I'm going to call the meeting to order of our joint airport zoning board.

And we start off our meeting with an open comment period.

So this is an opportunity for members of the public to address the board.

Anyone from the public wishing to be heard.

Step forward and then state your name and you've got five minutes.

I don't think we have a rule of our sum that I haven't worked with in the past, Bill Schemmel, City Administrator and Stewartville.

And so I've worked with the airport folks because obviously we're next to our neighbors and the different projects that the airport's worked on.

We've been as a courtesy part of being able to comment.

And now that there's uh new folks that have uh come aboard, either for the city of Roch or uh whatever, we just thought that uh hopefully as the future goes uh by uh we can be extended the same courtesy of uh working with you, visiting with you.

Obviously, we're as supportive of uh the airport as anybody.

And then uh the more important reason is our city zoning ordinance has to take into account uh the FAA and the Minnesota uh Department of Aeronautics zoning requirements for our growth and development, and so we just figured it's a natural um partnership that we should work together on.

And obviously, we want to work together with you so that we uh keep that orderly growth going and uh appreciate opportunity today to say hi and introduce ourselves.

I got Mayor King with me too, who uh represents our elected body, and uh so we'll look forward to uh working with all of you as time goes by, or as we need to interact with uh zoning requirements or uh growth and development.

Thank you.

Thank you for being here.

Yep, appreciate it.

Mayor King.

I've never been in a meeting where you haven't wanted to say anything.

Just a listener word.

Thanks for letting us be here.

Good to have you.

Yeah, feeling to work with you, real.

Good.

Thank you.

Uh at this point, uh any other members of the public wishing to be heard.

Seeing none, uh, I will close our open comment period.

And uh uh Mr.

Carlson, you want to call the role?

Sure.

Uh Chair Schubring here.

Board member Keene.

Here.

Board Member Woodward.

Here.

Board Member Gupta.

Here.

Board Member Senjum.

Here.

Board Member Kenworthy?

Here.

Board what board member Peterson?

Here.

Board Member Glenn.

Uh here is doesn't count towards the quorum, but uh is listening in today.

Uh board member Lapelt is not present.

And board member Mueller.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

Uh just a uh a point of information.

So you're addressing us as board members.

I think last meeting I called members commissioners.

I would are we a board or a commission?

It it's considered to be the joint airport zoning board.

Um so that's why I was calling our board members, but whatever your preference is.

Okay.

Um next is our order of agenda.

Are there any changes to our agenda?

Seeing none, Mr.

Chair.

Oh, sorry.

That was just uh kind of dialogue at the end of that.

I just want to I had a question of the Storkwheel people and even the route or two people.

I don't know if we have.

I I think uh other business would indicate that there is an opportunity for board members to the court board.

Okay.

So we'll do we'll we'll take that under other business.

I'll move the accept the agenda as presented.

Second.

Moved by board member Peterson, seconded by board member Keene.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Moving on.

Uh we have our consent agenda.

We have the minutes of the November 21st meeting.

Uh uh sure that board members have taken a look at that.

Any changes to that?

Seeing none, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda?

So moved.

Second, I've got the uh moved uh by board member Gupta and seconded by board member Kenworthy.

All in favor say aye.

I oppose say nay.

Motion passes, moving on to new business.

We have 5K, which is the consultant information briefing.

And who is taking the lead on this one?

Yeah, I'll maybe just get things uh set up.

So sort of just a high-level overview.

Uh again, Brent Carlson, Deputy Rochester City Attorney.

Um, sort of the the purpose of this meeting is to really present the substance of what um we're seeking from the board.

Uh there uh we've got Evan Barrett who is our uh consultant with Meet and Hunt will who will be doing a majority of the talking here this morning.

But just to kind of remind the board where we're at is there's two options.

We have the state model ordinance, and then we have a custom option.

And Evan is going to present the pros and cons of each.

And I think really what we're looking for, the direction we're looking for from the board today is which direction you'd like to go, the state model ordinance direction, which is our recommendation, or the custom option.

Uh what would happen then, depending on your direction today, is we would work on drafting the ordinance, and we would come back in April, about 60 days or so from now, and uh have the model ordinance prepared for you to consider.

We would have a public hearing at that point, uh, take additional input from the public, make any tweaks that we feel that the board feels uh needs to be made, and then we would ultimately ask for adoption of that.

It would then get to send the send to MINDOT, and the process would continue.

And that would really be the extent of what we're looking for from this board.

Uh, this go around.

So with that, I'll turn it over to Evan Barrett and uh he's got a presentation for you.

All right.

Thank you, Brent.

Good morning, chair, members of the board.

Great to be with you here again today.

Um trouble advancing.

There we go.

Uh so I'm just gonna provide a recap of the presentation that I gave at our last meeting, just as kind of a baseline understanding of um some of the terms of the presentation in terms of the zoning ordinance.

Um, and then as Brent said, I will give a detailed uh overview of what the state model ordinance looks like for Rochester.

