK - FINANCE CANARY - DEPARTMENT G I T Y O F SA I N T PA IT L COUtICll �� BLUE - MAYOR File N O. ou 'l Resolution . Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, Holman Field is an airport under the control and jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) ; and WHEREAS, MAC is required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 360.063, subd. 3 (5) , to create a joint airport zoning board for each airport operated under its authority for the purpose of adopting zoning regulations for the "airport hazard area"; and WHEREAS, MAC has appointed a joint airport zoning board for Holman Field consisting of representatives from St. Paul, West St. Paul and M�1C, which board has requested that each member-city propose airport hazard zoning regulations and building height limits for its respective city limits; and WHEREAS, The Saint Paul Planning Commission has studied the Minnesota Department of Transportation airport hazard area zoning guidelines as they impact on the area surrounding and adjacent to the Holman Field, and has recommended zoning regulations which are an alternative to the Department's guidelines, and has recom- mended that the City Council forward these recommendations to the joint zoning board, the MAC and the Department of Transportation; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Saint Paul City Council does hereby concur in the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission as contained in the document entitled "Holman Field: Airport Develop- ment Controls Alternatives Repo�t", and the subsequent report of the Chairman of the Planning Co�nmission dated Apri1 10, 1981, and these recommendations shall be forwarded to the joint zoning board, MAC and the Department of Transportation for their consideration and implementation. COUNCILMEN Requestgd by Department of: Yeas Nays Hunt �evine In Favor Maddox McMahon snowaite� --��-_ Against BY Tedesco Wilson JU� �np� Form Approved by it ttorn Adopted by Council: Date — ��L Certified P •s d by Counci �cret BY t Ap by ;Vlavor: Da _ UN 5 19 Approved by y c or Submission to Council B BY UBLISHED JUN 131981 \ I � - � � � . _ �.e . ��, ��, � � - � . � ..' � � ' ' .� ` � . a -I�� . '� �. � - � � .. _� �' .��,:'rri+ �� .. ' � - .. . . - / , , �. . . . . . , , . . . . �.. . -. . .�. . . .. f- . . _ . . . . - . , . . �. � . . . . . . . , � - . . . .,., . . . , ,,. .. / . � ' .�.�. . . . - . � � . - . . . . . .j .. � . � � � , �. . _ � � • . .�.� . � .. . I " . . .. � . -. _ .� � ' � � � . . ` . � �. . . - � � � . . : � . . � .� . . .. . , � . , � . .- .. ' �- �. . . "r,,. " % . . . ._ ' _ . . " ` . � _ ' � � ,i . . � . .... . � � � . . � . . , , � � , . . . �. . � � , , . .. . - , _ MetY'�,'.. i9t31. _ . - � - � . Oouncilman Leor�ard Levfne '� � � � Chairman, City Develop�eht 8 Tritnspor'�s�lon Co�n��e _ 7th Flc�or, Ci�ty Hali <- : • f � , . Dear C+ou�cil:man LeVitu i - � , . .- . : . , . . r � , . ;>. � . .. _ ' _ �. Ci�y Cwxncil tcSday referred to tbe City De�la�ettt & Tr�s•,'; _` � � - �" � portation Commi,ttee fdr aon8ideration and r�cemo�nsi�tian; the � , ` Plann3ng Com�qission $esolution and Report recommending a Cityr � � � _ . go$i�ion an Airport �Developmen�.Controls for pux�paeea of afrarat'ti ' s�fety� in areae aurraundisig Hol.msn Field. . �`.��_. - , , � • ' Very trt�ly you►rs,;. � . �;�_ , �:--°:_ . . _ = � , , - , , - Al Olsoa - . , � �ity Clerk - ,, _ - ABq:la . _ _ - c�t - Peggy Relehert, Fiaauing Cbordinatar - � � . _ ' , - , - . _ - . . . . . , . ,. .. '. . . . Y. . . .. , . . . t . . . �. . � `) :� . . / i i \ .- . . . ' ' . . .. � .. _ . . ' J . i -�7 J � ' . ' . . � � -. i \ . ... .. . . / . . .�.�. � .. �- • . � . . .. � � . . . . . � 'J, .�. . � � . ' . � � . . . . . � ' � � ' � _ .�"S;i � . , . . . . \ . . . . . ' . . " ' . . ... . . . � . . . . . .. „ _ ¢' ._ . . . ' ; . . � _.. � 1'/ i � . _ . . . . . . ' . . � .. , � . . .:..}' . . .-� _._ , � ' � . .. � . .. . . . . . `y' , • �� , . , f J F4��1'Y �-� GI!PY OF SAINT PAUL o {� ± OFFICE OF THE MAYOR ' � uuii�mn � w �: .. � �u� �,u n - . � yr �j �j �� SAINT PAULC M NN SOTA 55102 ��+��+ GEORGF. I.ATIMER (612) 298-4323 MAYOR • April 13, 19�1 Council President Ronald Maddox St. Paul City Council City Hall St. Faul , Minnesota 55102 Dear President Maddox and Council Members: Enclosed please find a Planning Commission resolution and report recommending a city position on Airport Development Controls for purposes of aircraft safety in areas surrounding Holman Field. As you are aware, the city is involved in a Joint Zoning Board to develop zoning regulations for a two mile radius around Holman Field. The Board was established in response to state legislation and includes representatives of St. Paul , South St. Paul , West St. Paul , and MAC. . In 1977, the Legislature aTso told P�InDOT to deveiop a statewide set of development regulations around airports to be adopted by local joint zoning boards. Our joint zoning board analyzed MnDOT's proposed regulations and quickly determined that their major impact would be on downtown St. Paul . Furthermore, the city's representatives on the Board determined that the potential impacts required closer scrutiny by St. Paul , public discussion, and the involvement of the Mayor and City Council in developing St. Paul 's position on airport zoning. Therefore, the Planning Commission has been studying f�inDOT's regulations, the plans for Holman Field, and development plans for downtown, and has made the attached recommendatjons. Before I forward the city's recorr�nendations to the Joing Zoning Board, I am anxious that the Council review and comment on them. This is a significan,t issue, one that requires broad public exposure and discussion. I want to make sure that the city's position on this matter is a strong one that is thought out and presented clearly and is supported by the many interests affected. I have reviewed the Rlanning Commission's recommendations and observations, and agree that they are most appropriate. The recommendations are realistic and do a credible job of building adequate safety into the airport environs without diminishing the development potentials of downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. I also believe that the Commission's comments on the state processes and standards are relevant, and should be expressed to the Joint Zoning Board and state aviation officials. � / ` 4 -�.__% 7/ �� . � -2- j � � �dI � ,7�f . P7ease review and comment on these recommendations in a timely 'Fashion, so that the Joint Zoning Board can attempt to resolve the issues quickly. z Planning Division staff will be available at your convenience to discuss the recommendations in more detaii . Thank you for your attention to this most important issue. Sincere � eo e L �mer Ma o cc: Jim Bellus Peggy Reichert Rick Wiederhorn Don Dunshee � Comm. Larry Cohen, MAC . Comm. Sue P�1cCloskey, P�AC � • , �,� � � . . � � � � � � � � �ity of sair�t p�iul � planning cor�mission r�solution � � � �ile number 81-„ c�ate A ri 1 ,Q. ,�, WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 360.061 through 3b0.074 requires that the property surrounding Downtown St. Paul Airport (Holman Field) be regulated to prevent creation of airport hazards ; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Airports Co��unission (MAC� has reyuested that St. Paul join with it and other affected municipalities in the creation of a joint Airport Zoning Board for purposes of establishing airport developrnent controls for Holman Field; and WHEREAS, the St. Paul City Council has resolved to participate in the Holman Field Joint Airport Zoning Board; and WHEREAS, the Joint Zoning Board has asked the City of St. Paul to recommend to it a devElopment ordinance that would control appropriate lands in St. Paul ; and WHEREAS, the St. Paul Planning Commission , working with MAC, the Minnesota Department of Transportation , airport users , and airport neighbors , has studied alternative options for airport area developrnent controls , based on statewide standards established by the MnDOT; and � WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing for purposes of determining the most appropriate development controls to be recommended to the Joint Zoning Board; and WHEREAS, many members of the Planning Com�nission and the public haye expressed concern with the State processes and standards that are reconunended for consideration in establishing development controls; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the St. Paul City Planning Commission reports its findings and recommendations to the Mayor and City Council in the attached documents: Holman Field : Airport Development Controls Alternatives Report and subsequent r�,port of P,pr11 10, 198� a — � BE IT FURTHER RESOLVEO, that the Planning Commission express its reservations about the state process and standards regarding this issue to the Mayor and City Council for their consideration in transmitting the city's recommendation to the Holman Field Joint Airport Zoning Board. moved by McDonell seconded by Kadri e in �avor 14 a�ains� 2 �°�"`" - CITY OF SAINT f'AUL �<. ��rr a� , '�~¢~ '1ap CITY PLANNING COMMISSION . p O M V . � �r��III�I�UiN C� %• �� Thomas P_ FitzGibbon, 1r., Chairman ',, ��'"«,'„e;,.;,o�'� 25 West Fourth Street, Saint Paut,Minne,ota 55102 GfORGE LATIMER r '^6�-298-4tif MAYOR � 1 C 9--' _. April 10, 1981 REPORT T0: Mayor Latimer Council President Maddox Members of the City Council ; FROM: Thomas P. FitzGibbon, Jr. C7�� Chairman, St. Paul Planning Commission SUBJECT: Airport Development Controls for powntown St. Paul Airport (Holman Field) As you are aware, the City Planning Commission, through its Economic Development Committee, has been wrestling with a means of controlling development in the vicinity of Hol�an Field for safety purposes. It has not been an easy task, given the airport's proximity to so many areas of the city where we have been encourag�ng develop►r�ent and trying to increase popu1ations, After months of diligent work and discussions with airport users, with state and federal agencies concerned with a�rport operations and safety, aaith downtown and neighborhood development interests and with other interested citizens, the Com�nission is recommending