Agenda Packets - 1983/01/24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MEMO TC: CITY COUNCI FROM: MAYOR 'TE: January 17, 1983- .3JECT: DECEMBER 16, 1982 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL FU9LIC FEARING ON PROPOSED GUIDEL114ES FUR LAND USE COMPATIJILPI'Y WITH AIRCRAFT NOISE The following is a summary of my presentation during the above -referenced hearing, as authorized at the City Council meeting of December 13, 1982: 1. The proposed "Guidelines for Land Use Compatability with Aircraft Noise" (guidelines), recommends that the discussion section on page 10, regarding aviation policy #4 in the Aviation Chapter of the Metropol- itan Development Guide, be revised by striking out the follow nag statement: "In those instances where an enforced noise abatement program cannot reduce the magnitude and quantity of noise to reasonable levels then the property owner should be appropriately compen- sated". I objected to deletion of the foregoing statement on the basis that it was homogeneous to responsibilities of the Metropolitan Council where adverse impacts from metro airport systems caused diminution in value of other properties. The proposed guidelines do not classify Anoka County Airport as a minor facility. I requested that Anoka County Airport be specifically identified as a minor airport to be consistent with other sections of the Aviation Chapter in the Development Guide. 3. The acceptable guideline noise limits, within various land use defin- itions, are based upon the LDN method of measurement. The LDN noise levels are averaged over a one year period of time and are considerably more liberal than state regulations. I requested that the method for measuring noise levels be that of the more restrictive L10 criteria as required by the Minnesota Polution Control Agency. The L10 method is the noise level which may not be exceeded for more than 10% of the time during any one hour, nor in excess of 65 decibels, as measured on the "A" meter. 4. Local units of government with land inside a regulated noise zone will be responsible for the implementation and enforcement of guideline performance standards. Mechanisms necessary to comply with the foregoing, or any needed amendments to comprehensive plans for confor- mance to the guidelines are very likly to be expensive. Moreover, when guideline requirements change land use or values, a successful lawsuit for compensation by property owners could require payment from the local zoning authority. The compensation issue was addressed by suggested interium measures such as application for a variance from state noise standards regarding major reconstruction or in -fill ( ; development. Effectively, this would provide a means for non-compliance to the guidelines, thereby avoiding land use restrictions orany e implied possibility of damages resulting from compensatory Judgements.