So it is a model ordinance that is adapted to each individual airport situation, depending on you know the length of the runways, the types of approaches runways have.

So it is uh a standard ordinance, but it's also adapted specifically for Rochester.

So I'll get into the details of that.

Um and then I'll talk about the custom ordinance option, give you a couple case studies of other airports in the state that have pursued that option, kind of the reasoning for doing that and all the uh process that goes into that.

And then I'll I'll have some recommendations here at the end of it as far as um where we'd uh recommend that the board go from here.

So uh so as we discussed last time, there's three reasons to update the airport zoning ordinance at this point.

The first if the state legislature dated its zoning statute in 2019.

Um that statute update uh added this new custom option.

It also changed some of the process requirements uh for adopting an ordinance and it removes some of uh some old uh prohibitions from the old model ordinance.

So there's a new model ordinance that was was released in 2025, um, following that that statute update.

So that's the second reason.

And and Mindot itself uh revised its airport zoning rules earlier in 2025, which has uh more to do with like the details of the shape shapes and sizes of the zones.

Um, so made some changes in those areas.

And then finally, the airport completed a master plan and updated its airport layout plan in 2021.

And uh the zoning ordinance according to state statute should be based on the plan ultimate condition of the airport.

So uh there were some changes that were made that I'll get into with that master plan that affect the dimensions of the zones associated with the ordinance.

So an update is necessary from a mapping standpoint, uh, just to reflect what the airport's master plan currently is.

So uh the purpose of uh convening this board, uh, there's really two reasons to have an airport zoning ordinance.

Um foremost is safety, uh, but there's also uh a land use compatibility element, making sure that there isn't hard, you know, the airport doesn't pose a nuisance to its neighbors, uh that sort of thing.

Um, and so the the zoning ordinance um attempts to balance safety and that compatible land use and and kind of community development aspect um to make sure that the airport and the community can coexist in a safe and and uh you know harmonious manner.

So um so the role of this board, uh the first bullet here is what we're gonna do today.

We're gonna consider what the state statutory requirements are.

Um, and then you know, as Brent mentioned, we'll be a further opportunity for public input under a public hearing once the board has uh approved a draft ordinance.

Um and then once the the that public hearing is concluded, the board can submit the that draft ordinance to Mindot for approval.

Mindot will come back with any comments they may have.

Uh, if you go the state model route, they'll likely just kind of rubber stamp it.

Um, if you go the custom route, there'll likely be a lot of back and forth with them over that because uh each airport would look different in that respect.

Uh once MINDOT has approved it, then the board would adopt the final regulations and then transmit those regulations to all the affected municipalities and jurisdictions to incorporate to their zoning codes.

So that's the main purpose and role of the board.

So this map here shows uh the current airport zoning ordinance map.

Uh was last amended in 2005.

And there's two separate elements to the zoning ordinance.

First is a land use component.

Um so the areas you see with the hash, there's an orange hatch for what's called zone A right off the ends of the runway.

At the end of that orange hatch is what's called zone B that's in green.

And then there's the kind of blue hatch that has that kind of uh lumpy circle around the airport here.

Um so those are the land use zones.

The airspace zones go out further.

So the second component is a structure height or object height regulation that goes out further to protect aircraft uh taking off and landing at the airport to make sure there's clear airspace surrounding the airport.

Yep.

Uh is there any uh indication of the color, the darker blue is that is that a zoning along here?

Yes.

So that's uh that's really just an airspace um consideration.

So basically, and I'll get into this here um in a moment, but um there's a flat surface that overlays the runway that has to be clear of any objects, and then up off the sides are what's called the transitional zone.

And so that's just an airspace zone.

It's technically part of zone C.

So I think that's why it's kind of just a variation on the same color really.

So those are the two components of uh the zoning ordinance, and as I mentioned, you know, we're updating to reflect the the match plan recommendations and the state statute rule updates.

So uh the general restrictions in these zones, zone A, right off the ends of the runway, that was what is the most restrictive zone.

So in that that area, there can be no buildings, uh no exposed transmission lines or uses that create or attract large groups of people.

Um so that area is really supposed to be pretty clear to allow for any aircraft undershoots or overruns of a runway.

Um zone B in the orange is really uh also has a restriction on um uses that attract large groups of people, but really the main uh restrictions are on lot size and density of development.

So you can develop you know residential commercial uses in that area, um, industrial uses, but there just are certain criteria that are applied to minimize kind of the site footprint of any sort of development in that area.

And then zone C, which is the aqua area there.

Um there's really minimal restrictions in that area.

It's primarily any sort of use that would interfere with the safe uh transiting of aircraft through the airspace.

So that would include things that might interfere with radio communications, like uh a wind farm or a radio tower, anything that has bright lights like a large football stadium or something that might you know um make glare in the in the eyes of a pilot, um, those sorts of things.

So those are the those are the main restrictions associated with those land use zones.

Just to clarify, yep.

And the how did um A, B, and C get sized?

Is that based on the standard that yes?