that the Holman Field Joint Airport Zoning Board consider the following series of development controls. The Commission has studied the requirements for Safety Zones recommended by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, and has concluded that they will be difficult to implement. Holman Field is un�que by virtue of its location in the region and city and its function in the regional airport system. Consequently, it requires careful study and unique applic�tions of safety zones. The Planning Commission has attempted to do just this by ana1yzing affected areas of the city and determining where and how the development potential of these areas can be maximized. The Commission is recommending that development be encouraged in the affected areas, but only at densities and heights that wi11 not impair the safe and efficient op�rations of Holman Field. The Commission believes that these are the most practical and realistic means of adequately meeting the safety requirements of the airport without inhihi�ing the development and improvement potentials of downtown, the bJest Side and Dayton's Bluff: DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS The Commission suggests modifying the safety zones to fit current and future development as well as raising the height ljmitations. Informal comments from MnDOT and MAC indicate that this may be acceptable to them. The recommended modifications are as follows. Please refer to the report entitled Holman Field: Airport Development Controls Alternatives Report to c1arify discussion. 1 . A NE4J LAND USE SAFETY ZONE ALTERNATIVE, 6-4(a) (page 14) Redefine the boundaries of the safety zones to allow for expected development at identified sites. This alternative is essentially that described in Alternative 6-4 on page 14, but the configuration of the Zones (mapped on page 15) would be changed thusly: �n . � -2- . ' . A. �Run�wa��14 (proposed) : A zone to extend from the runway to the Third Street ri�dge;as recommended by MnDOT. This would establish a "clear zone" across the river to the Third Street Bridge. No permanent structures nor large assemblages of people would _. b� permitted. This recommendation does not call for a B Zone beyond the Third Street Bridge. As suggested by the Comriission, development north of the bridge would be unrestricted, ; B, Runwa� 8: A zone to extend from the runway to the west property line at State Street. This wou1d shorten the recommended clear zone from 2,433 feet to 2,000 feet. B Zone to extend from the west property line at State Street. to the line recommended by MnDOT, except for a portion of Concord Terrace, which should be classified as an "Established Residential Neighborhood in Built Up Areas", per MnDOT standards. . This �ould convert about 72 acres of Port Authority property from an A Zone to a B �one to allow -for controlled development of a prime Port Authority parcel and would allow for easy rehabilitation and infill development in Concord Terrace. C. Remaining Runways: A and 6 Zones to remain intact, as recommended by MnDOT. The C Zones in the city would also remain intact. It is further recorrmended that whatever existing structures within the proposed A Zones be allowed to pursue expansion or i.mprovement potentials. These would be exempted from the provisions of the ordinance. Areas affected by this recorrr�nnendation include isolated property in the Runway 12 (NW) A Zone; and parts of Barge Terminal #1 that lie in the A Zones for Runways 26 (E) and 30 (SE). 2. ALTERNATIVE C.1 (page 16) - 20:1 APPFtOACH SLOPE TO RUN4lAYS 12 AND 14 (proposed) This recommendation would define a steeper runway approach to the two northerly runways. The steeper approach would allow for somewhat hiqher development in the Lowertown area and Space Center complex. Lov�rertov�n is the part of the city most severely impacted by the MnDOT safety zones. Under the MnDOT recommendations, little could be built over four stories. The Corr�nisslonis recommending a sliding scale of heights; lower closer to the river (and runway), with increased height closer to I-94. The range �vould be approximately 4-6 stories at the Union Depot to 19-20 stories at the Farmer's Market site. 3. ALTERNATIVE C.2 (b) (page 16) - DEVELOPf�IENT LIPIITED TO 40' ABOVE THE GROUND outside of downtown� FAA regulations refer to West Side, Dayton`s Bluff and Highwood neighborhoods as "nonconforming" to safety standards because the. bluff heights alone violate the clear air zones recommended by FAA. As such, all housing or public improvements in these areas would require FAA variances to take place. The Committee felt. that was silly, and recomnends that the FAA redefine its standards at these locations to avoid the administrative headaches they would create. � " �J_ , ��.-�_� �.. .- ` \ I i -.- r �"" ` j,��-�/ �� \ / � \ ♦, l \ \ \ � 'l'�r — � �� _ � ♦ �. �` ' - ,---- � --� O � �� --_ -' � 0��v HUDSON Ri: G '�: . . `:�.� - � � / � � �� "'''._ _�� ,� ..� -�� -�� , __ .� � � --- \, � RNE `�� P �� ' o c� ., \ � `, �'� � � -�q �� `� ` � ��' � � �, �` � .� ; vsy ,` �,� � .. �;�, � � �� , ��;�� -� _ ,., � , , s,,_ , , �•°• �� • .�r`'� `�� .. DOW1dTOW N ,, AIRPQRT .� . . , GEORG ST.. � ,� .. .. ` .. � .. O / `� .. ST� .. .. w Q � � 2 � �'�� O . �-- '� � � ANNAPO �I� ST. -�'\} _ : --� ---— \ � �:� Y�\ . ALTERNATIUE 6.4(a) : REDEFINE BOUNDARIES TO ALLOW FOR DEVELOPMENT � �: ZONE A-NO DEVELOPMENT � ZONE B-LIMITED DEVELOPMENT �� `•�l ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGNBORHOOD ' ` �� • . -4? . ' , The recorr�nendation would a11ow for unhindered housing rehabilitation and development, plus other contemplated public improvements to a height of 40 feet above the ground. This is more than adequate to deai with existing residential uses. Building taller than 40 feet could be subject to variance. __ 4. ALTERNATIVE C.2 (c)�page 19): CREATE DOW�dTOWN HEIGHT ZONES BASED ON EXISTI�G BUILDIVG HEIGHTS This aiternative is that described in Alternative C.2 (c) on page 19, but the configuration of the zones (mapped on page 18) would be changed to those on the attached map. - Under the Commission's proposal , the lst National Bank Tower becomes the e�feetive. ceiling for downtown heights, except in areas of dovrntourn between the ban� and the airport. In these areas, height limits are defined by the height of the Post Office, or the Minnesota Mutual Suilding. The many discussjons the Corr�nission has had regar.ding this issue have exposed a number of concerns about the airport, prev9ous planning that has been done far it, and the process and rules by which the State Legislature is requiring that safety zones be established. The Commis�ian feels i� is imperative to pass on its observations and reservations for your information and consideration. 1 . THE AIRPORT ITSELF - While the Holman Field site doesn't easi1y fit the needs of a busy urban airport, the Cor�nission doesn't believe tha±: it is realistic or advisable to recommend closing or moving the airpart. Although it is difficult to document, 4ve th-ink that having the airport here is probably "warth it". It's already here; it's not going away and we have, therefore, focused on living with it while mitigating its adverse impacts. In doing so, we want to point out the extraordinary lengths to a�hich citizens and bus9ness�s of the city must go to accommodate the facility. 2. AIRPORT PLANNING - The Commission has numerous reservations about the development program at the airport. It appears that the new alignment of runways was established with little understandinq of �the economic impact �f losi development in the safety zones. It is evident that the proposed new longer runway in a narth- south orientation is needed and advisable from the perspective of aircraft operations and noise. However, the total new runuray layout leaves the northwest- southeast runway open and a1lows planes to take off and land directiy over do�rntown. It seems that safety and noise considerations wou1d dictate that such downtown approaches be abandoned. Witn the northwest-southeast runway open, the city has little option in securing safety but to impose unwanted development restrictions. If the safe�y of downtown buildings is paramount, it should be easier and more effective to insure that planes don't have to fly over the downtown. Unfortunately, past planning for the airport did not account for this point. 3, STATE °ROCESSES AND RULES - According to a1most all parties involved, the state standards against which our proposal for safety areas will be measured are unusually strict for areas such as St. Paul . For Nolman Field they require safety zones of little or no development that are ten times larger than those required by the federa1 government. Federal standards for runway approach zones wou1d a11ow most buildings to be up to 50% higher than the state standards . The state standards are also the strictest (and, therefore, also provide the most safety) of any state in the nation. It is evident that they are intended for - •-- �f ••�N � �►i■o�i�� ' � i�� . �iii I" �� _�� ,� . ► ��_..__�,.. �. � � - ♦ ��r�� r ■� ♦ �� ■ J . � �� `� � ��■ ■ , ♦I��"....i�i`.� �1I .�..�� ■ ■�� ♦ � ► �� ♦ �� '� . . 1. �.� �� ♦�� '� ♦ , , �� . � ♦ �"� ♦ �� .��, �► r 1t , 1�� 1 !. /�;.:•i� • � . l��,�..�� . �.•-� � . � �i�i � � -�� • f � p�►�.. �,. � �. �, � �,\ ♦ �� .�.�� i •I � ♦��;;.��:�• ,� . �� , ♦ ` �1. •,��k-.. . _ :- - , � � �r• � , w s,. , ��, � ... ,, . .��,•� :� �� `� .. �•� � -,�♦ �� _� .� �► . ��,�:�:, ._ , . � a. . l p,, ,� ,. , � - j , �:� .,n %�� _ . `� �� w_s �� I _.' � _i _ ` � ♦ .► . : .. � � , � . .; �t . � �::. �■■■ . �■■ ��■ � �• • � . � . . .A - ' --�� ■ � �' /�1� • ' ■�■ �,I� 5�1�� 1, �1��:o��- � � ■1��■ ■�,��■ ■� � �1��i�i �� ■��/ � �� ■��■ � i�� ► ■�■ ■��■ �� ■ � � '• ��i � � � � i� � � : � � � : � � � :� , . .�. . . . -6- . � + - . new airports in undeveloped areas, Given existing topography and development around Holman Field, it is impossible to meet all the standards recommended for safety zones by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Even if we could meet all the standards, the potential for lost development in extremely large safety zones is compelling. -� Not all federal standards are acceptable. In fact, they also put severe development constraints on downtown. Nor is the safety of the flying pub1ic and airport neighbors an inconsequential concern in controlling development around the airport. It obviously is the most important consideration in decision-making. However, the many discussions of this issue lias led the Planning Commission to the foilowing conclusions: A. The MnDOT standards for safety zones around state airports are overly conservative, especially when applied ta Holman Field. There is no reason to believe that this airport is presently unsafe, despite the many "violations" of state and federal standards that exist. B. The city should recognize that maximum iritensities of development cannot take p1ace right up to the end of the runways, and that public safety demands that development in the vicinity of the airport be somewhat less than would normally be desired. C. It is possib1e and advisable to strike a compromise: Ailovr fior �ievelopment in areas wP;ere realistic deve1opment potential exists; at the same time, prohibit or limit developmen� in areas to meet federal standards and in areas where deve1opment shou1d not be expected. This would establish safety zones that are broader and more comprehensive than the federal zones ancl somewhat less than arhat MnDOT requires. Such an approach would result in � downto4vn airport whose safety zones would extend farther than most, but not so far to unreasonably restrict development. . This js the theory behind the Planning Commission recommendations; creating flexible development cpntrqls that are tailored to the specifics of surroun�ing e,�viro��rnent and aircraft operations at this particular uirport. D. Airport safety is a more sub�ective topic than a �echnical one, It is very difficult to build adequate safety into an airport by simply moving 1ines around on a map. The Commission thinks PdnDOT and the FAA should re-evaluate their standards and spend more time working with effected communities to deal with issues at specific airports and sites. The current practices of establishing and then attempting to enfiorce unworkable standards lead only to frustrat�nn and acrimony of both sides of the table. It certainly does not get us an�; closer to the system of safe, efficient airports that we all desire. The Planning Commission has studied the state requirements and recommended development controls for Holman Field that respond to specific restrictions and concerns. Our so1ution to the issue will work. • � ' ► • � � ' � � • . • ► . . ,� „ �, , � ,, ,, ,f,,i��i��;��;r,,�,.,;�� , . qq�Jjlfl�i!�� i/�� ., �� i�%��,. �ir�,«,��/nN , ll lR��,� /' � �: /' �C� i � ��ii � ��J�i�il . ,��ItS�� 9��i ' r �n/�.. � �� '�r,. :ii � i Ii. :j,./�i, ��r i��/' � �%!�!' ��:� �1: �!�/L,:, ,. �� Y'' .��iJ�i��1i, ': .,i�l�ll/��I t'. ... ii�.r/r�li!i/�i�i�� , . // �� l�! i . �� n i ��1, ��t��?.. [.. � . . i , J.y G: r�ii, v•�: i li �, {p / t. ��'li�/r�//i�I��I 1� �i Ir �f � :. F q ��/illi%�� ri��//!�� ,;. �. . ,_ r p r I lif��<.� !i� �. '� � .e.' (�� i� // M;: i �f.'., � �r/ �� r .. I�: L, � %�iG;:''r:;'?�:j`'::;(.;qi":,�.� >;;X�", ;i;...::;;,. y'';!;�>:i/r,c'n'.;:�:;:�?u� itl�:,:,,:..: v,•.y.:: 9I �n�,�,,. :i�%'�lj�.��i:� :.h �,:1:,�.. :�1. :{,J�f}lr'_��;;.. �:�� •....1 �J� . . 1;�i:.. 'hr�..�:ti.�;J:.::.. �''{J•�.`t.¢:�:: . �{{+ ' )Ci:��! flfl.�;::ti{`:�;'.f ..},'r.., i' . �. {,f+�\?:�'�'%i'�� 1�}��J?}.�';Yir , {l ,} �.f.. .. �,. 1::::.. . . , t��3;> `��%<.vti''., . f•�::�::hr. .. {: n t "r�..:��..';:y<`.'�$. .ti. '{.f.,1.�ti..,:;�} ',�,,{.� �'�.'%..��„�,, � .�. ��1.r�ti':':�� •��f }•r�. f f .;u.�:��•:.��'so-. ��:::r �r�,-hf x ti<�:N'. '��r ;��;.::�:r,';;:;. ,tf,,� f�:::�::..... : 5..:v�_ {<y, f•:: ''';,y�,._,;..'rx' '•k1 }.��.;�.��rr „ri. '-.�:�.;,��:;�yr5::` r:r:.' tir�;x�k}.��'< .,�r{,. �r;Ff;:;:r: ti::�: r . r-..::�•' -ff'>:� ti•:Yf::- r'�::.,`;�;:r �r:�3t� ...�r..... . �':��r.h 1 C j�;, .:..::: :�:rlr}: �.�. rtS� ,?. ..'.ti�:::r: ''S' '.::{��:::{::�{.} �:h ., w::r.:. ..ff �:ti{4`}:�t`:i- ..1..{:i;•}}. �*{ ' v;:.;.•:: ..,. . " �::::;:::� ......rr...... r .}i}?}}:}}iY{{ � r'� '�..�r rr,;::-:i:4:•:�i}:...... ......,.....�r ::�1•'• �'':�'?�r .�Gr:.,. `4�.: . .............. +»:Y<��:�:irr:-5:•::ti,;:•. ..r.�:::::r' n:r#�:�:: 3c .�� ............... . . r:.r.. .titi :;::;f::;;:<::-::�::::�::::;:rr rr.�'•:fi..ti•�. ,�`.: :,�.�. . {��rr, ,, y;,rt>:: ;:;:'t;::�;�;ti�r:::..:.;� .�.; ,�1 :r��:�i�i:::J`r:�»:��>iii':i�iii::�i � ::��:�� ;�:��v: .t�;:�'�..............., .v,. �t 1:� ..F. ;:{ ..f.......1. :::�f�1�:•:;:•::.�:::::::::�::.:::�:.:• .v.vy. �. �n'. .$�'r �::Y� 3'}r}. r:...n.�r....., r' '. :.vti•tii?:: ..Y �'?-�:.. !.r.. ::.5... -;:4::':�� :`i•+' r.1�.�.,r;. ,i:.�;`: ::v�::::::::::: 'r.r:Xr.� r:::.r.:. . fis, ' l�^h.:;s;.�„r ;�.;�'r };.;{r;;:::::::;:r�...r:.�:r;:;{�}Y.�i»�::::::::::::. t,-::�:r��: �:::, `':i� :r..::. �.� :!•::�:�:�i':%�::•:::�;;:;:n -;.4,r �::;'v'�.�.}v}t, .K$'� :.l: pk� ,:r.r ....,. T . ,` .....,....::. . .,,;. .; p .......r.;;....... ...r}:..::..r{:::ii',. ..,+f ..lr:. . {" r .y'�.::}i'�::::::�::�}:�:::�i:::}'•}:• 1y�.r:3C:•�i:�'s� ''�S . ..vi?�:::..,,rlr:;r.r�r�:::::?:�Y.�i:�:'�i:{,ii:�i'r:r: }}'r;:{:::��i;�'{::r.htif�r �.fi� vfi. . `:�}};; ti.�,'.. ril�: � �}: �:�:��k'}�'t:�i::�:�}}:::;:�r . .�'�'r .}.�i.::��:. . {h1, {..:;{,;{�.;�,-:v::- ��:: r..�r.�.. ' �. r ..::...........ti: . r 4i. �.,� r �;�'.{ . ::�� .i n ;...,. ...,........ �` ,.. .r::::�.�, ..r ::::::::::::::::::.:�:::�: � ... ........ . .,1::. .�:::�;r: •:.{<-ii:� , r4�.i�::i..:4:v-. ' r�:::. .,f.:r:;�'?.}: ::�}::rii:i?�ii}i::{v:"-0:. ..Y.ti ;� 4�...�.ti ..f.}.+. �}'r:'?:i:�'�:f�::.ti7i:.;;:' .................... ..�....r. .�::}. ti..vi.. •::�::..: 't. 1. �;.r.'If.�:vr::.......�,s.,:ii}i:;:.y}ii::%:�i:4Y}}r.v... r....... ' �:��'�$�:ti�i:�i:�}}}}iyy,.ti:}:i�;�'� ... ::::::::::. , ., ,: ' f:l.4,::!�:::::::::v:•:?x � r::;....::;;::.}-:.}}?�:::::•}:.v{ry'^.."z�,,�,l.,.X:?�:.:::::..r. .,,{{.,t� .•:}:'� ....... .. ............,:.l;r r. r.::.�:::::::::::::::......}��J�.,�.�,r�.,.•�+ .;.�. .�.: . :.1?�S� . ;S$:�s:�>::��.... ��:: ,,.. .....1...::::::::::::.:..:.::.... ....... . ..::rr;��ti::� ....,... ......... .l.�. ..{.h�.��:��:•::::•>:<>z�>:>:�>::<>iy;.. ,� . :,•r•h.rr. •:f<<:�::�>:>:�::-::.::;:�:::�::. . �•rf�,::�::�:�>:.:<i�'ss':;;::.;..�: r x;r•�:�:- ':�i r.... . •::•}� i... . x?2�>�•��. ...:. .. .............:..:... ..............;?�::::•::<�::; .. rf�. . �... r t:�:t.. . r k'�.'ti ';:;:;t,,�, ,... .ti•::.�;::;:. :...{.;::� rr `. ..�.�:�::::..... �.::::f.:�'r'•}}?:;:ii;;'i'{>>:�$i:ti�5'{.;'.., f! ........... ..rh.ti .. ': ....r,{r..r.f�-:��?r.:}::;:'i}:$:��:::,�:::;:iii7: . } r.1.�"r: �r . . lti . :<��v� '�:f�U�: .................. ,.�:::::::... .......::...:�::::: r�:.};�.?i::::::�:.ti�,- . fi.. � � .:,5:•SS'v::�:�::::{.}i::•�.�:,r. �.,k::$$:�js::,.i;;:};:�i'{.i:........ .�:1�.:{i:v.t .y:{:r.Jn,'.�r....r.. r,f� � ,,y�'•:�/•} rrX�. ?:��Yk�:::�,tir?,. v,�,r� r.�. :�::,'}. � .1.:::::�}i:�i:v}:.':':i::;{:;::1;1:f.�:r�::::�.:v:::::..::::::r.. r.,f. . r................... � ... .....;�,-:::..: rr.Fr�r�•.�t•. ..,:Y':r:r..,{ . �,v� .�.}:::��:'�;:��•k+k•;}; . ............ .. .... .....1.;..,-... :?:::;;:... . . � frf•}?{i�};iii}i}:�::tir.}:. .. .. +�rri}::.}�::;.'.w:::{::.y. r::::.:�ii:'v:�i}i?}:�. ti . r f^'ff' . :;,�;;:;::::::::::::.1�: l k�.;. , � .�::......,,... :.}, w.,,h,ti .k�: 1�:�•�:��: r, �.�. . s�.�.4��:r� ..�`t.r �.,�• £, .�`. r.�....S:F � . r �: `-:-�;�":��.'•:�v� ,�. . r::s�s::.;�.;.;��..:::::�::.�:::�:�,� :->:k::�:�:�:'.. . k ��, .....r.,,.yr .........r. .. ......�:::•.N�::�...•,:;::»::::::�::.�:Sti:':•:r� ':a:: ...:: .,�' � ::.�•:::�.�.,�.. . h-.�i-+:::.:->:.<-o-::.. ..��.. ...'1,.,\.t:.;�., r ::::� r<�ti:;:;:�:.;:;:r.r,rr.r.; ....v:::r�::.:•::�::::::::. ;::�:: r..✓.f�>��r� �f�::r:�:.-:-:: . i.}' �:��:v;:?;:;;;, ¢;;;r Y:::v`.-::t��:-;:•r:ti'••�:� :::}.,. �ti�:ti�• .x.....,.�, �.,r;Y�l.. . },.. � . . .� ,> ,� .,�,:� .,r... v:. ....... ::r;�s. ..r� �r::;�>,<. � � ::::.:.,s:.::.� �....... �r.. rrh::v.:::r.::.;�;.:::::.:.�........�.., ..::::..::::::::. uv:::.:r�:. � .r��r�•:,� . :�,:}r;�;:;�,:::;:>.�:>:>:<�:,;:�:�>:�-. .�r:}� ..<, �t -iti�}� �ti :?.? •;:.��.' .r. :x:;}''f�:::�:`:`:-:`�':t��'}r.. . x.ti�. �''�.+�+::�':�:.t rr r�::.r:,,; ... ... ,�: �..... :�>::::��:: �::�:':<.::... .r.��:�z:.>:, r:;'i::Srw�frrr}.v- . .. �f. r...r..rn �.,,�, ...:�:::::..:::::::. .� ..�.. r �.�x.... . ;rv:,y�,,..`:C.;:;}.ti �.tr;.;:�ti,,1�� '�. .,K•...,t r-i.: r •:.}......1 �r.>.f. ::`v.'- �, �;,.�� ;2�.�r..::::::�.��.�:.�� :::;-.;;:.,�.�rf ; ,...;;.:�r+: ;.,�. . ..�:�'::�r-a�.f . ,�r '.;�r<::i�.�.i:�`y;2�s •`•��, . . ft,.,• .{:.. .s.t'rr .rS��•r: �:�•.� � r.�� .r^ti.. :•iY�::I.�::.�n�::}}.�,, , :,�:f;�:,i•'r,'�:::::�'y„1:;:{�;i::;:?,;rri tii'�X.::{•. .ti `r:.�,. . }i:f!•Y%.{:i}i: . �n{.: • {S%�k�. .'{�::h� �;?$:}\?:..... . �'`',:v'{::>:i-::'.;�{'},,�y{•.� i�}:?;,}}}:}{Y'r}ii[. 5....v. f f.... .:�r./f� rr��•:rr.......1::��.t...n � r.•�'.r...t.... ...t , �:rt�:::,.,-�;;�;.; .r.�a:�•::.,�.1 •:•� : ..,.. .,f.....�ry r.r.�.r ..��::��::•::�-;:�:>::::�;it's:�ss:.�.. . :��'A:,� ,,-�•. ::.{.:,,k� �:ti:•:.� � Y r;:.f;:r.;•.;•:r. .'.vh.:?•,z;:�::::�::-:::�::.1�: �:,?^:�:,,r,.,..t�r��.;�,.. ...,., 1 :::::-. +:::r::�;:.....,. �::••r,�-:+,�::�:r:�•�::::?�:':�:::-:i2�i;<�;>:r-' �:�}..�.. r� ' �v.;r,.. •�ti��y;.ti�i;::�:i:�-i�::t� ::::::.... r ". ,h��. ;�?ti`�k;>,�,a.f.r;.y�.��x•i,��' � ::�:�:�3r�:� ::;[tt;:::ti: ;ti�,1 �;tr, xt.:+:::::�:;i`h� :<;��::�>::: ..,... r.;>::>:.:;;.:.;r.::r:::r�:::::::::::::::::.�r• .�.. . ......................:�::. r..�.;,�:.:,: r f�.�:::.�::::::::::::.�:::::.:, ff :t:.:::�:�:�ti�i::..:;i�:'+.�::ti:v� : ::;<..o-.:.�:, .fi�;`s. t��f:ti< .��5:� :;;h.r.l,�r,;., ?J r'.i?;{�'.' .,;¢ r%�.kkr.�:;f...,�..r,. y.�•$:�f� .f:lr�:�,.. �� •{r;r{:; ' •.7.;t.;irv': {�.hti:�,�. r�.!. . r.'$sr, • fJ�'{'�1 {,, .'.�.ti^ \.v %}',�, .�'�:v:ii :;�:��{.} l.�.i?{C'i:�ii:{�:::�i':-:i:iii r �fr'r ��:��}ir- �fir •r��. 1 ,�}. . �:l . ..f...................�.�Ofv'. ,f�l.f C�'�. 'i�}i:+�}'id:'.:{{�?�'{,:}? F::�ir:i%:�.t`��:$�:;;}.....r..�:Y.�.;.. .�,�}. , ti }i:��:��:�i:?} 1 �:.f:�,::%r:�:r:;�:�>:�;;:�;:<-;>:<-:;-::�4./':�' .;-:{��'r'#` ��-r::�:�-�.:-:�::�:�:;::;: kt.;;r.tk�:��:>•:>:-::•:::-:�:- .4�. ',:;:�.,�`1.,^�,..;-.�Sr:�:i '•;n:`•:.�:k...:�ti•:�. «::1:;`rf,f. .,,;.:{� . n.,?frr r.. t�::n��.✓�,t;�:.t�.t�::::r� ?:::.;o-...r. .::,�,�}t;.