So uh this what we're seeing seeing here is the current zoning ordinance and zones A and B, the the lengths and dimensions of those zones are based on the runway length.

So zone A uh as um in the current ordinance is two-thirds of the planned runway length, and then zone B is one third of the planned runway length.

Um so basically it was a zone A and B together are the same length as the runway that it applies to.

So I'll just restate it that it's based on an algorithm, right?

Nobody's made a judgment to say this is what it's based on a formula.

Um and there are some changes with those dimensions that I'll talk about in a bit with facility rule updates.

So any other questions?

Well, I do.

The question I wanted to ask at the end, maybe it's a good.

So uh well, first question is uh would the city maybe even the county repeal their ordinances uh pending uh a new one that would come along, perhaps.

Right.

The intent is that the you know, and the ordinance that the board adopts would replace the existing organs.

Yeah.

And then I wanted to know that that looks a lot like well, we're we're doing all this to protect you from uh from airplane crashes.

Yeah, and if you look at Twin City Airport, I mean over 500 million dollars has been spent up there in a noise abatement.

Does not this take into consideration either vis-a-vis uh zoning or building codes uh considerations of noise abatements around the airports?

Uh well for at MSP, the noise, I mean, just the the sheer number of operations and the large aircraft that operate there.

There's a very large noise footprint for that airport that extends miles beyond the ends of the runway.

Right.

And that's really not the case at Rochester, given just the frequency of operations, the type of aircraft operating.

So any um noise impacts would really be encompassed by that zone A.

Do you believe will they always be this way?

That's my question.

Well, that the intent the intent of the ordinance is to prevent that from ever becoming an issue by by zoning uh the airport such that there's no development that would then you know the airport would be a nuisance to, you know, so there wouldn't be you know aircraft flying low over neighborhoods or anything like that because the neighborhoods just aren't there, and so the intent of the ordinance is to work.

Might be a hundred years from now.

Can you also clarify and we we discussed this at the last meeting that this body is the final say on the uh zoning ordinance around the airport?

We don't it doesn't go to approval to the county to the city.

Correct.

I there's a uh minot to kind of uh making sure that we're uh compliant, but beyond that, it's this body that makes that decision.

Correct.

Once the board adopts the the ordinance, then the affected jurisdictions are uh obligated to adopt it themselves.

So you know, there's no process after that as far as adoption of the local level, just to integrate it into the codes.

Well, my other question just to get an answer would would any of the zoning conversation and related to um you know subject matter have to do with building codes from standpoint of sound abatement.

Right.

I mean, there are in Minneapolis.

I mean, right, you're right.

There the both the building codes um require a sound insulation for air for uh homes uh uh within a certain noise contour, they call it.

So basically there's a model that they use to actually look at the types of aircraft on the airport how often they update that model every year uh uh for MSP so that they're making sure that they're including all the homes that are within what they call the 65 decibel uh day-night average sound level contour, which is considered like threshold for uh you know a noise impact that needs to be mitigated.

And so, yes, um the the Mac has uh uh an ordinance that it works with all the local jurisdictions to uh you know implement to make sure that all the homes are insulated such that noise is not uh you know health hazard or nuisance.

But um, that's not part of this ordinance.

Uh well, thank you, yeah.

I don't need the last comment to it.

Oh, okay.

I I following up on your line of questioning board members, Sunju.

So uh I know because I served on it, the the Mac has a board of zoning where appeals and exemptions when it comes to building uh within that space, for instance, if uh there's a crane that has to go up on a temporary basis.

We we were asked to uh to uh decide on whether or not to have a temporary exemption or whatnot.

So in those situations, once we're done with our work, is there an ongoing board of zoning that will uh look at those instances?

So um the ordinance will identify a board of adjustment that is responsible for considering any variances or appeals or those sorts of things.

We are going to recommend that um the uh the board identify the city of Rochester zoning board of appeals as that body, as opposed to establishing uh an entirely new body or having this group get together every time there's a variance of application, just assign that uh that responsibility to that city.

Okay, any other questions or number two?

Could that have provisions there then for the growth of the airports area as well as services?

So this what we're gonna present here today is the model ordinance based on that planned ultimate condition from the master plan.

So the master plan that we did looked out 20 years and considered all the potential uh you know improvements that might need to be made at the airport.

Um, and that's been integrated into this this zoning ordinance that we'll be presenting today, or this you know, state model.

So that answer your question.

Yeah, I think so.

Maybe it may help a little bit.

I said so every every 10 years or so we need to do an airport master plan.

And so we're about halfway through that right now, and another five years, we'll probably need to do another master plan.

And it's looking at the conditions.

So think think of that in the aircraft type um utilization, so think volume there and how that affects runway length.

Um right now, um, I mean runways um um what is 11,000.

No, excuse me, 9,000 feet long, and then uh we're extending our uh our other runway.

I think what we've done with the master plan we just completed was actually remove some elements that would have been future that probably aren't really necessary in today's world.

Uh and I'll get into those details here.

Maybe sets that plate a little bit, or I think you know, when you think about aircraft size and um um when you think about noise, aircraft are getting quieter, um, better utilization uh of existing facilities, I think is what the aim is for now.

And it doesn't mean that 20 years from now that won't change.

Who bids the master plan?

Who builds it?

Who doesn't?

It's a community effort, of course.

Um airports, you know, consultants and you know, multiple multiple meetings to talk about utilization, and of course, you have your your users, general aviation, um, air ambulance, airlines, cargo, air traffic control, all nine.

What about ADM population that actually travels like that's commercial traveling?

Yeah, everybody's invited if it's public meetings.

Okay, yeah.

Yeah.

Mr.

Costum, you had something to say.

No, I was just gonna say, if for some reason the airport were um going to be adding an additional runway or again extending one of the runways, again, the zoning would need to change.

So we would reconvene this board and bring those changes to you.

Um, you know, this board hasn't met for a decade.

So kind of the goal here is to keep you all active.

And like I say, after probably one more meeting, we like we don't have any other business for you for an extended period of time, but we might suggest to just meet like once a year just to get the board together, face to face, have a cup of coffee and and so thank you.

Mr.

Bear, you any further questions?

Uh Mr.

Chair.

Oh, go ahead.

I also this really isn't on this, but you know, uh, you know, I don't know how the city and in in Olmstead County operate, but in Dodge County, every 10 years we have a master uh planning um development of you know what where the county should be going in the future, you know, where we've been, where we're going, that talks about everything from from uh um road developments to housing growth to uh um entertainment to um pleasure or all those kind of things.

I'm assuming the city and and county both have the holes, right?

That incorporate that would incorporate, you know, because ours incorporates the airport and Dodge Center, which is a small airport.

Um again guessing you both have that, right?

So that kind of ties in with with this.

That's all right.

No, and and that's that's a great point.

And and uh Mr.

Caples is the keeper of that for the city, and uh, I'm sure the county has their comprehensive plans as well.

So I think and they're they're part of what staff here are making sure they're aligned, and anything that we're doing is aligned with with that.

Dodge counties airport would be not just airport.

This would be your uh deal right out of this airport.

They have we have a smaller airport and Dodge Center.

Okay, uh, but it has small jets that land there, like you know, any major transportation, um, like American Airlines and stuff that was all for Rochester, so all other citizens come to Rochester for for the major flights, yes.

I'm gonna turn it back to Mr.

Bear to continue his presentation.

Okay, so that's the the land use component of the existing ordinance, the safety zones A, B, and C.

So put a fit in that.

We'll come back to that later in the presentation.

Um, so then there's the airspace component.

So the air space is uh based on what's called Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77, imaginary circuit.

So there's imaginary surfaces in the air that protect aircraft coming in and out.

Uh as I said, the kind of area along the runways that's kind of shown in white here.

That's a flat area coming off the edges of the runways, what's called the transitional surface.

That's in kind of that brighter blue color.

Um the approach surface is off the ends of the runway, so that's where zone A, zone B are.

Um, and I've got a more detailed diagram.

So it's kind of a 3D um of this later on.

But I guess uh the point here is there are airspace restrictions in place today.

They only apply up to a mile and a half beyond the perimeter of the airport boundary, and then the approach zone two miles out.

Um so one of the big changes with the new um statute updates is that those restrictions of the one and a half miles or two miles have been eliminated.

So what's what the current model ordinance is?

We'll show airspace restrictions going further out, as we'll see in a minute here.

So here it is.

This is uh what those imaginary surfaces look like based on the planned ultimate condition from the master plan.

Um so as I said, the you know, the runways here, there's surfaces coming out the sides and off the approach of the runway, and then this horizontal surface is a flat surface, it's 150 feet above the airport.

Um, and so that's what zone C is based on, which we'll come back to later.

Um, and then the conical surface comes off that flat horizontal surface and goes out an extra 4,000 feet.

So, really, this area in the middle here with the horizontal and the conical that goes out 14,000 feet.

And then off of these uh three of the runway ends, we have what are called precision approach surfaces.

So the airport currently has instrument landing systems on both ends of its primary runway, which is this northwest southeast runway.

So these surfaces that are for existing approaches to protect those instrument landing systems.

Um, and out of the master plan, there's now a plan for a third instrument landing system from the south.

Once so the model ordinance would uh provide more restriction out uh to 10 miles beyond the airport to protect those precision instrument approaches, but those surfaces are pretty high up.

Once you get out there, you're several hundred feet in the air, you're really only protecting against things like cell towers or wind farms and those sorts of things.

Mr.

Crossbare, can I then just clarify for me?

We're we're a zoning of joint power zoning for land use.

There are other restrictions like that go wider as far as aircraft can't be in certain places, that kind of stuff, or and I don't think we have anything to do with that, right?

Right.

That's so um, you know, the this uh aircraft traffic control is controlled by you know the Federal Aviation Administration, and they really you know direct aircraft where they can go and where they can't, and and really that's not something that's handled by the government.