{, {>.r ..:k:.,lti� };..:.�;:�:rfr'•�::��:-::;�::�i::-:�i�:;-5:::�:�::.,, 1.� . ;.�::::>.::>:•>:;'.;:;+ .ls.;..y,��:ti{:�:ti::,�:ti<?:t;'w�:;_..� .� :� `.x:fi:�,,�...�, .ti, :;.,.,.; . ,.�:.�.,. :��f�:�:r:�•:�.:;,;:.:,::w,, t;;��:� :4�v :�::::., ��., �.k•,� .��:� ::r•:::,; ........................:.r v � . �r :�r�.r.;;y.; r ...;x•.:::: � .ti•.^�:�•. :�:��.�•rx:•h,:r:: ;�:�:::�::-»:�;�',::�:. 4.�r ;..1: :;::}r�:v..�:�r:/, �::r� � K. �.r. .r�:::.�::::.......< '.��:s�;s;�:::�:�>:��::�i:z:�.,� •:�'c�.��'':�,� r'•i�"'r.��5::�i:�:�;[�Si2'�:i<�:':� ...�:-�:.v ��:r��.r�'•s;{:�:.; � � . '<k-: f`.�, f s' i�'Jir`'�j ..r:�'.'C�:r::,t�s�r:.:r:f�..�::f•1,r�� r: -} f- :',f:•.:.:�>::::�:> �1�:.�. ;rx;y`:,� t` . �}. �'�: � � � � � � � HOLMAN FIELD 6�� AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS �G l��56 � Alternatives Report � Staff Discussion Report � January 1981 � , � i � PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPPIENT � 25 WEST FOURTH STREET ST. PAUL, PIINNESOTA 55102 I � � i � � � 1 � 1 � ��y .. � � � ` 1 � I��F , '_'_ __.' --._..._ _ _. -_ � � '� _ _ . r--•--�-- ' �� _' ` ,.• ; RA I L RQ �, � ; , � ISLAND �'� — � . . � � � �.�\ ,�r _ R 1 � -' __ � � SPACE CTR. ��`� � STATE COMPLFX �� I - __ �____� CAPITOL DAYTON'S�---- -- --- -- --- __� . �� BLU F F ' ----- ---- -- ' �,J v __ ___ __ � � G ��,� � HUDSUN R� G �. * �, :. --- ,, •,.,� — -- �_-- � � LOWERTf1l.IN .��." `�'��.� �� --� _- ♦ h11NNESOTA � � % � '" ' ' r",. ��:-�--�.-. � MUTUAL B..N. � �' �,---��-�.� '�--- - -+ �I 1 , , � DEPOT � ��\� 1_ ✓�. i TOWN SOUARE ,� � — , . _ - ��. \• �/� I � E 1ST NAT'L , � � �-�� \NP�2N BAN K � � `� �` � � � \ '! / \ ``,-__� ��~�:�=�� RIVERVIEW �, � • � �O ` o ° '> >�. �/ i �, �� `�� `,�� • ,;%` �91 � � —� .. �. �� L 1 � � � �'� �� '� ';, �/ �� i�_ � �� '��'� ,Q � '� � -- � ' � � l� �� " 'S' • � .�'� ��, \� o / ,. N�✓ � ��, �� -_� � � �y �'� __ � � � � �:. �� \ � �-- 9 RUNWAY —\� i .__ � \�02 DOW1dTOW N no � - � AIRPQRT � j �, o � , • � \ `� �,p� GEORG ST. � � �' ., ,.o,� � ��.. � ( �� s _ - o �'�� .. � ��,.�o -- - -- 9�-�� ,. �-- -- - ST ��, ��- ., I, . WEST SIDE BLUFFS- _._ ___ �� ,`L �' � � - - - - --- � � � ' � Q - - - � � _ ---- - _ � � � _ �,� � � _ _ _ � � �, _ . .._ _ _ . , , t ANNAPO �f v ST.-_ _ . _. '�—_ . -� �-- �, �, �; _,``. \ �. •� � HOLh1AM FIELD: LOCATION \ � , �\ ��` � � � l 1 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS - ALTERNATIVES REPORT � I. INTRODUCTION The State Legislature has authorized the Metropolitan Airports Commission to � organize joint airport zoning boards to assist corranunities in dealing in airport- related development issues in areas surrounding the airports. A Joint Zoning Board is currently being established for each airport in the region, with � representation from each community affected by the airport in question and MAC. The purpose of the Joint Zoning Boards is to establish development controls for areas affected by airport operations and to recommend the controls to the � affected communities for inclusion in local zoning ordinances. Although the objectives and safety standards recorimended by the Federal and State governments would be respected, the controls should be tailored to the specific needs of � the MAC and communities involved. Rather than create another level of administration, MAC is encouraging communities to adopt and enforce the recommended controls in the local zoning ordinance. In addition to limitinq administrative levels in government, this will allow communities to apply local variance procedures jand other discretionary actions to development if necessary. Development controls and standards for Holman Field recommended to St. Paul � by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Plinnesota Department of Trans- portation (MnDOT) create a number of issues for the city. Generally, the recommended standards for areas surrounding the airport are very restrictive. The intensity � and density of new development permitted in these areas would be significantly less than could be accommodated and significantly less than what is envisioned in the city's redevelopment objectives. I This Alternatives Report describes the site-specific impacts of the recorimended standards and identifies a wide range of alternatives to the standards recommended by FAA and ��nDOT. It includes potential changes in numbers, lanc�uage, and maps � that are recorranended in the standards, as well as chanqes to the airport development program at Holman Field to avoid the issues identified. � It will serve as a basis for community discussion of recorrmendations the City of St. Paul should present to the Holman Field Joint Zoning Board for development control in the vicinity of the airport. The Joint Zoning Board will consider the city's recommended strategy and draft controls to be incorporated in the � zoning ordinances of the cormunities involved. The comriunities (in this case, St. Paul , West St. Paul and South St. Paul ) will then ar�end their ordinances following their own amendment procedures, and enforce the provisions. 1 1 [ � ` -,_ 1 ALTERNATIVE A: � ACCEPT STANDARDS RECOMMENDED BY MNDOT/FAA There is an obvious public interest in insuring that aircraft landing and taking � off are clear from obstructions that would har�per these activities; as well as from dense population centers in areas where accidents are more likely to occur. For this reason, land use controls on areas underneath runway flight paths are � imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the t�innesota Department of Transportation (P1nDOT). The airspace and ground space controlled for safety considerations surrounding the airports is three-dimensional in nature, consisting of several distinct surfaces. Generally, controls are most restrictive at the ends � of the runway and progressively lenient moving away from the airqort. � , LAND USE SAFETY ZONES � � The state regulations divide the ground area into Land Use Safety Zones A, 6, and C. Zone A is the area closest to the runway, where permitted uses are � the most limited. No structure or activity is permitted; only agriculture, parking and like uses are allowed. In Zone B, development is closely controlled and populations of people are � to be dispersed (average 15 people/acre). Applying state standards to these areas would limit population and development to industrial sites that would approximate Highland Park or Qattle Creek in comparable housing densities. � In Zone C, land use and population densities are allowed according to local wishes. However, electronic equipment ��rith the potential to distract pilots � is prohibited. These include radio transmittors, bright or flashing lights, etc. The fact that Holnan Field is extremely close to the St. Paul Central Business ' District requires that the Land Use Safety Zones extend over substantial amounts of land suitable for development or redevelopment. The impact of these land use controls on the affected areas surrounding the airport is significant, and � can only be measured in lost development potential . A description of these impacts is as follows. a. ZONE A. With the proposed runway layout, A Zones are applied thusly to , impacted areas: 1 ) Runway 12-30: 2,743' NIJ, SE , The NW Zone extends primarily over cleared NIAC-owned land and cleared land owned by the St. Paul Port Authority (est. 2� acres) in Riverview � Industrial Park. While much of Riverview is developed, the area covered by the A-Zone is zoned industrially, and would be considered marketable. This would be ane of the largest parcels remaining in Riverview. ' The SE zone segment extends over the Mississippi River, Barge Terminal #1 , and vacant land owned by the Metropolitan Waste Control Comnission. � It includes a portion of the main sewer collector to the Piq's Eye Treatment Plant. Approximately 15 acres is currently devoted to major terminal facilities and activities, including bulk storage of cement, asphalt and molasses products. , -2- , •- �� / �� ,i�I � " �� \�►�� . ► ��i■�■■i��,� �. 11/� � - ♦ ��a�►•� � �� .� ..,�-- , ■ J ,�� , �■ � ��`.`► ■ � , �1I�.��.... ■ ■�� . � � ♦ � - � �� ♦I �� ►�► ' �.� �.!� ♦�� ♦ ��i � • , ♦ ,� �/ �.� �� ►I �� ,� ,,,�� ; �, '�� .,.,� � � � . . - ��I��•.I .� � �- �� 1 ♦^� s � • 0,�1��j!�!�� % , � �� ♦��1��j�♦ `- � � I�� ` -�� D�►♦ ♦1♦ � ,,� , �� •1♦ � � �, ,� ♦��, �� . ��,�� , ��►�►�� . . �� _ � t. � ► � 1 � �►I,► I ; � �. � — r . ,. � I - • �� .. . . . • ' �� ■ � �,�, ��. ��■ ► ,�' �' \ ' �� • � .......�►.... `�,11 . . .� - �� i�■��■ ■ " IV��■��■ �, �� `�� • - ■�■ �. � . ►1 ■�1�� ,� ■�1��/ • ■■ ■�■ � � ■1��■ ■ ■ � ■i��■ ■�I ■ ■ � � ■1��I�� ■ �� \ ■��I � ■�� I ■��■ � i�� ► ■�■ ■��■ �� ■■ ■� � ■■ ■ � � -� �::■�..'is , . . , , , , . .,�, , : „ � � � � � �� : i � �� R nw -26: 2 433' E � 2) u ay o , The E segment extends over the River, Barge Terminal #1 (Port Authority} � and vacant land in the Pig's Eye headviaters owned by the City of St. Paul (proposed to be included in Pig's Eye Regional Park). The terminal is almost complete, and nonconforming structures do exist within the � zone. 3) 'A new runway, 14-32, is proposed, extending 6,700' in a NW-SE direction. � If implemented, the A Zones for Runway 16-34 would be abandoned with the old runway. A Zunes for runway 14-32 are 4,449' ��41; 4,449' SE _ approxim�tely 175 acres. , The PJW seqment extends over the Northport development area (26 acres), � the Mississippi River, and a 43 acre parcel of vacant land abandoned by various railroads. It extends from Warner Road to the Third Street � Bridge. The 43-acre parcel across the river will be bisected to reroute Warner � Road and develop a 15 acre passive riverfront park. Given its location and vistas, it is anticipated that this park will be used a great deal by city residents and visitors. Ten acres of the parcel (between the Third Street Bridge and the mainline railroad trackage) would be available � for industrial development. The SE segment extends over the Mississippi River, M41CC property at � the Pig's Eye Wastewater Treatment Plan and unused wetland west of Pic�'s Eye Lake. Most of the land will be left in its natural state as a portion of the proposed Pig's Eye Regional Park. � In total , the A Zones as proposed cover approximately 250 acres of land and water in the