Very good, thank you.

Mr.

Chair, uh what is it does it mean anything from uh from an impact point of view that I understand what you're telling us that that airspace uh virtually encapsulates half of Stuartville and sort of some of the Rochester control areas.

Well, does that does does that fact that does that impact Stuartville at all?

It does, and I'll zoom, have a zoom in here in a little bit.

I'll get into the one there in just a moment.

But yes, the airspace as as shown here, city of Stuartville is down here.

Um so basically the north part of the city would be underneath the horizontal surface.

Again, that's 150 feet above the airport, which Stuartville actually had a lower elevation, so it's gonna be like 250 feet above Stuartville.

Um, and then this conical surface goes up, so out here is probably closer to 300, 400, 500 feet.

So, really, there will be an impact here, and this is you know not a whole lot different from what the current ordinance airspace restrictions are today.

It's just that now, with that restriction on you know the distance from the airport that uh airspace restrictions can apply.

Now it's going to be expanded slightly, which I'll show in a minute here.

Okay, so the the differences of this airspace from the existing ordinance is really primarily based on um what the planned runway ends are because these airspace surfaces are built off built up where the runway ends are.

Um so there are three major changes in the master plan that affect these surfaces.

The first is in the northwest approach.

The previous airport layout plan showed a um an extension of a thousand feet to this runway in this direction.

And the most recent master plan decided, you know, we really don't need to plan for that.

The aircraft we anticipate are going to be the airport in the future, have adequate runway length on the existing runway.

Um, so that's actually gonna pull those airspace surfaces towards that runway end such that you know it um there'll be less restrictive um height restrictions on that end.

Um, once you know, if the board were to adopt the model ordinance for the planned ultimate condition now.

Another change on the northeast approach, uh, the the airport's currently in the process of shifting this runway to the southwest.

So basically this end is being shortened and this end is being extended.

So basically it pulls in those surfaces on this end and extends them on this end so that um you know there's some differences in what the height restrictions are because of that shift.

Um and then the statute update eliminated a prohibition on airspace regulation within one and a half miles.

So that means that today the airspace restrictions at like for in Stewartville, for example, as we were discussing, um, don't extend as far as shown here.

Uh so this will extend those surfaces further into the city of Stuartville because that one and a half mile restriction is removed.

And so now basically the entire imaginary surfaces that the feds recommend will now be implemented, would be implemented into the ordinance.

That all makes questions on that.

Okay.

So I just want to zoom in here to show kind of what that restriction is.

So the surface elevations are based on the airport elevation, which is 1325 feet above sea level.

So this is all these numbers here are with respect to uh height above sea level.

So that means that this horizontal surface out here is at 1475 above mean sea level, and then the conical surface rises further up to 16 roughly 1600 feet, I think up to 1675 actually.

Um so where it's expect expanding in Stewartville and in Rochester also, um, you know, there's there's additional airspace restriction that isn't currently in place, but we're talking at heights of 300, 400 feet above the ground.

All right, so those are the the commissioner standard airspace zones.

Um so now I'll talk about the land use zones.

So really the land use zones only apply out to the uh outer boundary of that horizontal surface.

So they cover a much smaller area than the the airspace zones.

Um so this is just for comparison in terms of you know what we're covering.

Um the land use zones, this is a comparison of the existing land use zones.

So the uh white is the existing zone C.

The black is what the model zone C would be for our current planned ultimate condition.

Um then for zones A and B, I'll zoom in here.

Um the white are the existing zones A and B under the existing ordinance, and then the ones with the black outline are what they would be under the model ordinance today.

Um so um I I'll get into the details for each runway end, but um, you can see that those black ones are shorter.

Um, and and uh and so they actually there'll be less restrictive out further beyond the runway than there are there are today.

So I went over those changes in the runways.

Um the statute update also eliminated prohibitions on land use regulations that were in the old model ordinance.

So that's uh part of the reason that this zone C will actually go up further down here to the south than it does today, um, because those boundary limitations no longer apply.

And then zones A and B are shorter because the rule update that the MINDOT just adopted capped the length of zones A and B.

So whereas previously it was two-thirds of the runway length, which for 9,000 foot runway would be 6,000 feet.

Now the maximum is 4,000.

So that's why zone A is so much shorter in you know, uh, for the model ordinance today than it was for the previous ordinance.

Um zone A, I think is shown here on in the old ordinance at roughly 7,000, but it might be 4,000 feet under the new model ordinance.

So now I'm just gonna zoom in on each runway end.

This is probably a hit, but no, and I just going through the different maps.

This one shows an approach from the northeast going southwest.

Many of the others do not.

I don't understand what you're asking.

Um, I'm looking at the maps we've been going through, and I uh the so the one coming up from the northeast and going and using the runway going southwest.

That's on this map, but some of the other maps we've had, it doesn't show that approach.

Oh, certainly there's not a precision approach, is what you're really asking.

Yeah, well, yeah, I'm just trying to clarify why it's on this map, and we're talking about it now, and we didn't talk about it on some of the other ones.