city. Of these, about 60 could be considered as land available for development had the Zones not been there. In addition, the � Zones cover significant areas where travel by car/truck, train, and barge takes place and where commercial port and barge fleeting activities are already common. Another 60 acres are presently vacant, but due to be improved � as passive recreational open space, with potentials of accommodating hundreds of people at a time. b• ZONE B. By far, the major impact of the 6-Zones would be that associated � with proposed Runway 14. � � � � -4- � � � 1 ) Runway 14 (proposed) The P�W segment includes about 105 acres of land prime for comnercial � and office development opportunity. This property, owned by a number of private concerns, is centered on the Space Center Complex at Seventh Street and Lafayette Road. It is currently characterized by vacant and underutilized warehousing, office uses, and abandoned and vacant � land. Its location adjacent to the Central Business District and its accessibility by road and rail make it a major development area; the last of such potential in the downtown area. Limits on the type and � densities of development required by auidelines of Zone 6 would be significantly less than what the area could accommodate and siqnificantly less than what is envisioned in the city's redevelopr�ent objectives. � 2) Runway 8-26: (E-4J) _ � This zone also has some impact on development plans. In the lJ segment, � the zone includes an existing urban residential neighborhood in the Lower Bluff area of the 6Jest Side. According to state guidelines, infill development and rehabilitation would be permitted. In the E I segment, the land in question is owned primarily by the Milwaukee Road Railroad, where company and city plans have identified a potential use for railroad operations. This would also be permitted by state � guidelines for a B Zone. In total , the B Zones cover about 360 acres of land in the city. About one-third of this acreage is impacted by development limits imposed on � the West Side and Eastern CBD areas. Both of these areas are already developed with uses and densities that do not conform; and both have potential to improve the economic stature of the city and its residents through ambitious � rehabilitation and infill development. �• ZONE C. The C Zone is extensive in St. Paul , but by its definition has � little impact on developr�ent potential . Limits imposed by the aviation guidelines are more "technological" in nature. The city should have no difficulty in implementing them in areas suagested by the C Zone. � 2• AIR SAFETY ZONES - HEIGHT LIP1ITS The City of St. Paul is severely impacted by required flight approach slopes 1 to the Holman Field runways. The airport is situated on one of the lowest sites in the city, requiring planes to clinb steeply into and out of the river valley. With this topography and downtown's proximity to the runways, development ' at more than minimal heights is precluded. For a city in the middle of ambitious efforts to rebuild an active, intense downtown and comfortable neighborhoods, such a situation is difficult at best. � Specific areas where height limitations ►rould have the most significant impacts are: � � -5- � � 'D"'�° � 3 r�� 1�P°' � �I�� `' a`� � � � � �� ` � �� , .E� , � � ,�,,� � N�� ` �� J� a s�.-^,� �� `� �� ' �� ;� �� .•�.;�,�' � � �� `A� � � �`'� ��'''♦i' �� ` � ��,�� ,� � �� ,� ��-O�`�� \ h � � 4 �� '�,��P �.:►;�. RF �+ '�'�''�°'��`�+�'`�'��1 ��!��• l � � '� ��'�� .,.� � �� 1��i� r �. �� -� ♦ r ; , � - � � - �,�.,�� *��' -� � � � � �' �� - � � � � �.�� ., , � �� qC�� '�°�d• L r �'� `��. ,, ,-.,,� , '� �� `� ,-f'"'�i, � � � � � � i I� � d� �l �� e �� \ �� ,� -� - � �. �� ,. � Q, ` ��, � ' �il � " �� , ��},' ` � � �'' � � � �� \, �i ,• _ � � �• • • ,, �� ' � � �� ..�' �� .e� � g " .�dE�� '�� i�� s�`+�� N �� ►��w �� . :� �� #�� `, ■� � �� ■■ ■:° � °� �� " ' �' , — � . �� ' ' � � :� , ..� . � � a. HORIZONTAL SURFACE. FAA's required 150' horizontal surface for a 10,000 radial distance from the airport extends significantly beyond the natural blufflines of three major bluffs to the SW, NI�J, and N of the airport. The two highest bluffs, Dayton's Bluff (N) and the 41est Side (S4l�, are � higher than 150' above the airport's official elevation. Significant portions -__ of these neighborhoods (est. population: 30,000) are "nonconforming". As a result, any type of neighborhood �improvements contemplated will be � questioned. New housing construction that is proposed in Railroad Island and the West Side will be very difficult to implement at a time when such housing is sorely needed. jHousing rehabilitation, utility replacement, street and sidewalk improvements, diseased tree replacement and other public and private efforts will require � MAC review and approval prior to implementation. These neighborhoods, being as old as they are, are foci of the city's neighbbrhood revitalization proaram. They are two areas where all of the city improvement programs are especially needed and being used. � ' The Horizontal Surface also extends over much of do�Nntown St. Paul . The Central Business District is situated on a plateau that generally slopes � from the State Capitol at its highest point to Kellogg Boulevard at its lowest. All of the land and major buildings in the Capitol Approach are considered obstructions. Included are the State Capitol , Historical Society, � State Office Buildinq, Capitol Square, Bethesda Hospital , TVI, St. Paul Cathedral , and most ironically, the State Transportation Building. Most of the ground elevation of the CBD is less than 150' above the airport, � but it is sufficiently high to limit building heights to 4-8 stories (deqending on site elevations) throuc�hout the entire downtown area. Again, these limits are much lower than what would be preferred by the city's , downtown development program, and than ►��hat presently exists. All of the existing major buildings in downtown are also considered obstructions. b• RUNWAY APPROACH ZONES. Approach to the E, 4J, and SE defined by 20:1 , 40:1 , , and �0:1 slopes on Runways 8-26, 30 and 32 respectively, are generally acceptable in that air traffic is oriented down the river corridor and away from highly developed areas. However, recommended NW approach zones 1 for Rurnvays 12 and 14 (40:1 slope) put constraining height limits on proposed development in the eastern half of downtown. , The Runway 12 approach zone overflys the Lowertown Redevelopment Area. Building height limits would be severe along the riverfront, where high- rise, high-density residential buildings are anticipated. Althouqh the approach zone rises in a NW direction, so does the topography. It is estimated � that buildinc�s could rarely be hiaher than eight stories. The Runway 14 (proposed) approach zone u�lould overfly the East CBD area 1 discussed in paragraph 2.a. above. This area has significant potential for a mixture of high density office/corr�nercial and manufacturing activities. Anticipated heights are unknown. Ground elevations would preclude �uch � development over seven-eic�ht stories. However, development densities that would be permitted in the A and B Land Use Safety Zones are too low to worry about the issues of height in these areas. If density is not to � be perr.iitted, develop�ent ��vill not reach the height limitations . � -7- � This alternative puts severe restrictions on development potential in downtown � St. Paul and areas adjacent to the airport. In total , the recommended standards affect about 500 acres with tightly restricted development controls. In addition, the city is concerned about previous development in all the Land Use � and Height Safety Zones surrounding Holman Field. In almost all of the zones, development has taken place which does not conform to the recommended provisions of airport zoning. Almost all of the West Side and Downtown and a significant ' portion of the Railroad Island and Dayton's Bluff neighborhoods do not conform to one standard or another. It is clear that too much development that is too close to the runways present j hazards that cannot be overcome by creativity in building design or airport/pilot operations. The airport must remain safe; likewise neighbors should not expect to carry on their activities in the vicinity of the airpoht without inconvenience � or controls. The practicalities of retrofitting the common standards to a built environment may require a re-evaluation of what safety standards should be at this particular airport. � ' � � � � i 1 � [ 1 i _8_ � � 2`�6956 � ALTERNATIVE Bt P�ODIFY LAND USE SAFETY ZONES A AND B, RUNWAY 14 , The major issue concerning the city is the extent of the safety zones that cover the area east of Gillette Company and the Space Center complex. Development potential is lost to the A-Zone south of East Third Street and to the B-Zone north of East ' Seventh Street. ALTERNATIVE B.1 . Shorten the A and a Zones by shortening the proposed landing � area on the runway itself. � In effect, this would require planes to land and take off 2/3 of the way down the runway. � There is a precedent for this approach that is already in effect on runway 12-30. By shortening the usable length of the runway, the end of the runway itself becomes � an integral part of the safety zones, and the zones would, therefore, not extend so far from the airport. This procedure would enable development on the most valuable � pieces of land across the river in the vicinity of the Space Center. � A major disadvantage of this approach is that it defeats the purpose of a longer rumvay. ldithout a full runway � length, there is no point in building a new one: there 1 would be little additional flexibility to accommodate aircraft �Nith heavier payloads or in periods of difficult weather conditions. � ALTERNATIVE B.2. Apply the standards of the existin� (smaller) safety _zones for runway 12-30 to the new runway._ � This proposal is based on an assumption that the new runway will accomnodate the sar�e planes as currently use runway 12-30, where the safety zones are narrower, shorter and generally � smaller. Continuity would seem to indicate that the smaller zones could be applied to the new runway as well , thereby enabling additional development to occur in the ' favored areas. The basic assumption that the same planes would use the new runway is only partially true. L�Jhile larger planes � are not envisioned, it is evident that a longer runway is needed to accommodate more traffic, existing traffic with heavier payloads and existing traffic in periods 1 of poor weather conditions. The longer runway, with its more sophisticated instrumentation, would require air traffic to utilize different landing patterns and approaches to the airport. These approaches , in conjunction I � with a longer run►��ay and heavier, lower traffic, would dictate larger safety zones. � � -9- �� .