Yeah, so we were talking about precision instrument approaches to the three runways versus the zoning applicable.

So said differently, it doesn't have that those approaches, but it's still just going to get the same protections, but it probably won't be used because it doesn't have the precision instrumentation.

It gets used, but it it doesn't because it doesn't have the precision instrumentation, it doesn't need to be protected as far out because the precision instruments allow aircraft to come in in low visibility conditions.

So they so aircraft, you know, the pilot can't see up their window until they get to a certain height above the ground.

So you need to make sure there's nothing in their way.

Whereas, you know, that runway approach is only going to be used primarily in like visual conditions where you can see for miles, and so there isn't as much of a need to protect that.

Okay, thank you.

Um again, the white is what under the existing ordinance with zones A and B are zone C, the black outlines are what would be under the model ordinance today.

So this basically shows you what the change would be.

So uh the only areas where there's a upgrade is where you see the orange or the blue, and that's only going to be zone A and B.

Now I'll give it to zone C later.

But um, so basically because we're pulling the runway this direction, now there's this area that's covered by zone A on that end, but all of that is on airport property.

None of that goes off the airport.

Over here, because we're taking this future extension off the airport layout plan, this shifting in this direction.

Uh similarly, it'll cover more area on airport property, and then off the edges, you'll see you know, increase.

But all the areas where there's this white hatching, that's actually a zone downgrade.

So here, what was previously zone A would become zone B.

What was previously zone A here will become zone C.

Um, what previously zone B here will become zone C as well.

So really the changes with the model ordinance option are going to restrict you know, less restrictions in most areas uh or remain the same as far as land use is concerned.

So just zooming in on this end, um, again, there's um if you compare the existing to the the you know current, if you were to adopt the model ornaments today, these are the areas you know, where there'd be new zoning that does not exist today.

This area that's um does not have any color, that zone A today, it'll remain zone A.

Um, again, this current zone A goes to zone B, current zone A goes to zone C, current zone B goes to zone C.

So all those are all downgrades.

And just to give a sense of what's off of this runway end, um it's all township land and it's all zone for agriculture, they'll all the areas will be affected.

So for zone A, you know, there's there's again uh no structures or buildings are allowed, no transmission lines.

There's really only this one farm set out there in zone A today, which would be grandfathered, which I'll talk about a little bit later.

But otherwise, we're not talking about zoning, um, imposing restrictions on an existing land use.

Um, you know, uh that would prevent that land use from expanding.

Um basically anything that is permitted by the underlying zoning is also is still going to be permitted.

Mr.

Bear, can you talk a little bit?

And I I know you've said the 300 feet and 400 feet.

Can you kind of put that into context to for, for example, if this is agricultural land, uh uh wind farms, what are the heights of those?

And are we restricting uh those for that kind of activity?

Yes, so um, most wind wind towers are gonna be you know 400 feet tall, something along that that line.

Um, and so yeah, there this does impose restrictions on wind farms you know, in in close proximity to the airport.

And for wind farms specifically, the issue isn't just the height of the wind towers, it's also the blades, you know, like interfering with radio communications and and radar and those sorts of things.

So it's not a good idea to have wind farms close to an airport from that perspective either, both from a height and a kind of a communication standpoint.

So, yes.

Um now, you know, when a wind farm developer applies for um, you know, wind farms have to submit notice to FAA because because those towers are so high, you know, they have to submit notice FA FA will analyze that and determine whether it has any impact on air navigation.

And so basically what regardless of where they're regardless of where they are.

So what the zoning ordinance allows you to do is if the FA determines this wind farm is going to be you know a hazard, um it the zoning ordinance allows you to do something about it.

So, you know, though, especially in those precision approach zones, you know, um that's where I think it really becomes important getting out that far to make sure that you're not impacting those approaches.

Because yeah, I think the important point there is that the FAA and how they operate, you you do submit the uh what's called a 7460 form.

Um the FA will just make a determination.

Is this going to affect um RST airport or any other airport for that matter?

And they'll just say yes or no.

And it's up to the local community to protect their asset, if that makes sense.

So if somebody put a cell phone tower or when uh wind farm right off the end of the runway, and you didn't have zoning in place to protect that, you've got no rural tools, and they could continue to do that if they had the legal right to do it.

That makes sense.

The FA does not um provide the uh impetus of um the rule to say you can't do it.

They just say it's going to affect your asset, it's gonna affect your approaches, it's gonna hurt your airport.

That's all they can.

Thank you.

That makes sense.

Okay.

That's the runway that's being shortened with that runway shift.

And again, this is the runway we were talking about where it does not have a precision instant landing system.

So uh this is not protected as far out as the other runway ends.

Um, but we're pulling those zones down this direction, we're making them shorter because of the caps on the on the zone lengths.

And so basically um, you know, there this area will become zone A.

This is current zone A, it'll remain zone A.

This is zone A today, it'll become zone B.

Then this is zone A or C, it'll become zone C.