�- � --� � __ ___ _ ___ __ � � r z �.--.d:�.l� , , _ .�..��; _ , � 1 � �� .��r -- � _ i_ __ ` � � ---- �B� - - I ; � I � � �,� v --- --- --� B •�, HUDSON R� . . �'G �;:�, --- � �� A: -� \ 1 , '/� ,'"` �--- -} � 1 � ,� � �`��.;' , `'� ♦ , -�, ��-., E , - �q� ; �,,�� P(�N � ♦ � � ♦ ♦ -�. � � r.� , ; -.___ �.:�\�;N \\ �� ,� � \ - ,, \ � � � �� ` �� ^�� i �l � � �` �� '' �'' 9��,, � � 9`�� )` \\� ��, 1\\ � __ cP��, � J�� , , �� _ _;� � �� \ \ � s�. _ _-� �� , — -;;:----��1 �'-, pOWJdTOW N � - AIRPQRT � �� , ��, GEORG ST. � �'� „ � � �� ,. i o � ,. ,,, ,, - �-- S T� `;. , � w - . , ; � Q - �_ � � �� l g — �� . �� ,, . A N NA PO �f ST. -_ ___�_ — �\ -- -—�-.- ` ' ' � �. �� , _�- �, ,, , ,, r ALTERNATIVE B.1 : SHORTEN RUNWAY USE: RUNWAY 14-32 �� '� \� \,' � ' -10- � � � �� '�� " ��\�� • � �'�� . �r1� t - � �...��.....� � '` :� •�� ■ J , � , � ■ �� ■ ■ . `�� ■ ■�!� '� � ♦ ! . �� ♦ �.. ►� �.. . �:%� ��'� � � ♦ ��. '� . � . ♦ .. ♦ �/��. ,�. �� . ��►� �.�i� •�-�1%/ � �� _ , • - ��I��•.� �- �� ♦�� • ; � 0,�1��j!�!�� - ; �: I�j� ♦��1��j�♦ `� � = �_ I�� ♦�,� ♦�� : � �� ♦ �� , • .� . ��♦ �� .- 7/ . �,�.,��,,�� r , ��', .�--.%�� ' --�. � � � � � � � �►I,► { ; -- - liiii ♦ r . .. , � � :•, �� ♦ . �:■ \ ��■ . �� . . i►��■ 1 ��r - - �i■�� . „ - � ��■ ,,.'� /�1� ■�■ ., �� ■�I��r �. . ■�1�� • ■■ ■�■ ■:� ■1��■ ■ ■1��■ ■�I�■ ■ � ■1�■ ■I�� ■ �� , ■��I �� I ■��■ � ■�� ► ■�■ ■��■ �� ■■ ■� ' ■■ ■ � � -• �i.....? , . , ; , . . . , , � � � �� . , , , ALTERNATIVE B.3. Redefine allowed land uses and densities in the A and B Zones � to accomnodate more intense development. The types and densities of land uses permitted in the zones might be rewritten to permit some that are not permitted in � the recommended restrictions. To permit preferred development in the affected areas would generally require the following changes in the state's recommended rules. � a. Zone A - As currently proposed, Zone A would restrict land uses to non-structural ones (e.g. , aqricultural , horticulture, � wildlife habitat, non-spectator recreation, surface parking, cemeteries, etc. ). It is intended that no structural hazards, nor assemblies of people be permitted. , ,Development of any kind in this Zone would require that the standards be rewritten to aliow for structures, and assemblies of people. In reality, the development � potential of the sites in question is limited by policy and physical capacities of the sites. Limits can be imposed by permitting only certain types of � development where employment densities may be lower (e.g. , manufacturing). Structural hazards can be minimized with minimum site standards or building area ratios. In effect, the zone could be "liberalized" � by adopting uses presentl;r permitted in B-Zones. b. Zone B - The present standards for Zone B address , the concerns outlined for Zone A above. In this zone, development is permitted, but only at densities that minimize site population and maximize open space between � developments. Althouc�h the standards vary depending on parcel size, maximum development allowed approximately 15 people per acre and a building area ratio of 8:1 (that is , 1/8 of the site's area can be devoted to � building). This ratio gets smaller on smaller parcels. In order for development in Zone B to be realized , at the levels preferred for the Space Center and East CBD area, densities allowed by these standards would have to be tripled or quadrupled. The implications of redefining permitted uses or densities � are difficult to assess. Althou�h air accidents are rare, national statistics confirm that almost 3/4 of � air crashes occur in close enough proximity to airports to be covered by these zones. "Clear Zones" at the end of runways are appropriate, and densities should be allowed , to increase progressively further from the runway. At the irrmediate ends of the existing and proposed runways, airport property and the Mississippi River partially perform the necessary clear zone function (except at , runway 8-Eas t). ' -12- � . �� i �� . ��/ I',� �\_\� \ 1�� ' ��-� � �` �� .,� � \ ■ J , , -■ , ♦I��?:�'�i►� ■ ■ / � ��i.�...... ■ .■! . � � � ! . 4� ♦♦ �.�. ►�► �.� � � �� I ♦ ��i � • . � � �/ �� , ��I �� •�•��i ; �, _ �� :�� . . ��I��•. �►- �� 1 �►'��• , � • o;�� .� ��`� �1�� `�.► �,� ��1 ♦�,� ♦�� ♦ ♦ .� . �� ♦♦ 7/ . �I ��i�i►!�� . �.��.��►/•, :�!-��-' � '� -�.. � � � � �►� / � , � . �_ _ �► . �. � :•, ' �� ♦ . �� - �ii■ `� 4,�., `�� ■ • 1�= � �.■■��.. 1' �. A . � � � . . �i��■ � � IV��■ �,��♦ �/�� ■�■ c�� ■�I��r �.. ■�1��/ • ■■ ■■■ ■1��■��■ ■ ■i - �1�,��■ ■ ■/�� ■ �� , ■��■�/ � � ■��■� I ■��■ / ■�� ► ■�■ ■��■ �� i�� ■■ ■�� ■■ ■ ' ' '• �� , „ . . � . . , , � . � � � � � � �' � � : � �� ' t ALTERNATIVE B.4. Redefine the boundaries of the zones to allow for ex ected development at identified sites. , This alternative would leave the proposed zones intact, except for areas where development might occur in Zone a � that can legitimately be "written out" of the zone. It is the area north of Seventh Street that presents � a major development opportunity, and it is also realistic that Zone B in the Space Center area be shortened to stop at East Seventh Street. From an o erational standpoint, a plane going down in � p that vicinity wouldn't make it over the Third Street and/or Seventh Street bridges anyway. If� the plane were high � enough to clear the bridges, it would land outside the recommended safety zones. It appears that the relatively small area north of Seventh Street is not that necessary � to the zones, and yet quite necessary for the city's development plans. The B Zone associated with Runway 8 also includes a portion � of the Concord Terrace neighborhood in the vicinity of lower Robert Street. Ideally, this area can be classified as an "Established Residential Neighborhood in Built Up � Areas", as provided for in state standards. The A and B Zone restrictions do not apply in these areas, provided they are specifically located and legally described in � the Airport Zoning Ordinance. � , � � � 1 � ' ' -14- , �" .- �� ,■�� / �� i�� ' �- ��`�� '��►� � 1�� _� , tr �� ♦�♦ .. . ■ -� � ■ .� ♦1��T■..'�i►\ ■ ■ � , ��i.�....� .R�� , � � ■ ! , �� ♦s .... ►'�► �.. �� ♦�� I ♦ ��i � . � . � �■ ♦ �/�►�. �► .//��, , ��►� '��, �� ' � � r • • � � ��I��•.� ♦♦ ♦�� 1 �+'� �• �. ��1��.� � ,� �`�. ,�,\ ��I�•-��j�� .► ;� ��♦ ��1��11�� %� �� D►��' 1�1�� ♦ . ��♦ '``�/ , �I '��s�i�� , ��.��►/., �:�!-�� -� .�''' '► ,� . � �►�,, � ; � _ _ ♦ r , .. � - . ,., �� ♦ " _� . - . i►,. ' � � ��■ ,/�;i•_�,� �� ■ ► / �� .....r .� �1 �._ .A . � ��■ � � � ��■ ,,�� I,1� ■�■ �� ■�1��■ ■�r �. . ■�1��_�� • ■■ ■�■ � ■1��1�■ ■ � ■1��■ ■�i�■ ■ - ■I��/��H ■ �� ■��I � = j� � � ■��■ � ■ � � ► ■�■ ■��■ �� ii ■ . . -• �'_ : . , : , . , • � �� . � �� ' _ 1 : 1 1 1' �� ; � � � � : 1' 111 � ALTERNATIVE C: MODIFY AIR SAFETY ZONES (DOWNTOWN HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS) t In conjunction with (but not substituticig for) Alternative B, it is advisable to , consider modifications to building height restrictions recorimended over downtown St. Paul . ALTERNATIVE C.1 . A�ust the recommended approach slopes to runways 12 and 14 t to allow for steeper approaches and h�gher development under the slopes. The central concept behind alternative solutions to the � downtown issues is that a well-defined approach corridor to the existing runway must be maintained. By previous � design or just plain luck, the corridor is defined now by three very tall buildings on the edge of the corridor: lst National Bank, P�innesota Mutual (under construction) � and the Burlington Northern Building. These shadow one another, and in effect form a SE-NW wall that edges the approach corridor. The approach corridor itself can be established at alternative slopes, rangin,� from the existing � 40:1 (state standards--very low approaches) , to 20:1 (federal standards--steeper approaches). Since the approach slope directly overflies Lowertown, the steepest approach , slope to allow for highest development in that area, 20:1 would be about the best. This would help Lowertown to a certain deqree. Naturally, the areas of Lowertown closest to the river (and runway) would still be affected � most severely. However, this proposal would make develop- ment in the northern half of Lowertown a great deal easier. ALTERNATIVE C.2. Replace the Horizontal Surface with height limits that respond , to terrain and/or shadows created by ex�sting development. � a. Raise the Horizontal Surface by 50 feet (or 100 feet , or 200 feet). To do this would solve almost all problems of residential � development in the West Side, Dayton' s Bluff and Hic�hwood neighborhoods (the higher the surface is raised, the less significant the problem is). However, it would � subject many parts of the airport environs to development potential that is unnecessarily high. Also, this would not allow for preferred development heights in downtown , St. Paul . In downtown, the height ceiling would have to be significantly higher. b. Development to be limited to 40 feet above the ground. � Rather than rely on a flat horizontal surface that extends 1q,000 feet from the airport in all directions � (at a constant elevation above the airport) to control heights, it is advisable to tailor the height limits surrounding the airport to the existing surface elevations � and development. -16- � ♦ � �— , - ��1.�-,.r; �----� ♦ --� � �� , , � � � ♦ `• ♦ •,� `., �,, ti �'l'�` - � , I � � — ----- ♦ � ------ -� � I � � -- -- � , . J� , � ��1v HUDSON R�— � .�� — ' � J�' _-- i � .�` � 1 � '�-� ` -+_ _l � � � �� _�� , , , � � �,` � E �P N �� R i � '' ''�,`. ' \ �� \ �� \ �,. . �� ,� � �9� �� j�ti � •��, �\ , � 9tS�� J�� ` \� � 9� �.