So again, downgrades anywhere off of airport property as far as land use regulation is concerned.

Um so this is the opposite end of that southwest end where the runway is shifting this direction.

So you can see from the aerial photo, there's currently not a runway here.

It's it's under construction at the moment.

Um, so that's going to shift the beginning of the runway zones out, but the runway zones are shorter, so they fit entirely within what the existing is.

So again, this zone A today, it'll remain zone A.

This is zone A, it'll become zone B.

This is zone B today, it'll remain zone B.

Then this is zone B today, it'll it would change to zone C.

So this all is runway either staying the same for zone A or B or uh a downgrade to less restrictive zone.

Then finally, the fourth runway end.

Um there's no plan changes to this runway end.

So you can see the the zone dimensions um are the same to a certain extent.

Um, because it has the same approach zone, it doesn't the origin of that does not change or the dimensions.

Um so really we're just shifting the outer boundary of zones A or B on these, such that this is zone A, remote remains zone A, this is zone A becomes zone B.

This is zone A becomes zone C, and this is all zone C up here as well.

So all is that was don't downgrade out in that area.

Um so then zone C the red, as you see here, uh this is existing zone C that would no longer be zone C.

And the reason for that is there was previously a third runway planned at the airport, uh, which would have been parallel to the main runway into southwest.

And so the previous zoning ordinance protected for that runway and its airspace, but the airport is no longer planning that third runway.

And so this zone C no longer goes needs to go out that far to protect that planned runway.

Um now down in this area and then up around Rochester and Stewartville.

That zone C expands slightly out.

And uh the main reason for that is that uh as I mentioned previously, the old zoning statute limited uh landers regulation to uh one mile beyond the perimeter of the airport property.

And so the old zone C was based on that one mile buffer from airport property.

Now that that um that prohibition no longer exists, we're going out all the way out to the edges of that horizontal surface uh from the airspace.

That's again that service that's kind of a circle around the airport that's 150 feet above the airport.

So basically now it now that the airport can protect that entire surface, and so that's why we have this extension here.

And it really makes more sense to base the zones on the runway end locations as opposed to the airport property boundary, because that is really more related to air where aircraft are operating.

So uh this was a change in the statute that I think was intended to uh account for that.

That really now we're zoning for really what the aircraft needs are and not what the property boundary is, which is kind of arbitrary.

So uh this is a zone B expense expansion up in Rochester.

Um this area in the city of Rochester is zoned uh residential and agricultural.

Um, and then uh the areas in Rochester town set up here are agricultural.

Um, so again, the zone C restrictions are any sort of land use is prohibited that may interfere with aircraft in flight.

That's gonna be cell towers, wind farms, things of that nature.

Um, so in a in a residential district, you know, the maximum building out height is 35 feet, and you know, you're not gonna approve a cell tower in a residential district.

So it's not like you're you know implementing a new restriction in that regard.

Um, you know, agriculture, you know, um, there's really not a whole lot of structures that are allowed as of right within the agricultural zone either.

So um not really, you know, the underlying zoning is going to be pretty much as restrictive as the zoning ordinance.

That's all above ground based on the altitude of the airport itself, just for with a clarification for everyone.

Right.

Well, zone C is land use, but it's based on that horizontal surface that is yeah, yeah, is above 150 feet above.

Okay, member member goes.

Um just to backtrack a little bit.

You mentioned that there was a second uh uh runway that was canceled.

Yes.

So what was the reason it was in place in the first place?

And what was the reason that it was canceled?

Sure.

So I think I think that was it was really based on an old planning uh of RST, and uh the need for a second parallel runway should really be based on um capacity.

And so our RST is nowhere near capacity on the existing runway systems that we have.

So capacities, 40 or 50 aircraft landings per hour.

And then the demand says have a parallel runway.

There's no need for that.

Okay, so we do have capacity to put a 40 to 50 per day per hour.

Yeah, most runways do.

Okay, absolutely.

So there's a lot of room for uh business activity for for growth and utilization of our runway system, absolutely, there's plenty of room for that.

And I think it always good to plan, but I don't think um, my professional opinion um that placing on our planning documents a parallel runway um for a planning document of next 10, 20 years is an effective use, and uh it takes away from our community if we do.

Yeah, the only airports with parallel runways are gonna be your large hubs like MSP or Chicago Air, those types of airports, and Rochester is not going to approach that.

Our planning is showing, you know, we did a capacity analysis, we did forecasts, you know, no capacity issues for seeing.

So thank you.

Uh so this just shows that city of Rochester zoning with respect to zone C.

So you know, in this area, this is AG, and then these areas were expanding as residential.

Again, we're not really imposing any restrictions that are uh would disallow something that is already allowed under by that underlying zoning.

So then down in Stewartville, similarly, you know, uh there's a larger number of uh zoning uh classifications are affected here.

So um in this expanded zone C area, there's a light manufacturing district here.

Um, you know, any sort of use that might qualify as interfering with aircraft in flight is most likely not you know allowed under by the underlying zoning ordinance anyway, it would have to be of special you know approved use.