�� \\ � ,�� `5�,---- . , �� `,:. I ---. , � � � �.�. � I ' DOWIVTOW N ,� AI R PQRT . , GEORG ST � :`. � � ,. � ,. .. „ ST " � � �� ' w � Q - �� l � �~� U � � - �� ANNAPO �f ST. __�� '� ,; �,. , — _ \;;: . \`�-�� , ALTERNATIVE C.1 : ADJUST APPROACH SLOPES \'� � FROM 40:1 to 20:1 '� , \ ,\� 1 ,�,,. � � , j _,�_ , :: r. �� N �//�1 �I�� w � --- �� . I��, �,- � � ��,�� ` , �/,' ��___ � �� =� ..,�-_ , , .� ��` � , � , ♦, �� , I� � � ' � �.�, ' �� •,,,�� I- ,� ; ► �� • � �� t�� :/� �� , . : �� ` ♦ . � � ♦ . .��. � ��.. ♦ 1� , 1�� ''. •1 •` ::-'�� • `' �_ r • - � ♦ , ` � �.;� , � r��i� . ♦ , . � f • p�� .�.� . , �• �� 1r♦ �� • ;. ��1 .', �* ` �. f � , � � �'.. r�. y� �1y / '• •' � . � ♦ �+ � � �.: '!� '• \ ► ♦ � �::�� • �� , �►I • � .. ,, ► �•�� .� •, �� I ` � �' � � \ � � . �� .� I � � � . � � / .• � ' � � ,� .• ♦ ��1 . / � i � � � �i�■ ��■ ► ,�� \ �. . � ■�■ 1 ��' `■ . - -e - I`��iil��■�■ ,,I�� I� • ' ■�■ �►�� ■�1�� . . ■�1��/ • ■■ ■�■ ■1��■��■ ■ ■i �i�� _ �� \ - ■/�■ ■ ��I � ■�\� � � ■�� I ■��■ � ■�� ► ��■ ■��■ �� ■ � � `• �i �iii � � � �� : � � � : � � , ,� , . .�. , Such an alternative would allow for almost all single , family and other residential development in the affected residential areas, but would do little for downtown. Building taller than 40 feet could be subject to �� variance. c. Allow for building heights in downtown that are a ' function of the distance and direction of the site in question from the runway. ' Aside from definitive approach slopes to runways 12 and 14 (see Par. C.1 . above), the remainder of downtown is shadowed by the three tall buildings described earlier. Using these buildings as the basis for allowable ' heights, it is possible to define a series of "step zones" that would allow for proclressively higher development in a general northwest direction from the Burlington � Northern Building. This would insure that the highest development takes place farthest from the runway. The steps are in 50 foot increments above the airport , elevation, so that at Block 26 (for example) , development might be up to 400 feet higher than would be permitted now. By contrast, the increased heights at Block L, which is closer to the airport, could only be 100 feet (as , high as the standard set by the existing Burlington Northern Building located between Block L and the runway). , The end result is a complicated map, including a steeper slope leading directly to the runway, and a "terrace" of distinct plateaus over downtown; the lowest � one between the river and Kellogg Boulevard; the middle one north and east of the Burlington fJorthern Building; the highest one north and east of Town Square. � Alternatives exist for alignments and heights of these zones. ' These combinations would generally allow development of 300-400 foot structures west of Robert and north of Fourth Street. Development in Lowertown would be somewhat less, especially closer to the river. t For example, this alternative would allow for 11 stories at the Union Depot (versus five under the existing standards). 1 t � 1 I -19- � , ALTERNATIVE D: , USE FEDERAL STANDARDS i ized b the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for land , Standards ut 1 y use and height controls are significantly less restrictive than those recormnended by MnDOT. l�ith one major exception, utilizing them would allow ' significant development in the Eastern CBO, Lowertown and Riverview. For example, in land use control , the FAA requires only a 1 ,000 foot cleared ' zone at the end of the runways. For runways 12 and 14, this would not extend beyond the Mississippi River, the eastern CBD area at all . Likewise, the areas affected in Riverview for these runways and runway 8 would be � much smaller. ` Also, the FAA utilizes the steeper (20:1 ) approach slopes, which would allow for extra building height under the runway approaches. � The major exception to generally favorable standards is the FAA's horizontal surface for height control , within a 10,000 foot radius of the airport. ' As described earlier, this puts the most severe limits on the West Side and Dayton's Bluff blufftops and downtown St. Paul . , , � � , ! � 1 t i _20_ � , ALTERNATIVE E: `NO NEW RUNWAY - APPLY STANDARDS TO EXISTING RUNWAY (12-30) ONLY ' Recomnending that a ne�v runway not be developed would have the following � impacts on safety zones and development potentials: Land use safety zones would not be necessary in the East CBD/Space Center area, thereby maximizing development potential there, but ' Proposed height restrictions in downtown and the neighborhoods would not be affected. ' An additional impact of this alternative is the loss of the new runway. Generally, a longer, reoriented primary runway is more appropriate for the � type of aircraft using the airport. As analyzed i,n the September 1978 Environmental Impact Assessment Report for this proposal , the impact of a "no-build" alternative on the function of the airport would be to continue to operate the facility "as is". This would require doing without longer� ' take off and landing areas, improved approach and departure zones , or install�rt: �c�i� of instrument landing and visual landing aids. These facilities would enhance the operational reliability and safety of the airport, especially 1 in periods of inclement weather. The ability of Holman Field to operate in a reliable, safe and efficient ' manner has spin-off impacts on the capacity of the metropolitan system of airports and ultimately on region's and city's economy. Using the Metro- politan Development Guide (1978) as the major statement of a regional Airport System Plan, it is clear that Holman Field plays a distinct role in the , entire system of airports. The improvements called for will insure that Holman Field remains the region's "Number 2" airport, accorrp�odating most of the region's corporate air traffic and an increasing percentage of � other private and recreational traffic. It would also remain the main reliever to Wold Chamberlain Field for smaller planes in case of emergency closings. This role depends on the runway and equipment proposed. It is the basis for determining how many �nd what kind of aircraft can be accommodated, � and how that traffic can be safely and efficiently separated from other types of aircraft using different airports for different reasons. Changing I�olman's role in this system will affect all the other fields. � The economic impact of Holman Field and/or the entire airport system on St. Paul is extremely difficult to assess. Aside from er�ployment opportunities � and taxes generated by the airport and associated industries it is difficult to measure how much economic activity is "spun off" from airport operations or from businesses relying on Holman Field. Likewise, it is hard to determine the economic impact on St. Paul if a local company , uses another airport for all or part of its fleet operations. Nevertheless, all of the major corporations and many secondary corporations � that are headquartered in the Twin Cities own general aviation aircraft that are based in the region. Business use of general aviation (including flight instruction) represented almost 90% of total aircraft operations in the ' region (1976) and accounted for 2,000,000 passengers, or almost 1/4 ofi all the passengers using the region's airports (1976). Approximately 10% of this traffic was associated with Holman Field. Althouc�h an overall estimate of the impact of general aviation operations on the regional economy � has never been made, the Metropolitan Council estimates it is in the hundr,ed� of millions of dollars annually. � L�- , ALTERNATIVE F: ' CLOSE THE AIRPORT Closing Holman Field would obviously create the largest irrp�ediate development potential � for St. Paul . There would be no safety zones, nor height restrictions to limit development potential . Likewise, a portion of the airport property itself could be developed. This represents almost 750 acres which would be available for maximum , development potential (250 acres at the airport; 500 presently developable acres adversely affected by safety zones). However, this must be weighed against the cost of a lost airport. This is more ' of a regional issue than local one, but it is clear that the City of St. Paul benefits from the airport at this location, and would suffer were it not in the city. , ,There are three basic negative impacts associated with this alternative, all reinforced by one another: a. Regional Economy: Except for downtown ��linneapolis and downtown St. Paul , , the system of airports in the metropolitan area generates more spin-off economic benefits in the region than any other geographic area or functional activity. In its airport system plan,the Metropolit�n Council estimates � that aviation-related jobs, passengers, cargos and industries contribute almost one billion dollars annually to the metropolitan economy. The ability of the airport system to contribute to the accessibility ' of our residents and businesses to international markets (and therefore, to the economic growth of our region) is dependent on the airports' � functional capacity. That is, the system must be organized and operated at maximum levels of efficiency and safety. Congestion, inconvenience, safety hazards and environmental disruption all work against the airport system's ability to contribute to regional economies. � A hierarchy of air fields that are developed and operated with an intent to satisfy d�mands on air traffic and organized into manageable and � safe segments allows for maximum functional capacity of the region's airports. Holman Field plays a unique and necessary role. b. Airport Systems: Holman Field is one of two secondary airports identified � in the Metro Airports System. The other, Anoka County Airport, nas recently been subjected to orders from the State Legislature that would prevent it from being upgraded to secondary status. Without both of these airports ' operating at full secondary capacity, much of the existing and projected traffic using them (estimated 325,000 operations in 1976) would be diverted to Wold Chamberlain. This would severely add to the congestion and ' hazard levels that exists there. � � � -22- � � c. Costs: The costs of closing and/or relocating Holman Field make this t alternative difficult to implement. The Metropolitan Airports Commission estimates an existing investment of $ in Holman Field. The space and operational requirements of secondary airports are such ' that Holman's function as a secondary airport cannot be transferred to one of the minor airports in the region. 4Jith the exception of Anoka County, none of the existing minor facilities appear to have the , combination of correct space, layout, and accessibility, nor the potential to expand or be upgraded to operate as an intermediate airport. The Metropolitan Council has identified two search areas in the region ' for new minor airports needed to meet projected general aviation demands to the year 2000. While the two areas (west-central Hennepin County and southern Dakota County) meet the generalized criteria for an airport, ' t��e criteria are based on the need for minor airports _to com lement the existing system. Relocating Holman would require an intermediate level airport to replace a major component of the system. The needs , , locational criteria and overall costs of preparing such a facility would be much more comprehensive. As a means of comparison, the Metro Council estimates that site acyuisitiori arid developmer�t of the tw� minor• airpor�;s wuul d exceecl $155 iiri i I i uri (1977 $)� � ' , ' � ' � ' � � � -23- � �� j I r� o' � � 1 � �� i ��. ..�._. �� . . '" �-.ArA�av ;El�� -• � � �� ,�•��n� �� ' _1 �` 1L_ ' .1� _ ti � � ,3- ' kti .......y �i ri�: � �'. 'i �_ r-Y' 'I i 9il � `„"- � wv._' � A ,. . � � �� , , bs� �1� �i �4��,.� �� , �f �� ;��—,-� :� _ ,_� - , 1 ,1 � �,, l��- ,� ! 1� � _ 7f'li��,p �ark':�h� ; � �� . � , ��, �� ,�'::s. �,. � li � � ��?l�� ,'- �, 4 - ,. , . . n__ �, � : , � . ;_�);' � � o-. t' /-�� / { i � .. . . � �. 1�ki4rwer��f L h ��.�f�� {, � � � + �� t�1.�,al t �� ` ' , � .. � 'S, � . I, � �.1MiNf � t T�. j � .l�y � t �.1�i �t �i ��.:>,�i � �t �'��f-- ' 1� �-'.. xs`�r��{' • \j �;j' i � 0 � jii'�17r�t1N��ISch�� R��e w � ' _-�`�� ( Por� ��h�,�; W I� �l � 1� �„ c i D.. ;l ��I \. I'�t� ��i) 1..— . t � { 4�i 1. � 4i � ) I' f, f , . n t �'. •� ,rj iI �..1 ';i.f : . . �'�� V�� L ��,� �� 1ti;�� I� ;.�� iio'� u� i�._�� . -.'� J�` � ,! ��'�� . ` �ark� ..0 � 'y�' �� r. ,�` �� ? ��'�� ii� i�' �� l'I��Nl,��'�)' � �� ,'� �� '� �� 1 h� � �" � � ; � p � � � �� , � � 1 �� ,.�r,, . .. ' ' \�. ' �1 p�, ' . 1 � �` ' I ( i. � �� .. r r � lt. i� � � . �1 ��1 i �.R �� 17t'{`4�f1 �c1 fi ' , b' ' , p � . ,� �� ,�t � �� .i �rP ,.;� � 0 �)""�"��.� - � � �� 1: ..l'��' i "tl ��47f�J�� i�� - � ) .�.�ql 1; J 5 . !i '. i I) iif� ��i`��i � S. lffrl� .� C7J.�. ��r� �=�3' I�� -��r � � .�� .� r.,'� ag � G ��., �H i5 —4 � .r ,n,,� C + '.�� 1� �� , I �� ( � �r � � . ) .� r . `If � �'�,� ;111 � a� /J ,..� � � � . � i , i � '� 4 � � �� ' � '� � � j � - '� t _ .. �� I�� i � '. II �i�1 �. t�I � }s J; \ 4pN i M � �.� r. � } �� -� , t. t " i :� ' � . 4 f',,�I� � 3� 1 '�i�f � � /� . � ��-._ n '1, <_� �,��. �nhnb�mlli�.f�i�'�hMEti �� i _ '1 ' f] �r � . v a�� ;n i +�( t ,� � �--, ;: �+, ,� ?�\_�+ a; -�` �_`It� �� t 1'� ;j ' � = a r '� ',�",1'� � ��^��tc.!:-.' 7$ �I a;i_�1. �..�.�._..R �c::trl�l��r..l � �y� \�; � Si�� .I�� .i . )� i� � ��/ ,. . A ,��. '�::� ..�f�M{i � . , . :, .i "_._.�. ' � � (✓/,. � + � l, Y �.� - ;�'`�. \ j �� '� � f.`�'. � �i � r,�'�� ^ �a (� �� r''"� � _ • i e / ' _ .i ;�� CS".7'17�L►� "�°�'�: ,�'�1 w t„�, •,t �r -{._L•-• �,,...1 r �.. '� .� r�i� .i ��1��1f1� ��.}t � �� . , , I ��, J 4 ' �. � �1 I � ' .. • - � � (:i� , y �/:1'�V� E'A� � 1 �1 , � I1. � ' 1 � ��\ 1i �, ,r= � � (� I �� ; � ' � - f ,� «•, ' . � , ' �� 1; ' �, C ' � .ii r'i • � �� .,.�__ ...,._ ,. . _.,,a..:, ..:.�...�.., �.�r�"w�� -. �,� . � , � ^�1{ �r �� ;; ) c ti -..... _ . . _... t ...�,_. .�, ,. ., 1 �� \ r.� �. � �, � �' � - � 1 `�� L �� '� ,� r,` u ., :I,��•y . �1� �� ,` {, �� j - •�` � � r . ;-� � �, i � �.inctitk+'s�� ,,v� � . ; , 4'_:. �``�' � B/4 t' ' .. 54' . 1►L .. � i �, . �y . �•«. i� �� ,'� , I�� ' � r rf�� . rw,� t t ,' .i �. : � � . , � �. -R .... �. � ��+',i��T� � , . �A� u,Pr ' �� ' . _l;. K�� 1 ��.. � � � ' t � �� . f , � � . . , ��„�,} , � ; .� ,. �4; a � \ I f. � �� '� d�`� � • �' f � i' �„ i � . � 1� a .'. 'J � .'� . I I � .l, '�. � '\ �� ,.,5 Il7u'd C' {�fKh �.rll , , • J _ _ . _, �� JJ. � ' f,. ��; .�� I� t I'I � �1� j:.. '�`�'2 .iQi h Iv i�p) . � � ' - �._ - . . ' � _ __..��r?T }'1111M �l '�"I � i\�..'!'.,4+, ��, � ,�,,�'�nliih� nti�h � 1 ' � � `� ,, � ��,.. �\��„ ��. " �,, �� . �'; � �,� '1' - ' I' �l �.r� �L � � ' � -- ��, �� `;� .�. , . , �� '�,. � , ,,� �� ,. � r�� i ,1�, ;�� , .;� . �. .Y , �� i' _ '�`',r' _ . , ` . ��`�� r--•.� , . '\ � �/�� y �,,��. f ��,�., . ._ .�� '., 1 " \ /(4��.v .,,,�,-,..�"_-1."' 7 L Y\ �,,~ ^ t.. ��\��•,\�w ,,a, •+�w,r�.�.,,w-F:weqa�.Mr.w .......w....�.�i-.�.r .aE��. ..:�,. rm:ro�a�V°��:'-"�W�....t�.. .::'s x.- 1 ��. M"�Y id,�d�' � � '�,� �. � ��. . '� ��c�, �'� �'�birf"� � . � . ' 1 ' .�, � ' . . � ?'". �a�,� ' '"; � � } � �< <.!'�inur.�� ,'rik�E'�h •� � '��. . !�i�j� /�'s�� 'rY„� 'p+,� i . � �� ,� , .! � i � � � �V '�� . � �� f^5�� ►. a ,�,_�,+ �,,, � ', _ . .. . . r�f � �'yr a r ��+ � \ .� i �}' +� a . �' . 1 ' ( ; } .., �,�, - -v- T�'."jX`: ��,� .�' •µ,A ,.� t'.. Y4�.�ci 1 I�)"�r�l ' . f .� ..Muni6ipd ( `.L, . � .` I\�.�� 1. \�`�� t � - � i,r� � ,��11� � �� ,'�.�. '�, j� Furetit 1 "",•� . ii i �� . , .��.. . :�d�� .,� � ( . , � f ; R � � ; ��` -1� E te � � ��- , , � .,�� —�� . '�� ,�,�.-'�� 1� ;:,��- � . ,��,� �-- � � , .�-� « , � . ��1�� _� .%� ��2� �� •i, � . ��Inli;m M��n1i��i v.y, .�� '`Rj°�m � ,,,'4' .t� � p',� � '� -' . r.f , �� ,,,�. � ,,.�"'",� , . . �� '....,, ,��ii �.:!" �� •ti �° �7`^��C ' ( �.1�.�1�.�', '��r� T`•i � �<•' � ' '� \�..,+` 1:'-�. ,1l i�� '�.'�-,...� t++t; 1' ' � . � ' �� .�C.�y�„+' �� , � r� . •�,�' � . \ �,�� .\: �� • d t �� \� \\ �. `, � . �� ` �I� .r� :��, ��I.�DN��0 bk'h . . . . ? �� '\ � r"°,�;J*^-Fi . r;�;i� i�. ,�. ,ry,• ��,s�� ; �� y � �+.� � .�� '.. •�� ;�'''� � . ,, } !�"` .i 'I..n�1'. .�� , . '��y\\t�l"� U�\\��1 IdygrcUind `r I; � ' l . /�` J1. � `��'*'�*'�.,,`.'`'`.,� . .. ... • .li . _ .I . j , r . � �I � %y � . .�.��>> `#w,�y.!�.. f1�I � t t•l ,f„ r �T �V R�.�P1(� W � �'Rw1 1►�lC, I� 1.•3 �\ r , \ . � .. .,��, "��•;R"h. �° � �� '� �'� �1��.M,�r�� n�r�i��,��r� '� �� :•��'� � �� Mll � A D � f �� V'� ,�,,`� ,�� ,. -r� � y �� ,�� ,��, � � 1 .�t �� 1-11 to NES, v. l ,;, . ' . ,�,� � � � ��\�` � �� ,�� ,,i ,, , � „ �� I�, � w °,: i�Lr:yF.��' � �- �,) � ,� � �� : r �(�n.�`y�,� ��'�'�MT� � , �. �. y �� I� . �� „ /' �� I�1.�IIK�1�If�\ ,. ` i � l �I �' l,j��i !l � ��- i �,�u", � � , . n« � � I' ►�� ' �!' ,, J �y, i �ei��,�;, , !:i • ;,�s. , � '��.s�. 1 r. ' � � ,. ..,, , y, w,,,�� r � 'i , � ,�- 'CKI I r•4f tij�h 1�� , , � .: �.; , � � p � Z i� � ,i��.'I p � 1 �.'�'_"" ,��cen� ' �iupNai �'�y ��, .. � H';�� t.; � - � i �i�,��; tn� . �l. v' �� '� � . �,' c� l� �� i�. 1 �' I - `1 � ) • . . � fluu�l„il�lt �lt�,li��'� 1�' k � � , r�l_�r� �� 1;8,0 �1��titAP�kN �i ;� �' i��'' � rn7� � ;� �, � , W 1 ,, �� ,� „ 1y;,1;ti t �' ��., �. �� , � ,� ` � i � �'" � t, �� ,,, � � (�� . �',,.i�15:�� ' �li,� ii, �I ,;i.,`. ."�� 1 ,�� ,i, ��1'� ��'� �� ' �;, � ' � I ��; �� _ t L �u C t� ,�i� 1�� 1 �� , ' � '� y �� ,. (.'��' �S. -i- �.i� i'; �� ... �i �l �� i� ��., ' '. , . ' 1 �. . �•'� ` ,i ,�� .."1 �'Ela 1'�R I � 7ti �� .� . .. - ..... � :'r,ner a �� i � 1� ' .. , _._. � ' ��,.,.�i._ � `tl ..n. . � :. 1 � /'�`. � V1 � �(��l 1 ., � i, � �� t s� i:_. 1 YC �� i i �� • . � � .. , . � ��, -� �� I(`��r �� u �� '� . .�\ �� t � i , � � ��f )�I�'��- � j� � 'i•.V � ��i� � ��y .- _��ki1'�Nlew�'rfi �� ,. � �'�; � ,0.��- �� , �� .�� ' -.�ao i�� A��'y �ti�c a t� a'� S . .�...».. � � . �� . . .�>w�l _ �� __. ��. , ��ti ', �_ :1 !'�.;c&:��::�1��..._��.ati •'��, '' - �h:,—�, _, CITY OF SAINT PAUL / ' ; ��:. OFFICF. OF THE CITY COD'�'CIL S --,i�1'� - _ �. -a'4l -- �/�� ,"�y'••� • 1 . �f)a.�- �//%� . ��„'2�f. �� Ot6 ; � ' '•� . -. .� "� May 18, 1981 :'...�- COM (1/IITTEE REPORT T0 : Saint Paui City Council F R O M = Com m ittee O fl CITY DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION . Leonard W. Levine , chai�man, makes the following report on C. F. � [] O�dinance ❑ Resolution � . � Other TtTLE : Planning Commission Resolution and Report recommending a City position on Airport Development Controls for purposes of aircraft safety in areas surrounding Holman Field. _ The Cortxnittee recomnends approval . CII'Y HALL SEVENI�-I FLOOIt SAINT PAUL. biINI�ESOTA 55102 .;��,y . . . . -� . . . . .. � , . . . .,f. - � . - � . ...� ..�. . . . . . . i. � � . . . . . . . � � .. � . ' � i.Y:. . . . .; . � � � � � � . - � � � . . . �. , . /� ' . .. . . � . � .. . _ , . . . . _ � .. � � � � . .. ' . v � . � . � .. ,. � .. . � � . , .� - . .� � �_ � . . �. � /�.� .�� • . . _ ' . � ` .� . . , . � .. , '. _ .. . ' . . � . . - ._.' . ' . . • - . . . ' � � . . . . ` . , . . . . � - . _ _.. �. _ _ . .. . � .. -. .. ' � � ... . , . . . � � 1 . � . . .. ' - . . � � . � - .. .. . � . . ..� , ...�:. . . � . � , .., - . . . ., � _ . � . . . . . . . ' .. � ��. . .. . . _ . .. � � . . ' �.�--. _.% . . . ...• ' . . . � ' . � . ^ '• . � _ ; - �' � 19� , , . - . ,, _ �:., . . { , - _ ' . 1b�: md s�E.�rr . � � _ _ , C#,�r A.tt,orney - - . ; % Rc�t�m 647� Gity Iie7.1' � , I �l • ., . ' Re: P�a�ng Co�mmi.bei.on reso2utioo �! re�o�t reo�o�e4dS�\a , . . Cit►Y Doaition on A3arport Devielop�sat :Coatrc�a tc�r g�po� , ' ' or eti�craf`t;aafefiy 3i �rees surrot�n�i,ng �i�s�� '#e�. '- _ ' � D,ea� S�i . . � - - �'rapa�ation-o! a ras�l�tion - •, , a�ppc�rtl�tg t�e Ci�r D�rel�ec►t �i . Ti'auapartatioa'"t�o�mmitt�e recc�am�ndat3on l�Sr s�oval c�'�the' s►bove-st�e�i'erea�sdy:�ras�requae#�d tty th�4; City Oaatncil at its Me�,y► 21�t�, . 1981. moetSag. , , `, . ; ; ' , , �� .� �e s , ; , -- . , . . : _ , _ , A� 82 e� . � � . _ ' ; 41ty Clerk. - ., � � . � ,� . , _ , _ ; _ , liE�i sl.s - ` - cc t P�i�. . _ - _ , . , . � - , . . � '� , , = , _ , � - - y � , � . � , , ; . � � - . , . � � � � � � � � . - - � ,�� . , ` .,.�;. - � ��^i; � . , �°� - , � . - , � • ` � " . -=-_ _ ' `�.�;. . • . .. . . . . . . . . . . . _ . .) `-y-': - . .. _ - . - �. . . . . .. . . ' .. .. _ . . . ..� � �J.� �.i. � .��,. .. . ' . . . � .. . . ' . . . � . . . . . . ' .. _ v .