Um the same goes for all of these other districts, like um there's a highway commercial district, you know, there's not going to be any restriction on the type of usage that you typically see in a highway commercial corridor um that are already in place.

Um so you know, there are a number of areas in Stuartville where this would add another layer of zoning um kind of regulation, but it's it's not expected to you know cause any conflicts with the underlying zoning.

Could you speak to specifically?

I think it's the dark brown R3 multifamily height density residential.

What is allowed in that?

So um so again, zone B is the only zone.

Well, zone A, there's no structures, right?

Zone B is a dead development density restriction.

Zone C does not restrict development density, doesn't you know you can have any kind of structure in there as long as it doesn't interfere with aircraft and doesn't penetrate those imaginary services.

So there will be no restrictions on, you know, you can build the same type of you know apartment complex or retirement home, whatever the case may be, you could still build that there after this was this change was implemented.

Go ahead.

So uh in Stuart, none of the zoning, uh storage and not those guidance zoning.

If uh whatever the audience that we pass, steward will does not have to change the guidance zoning that they have.

Well, it'll add this layer of you know that have to be considered by by zoning, any sort of like building permit and application, but um, so there'll be another layer of zoning that Stuartville has to consider, but it's very unlikely to you know prohibit something that isn't already prohibited by that zone, underlying zone.

Yeah, so just to be more specific.

So the high density residential is there a height restriction to that.

And so zone C again is based on the horizontal surface, which is 150 feet above airport.

Stuartville's at a lower elevation, so than the airport.

So it's actually gonna be like 200 or 250 feet above the ground at Stuartville, so which means that you could build up to like a 20-story apartment complex there.

Okay.

Yeah.

Uh Mr.

Chairman.

And I would just note, you know, this is the mobile home park here in Stewartville right now.

And just remember everything, uh, you know, we're adding the green here.

So a vast majority of the brown is already restricted by zone C.

We're literally just adding, you know, it would just be adding this little chunk here.

So just wanted to point that.

Thank you.

Yeah.

And we're not changing the provisions of zone C, they remain as they are today.

Yeah.

Mr.

King.

I I think your point is really well taken that you talk about the airports are usually on the high land and everything kind of drops from there.

Is there any place where that is not true?

In the in our specific airport case.

Um to the west.

I guess I'm I'm I'm sure there is somewhere within that area.

Um that is something that we could look at and come back to at the next meeting with more details on if that's something.

The reason I ask is I say you did have a 100 or 200 foot elevation change, which it doesn't sound that rare, that that would be a more of a restrictive thing, and maybe that's in the townships and I shouldn't be worried about it, but that idea that it's from the airport, and I think the design is the airport's always high high land.

Yeah.

Um I mean, I'm sure there are some areas to the north of the airport that are higher land, but I'm I would anticipate that it would not be so significant that it's gonna prevent you know something.

But I that's something I certainly come back with more.

Yeah, I think we can take a look.

Yeah, it's that way because that's the fixed point of where the aircraft is going to land.

No, I'm right with you.

I think I understand it.

And I think I and again, I think the protection for most of the zoning is that we pick that land because it's high.

I I would think.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

Who are you pointing to?

Or just looking.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, and I'm sure.

I don't know.

I I don't know what our rules are as far as members of the public speaking.

I mean, I can be flexible, but I'm looking to our parliamentarian uh on that.

Yeah, I I guess I would say if we um want some input from the Stuartville delegation here, I would ask that the board take a vote to suspend the rules, give um three, five minutes, whatever you think is appropriate to um address the commission.

Are you folks interested in in engaging?

Are if you are I'll ask you okay.

Uh is there a motion uh of the board to suspend the rules to allow representatives of Stuartville to make a three-minute statement.

So second.

Move by uh Mr.

Mill Mu Miller Mueller.

Mueller, I'm sorry, and seconded by Mr.

Keene.

All in favor to say aye.

Aye.

I oppose say nay.

Go ahead.

Mr.

Thank you.

Appreciate the opportunity.

Yeah, obviously, when we knew there would be an extension, then that's what gets us.

We're gonna have to adapt to that.

We've obviously been compatible, good neighbors all these years, we've abided by the zoning uh to date.

And we're just finishing up our zoning ordinance redo uh and we'll have that completed this year, so we need to know if any adjustments had to be made there.

Obviously, in zone C, we have a variety of residential, industrial, uh highway commercial business.

And so as we hope to expand with all those categories, we need to make sure we're being the good neighbor and we're working alongside with you.

So I appreciate the definitions.

Um sounds like we should be in good shape without really additional restrictions, and then obviously we can um form um our town planning and our zone uh planning uh to be compatible with this.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

But at least it shows why our as I spoke at the beginning, our need to work together and how we help each other on these boards and commissions.

Absolutely.

And and I'll just note that it's uh uh the members of the St.

Paul delegate, I mean uh Rochester delegation who is asking the detailed Stuartville question.

So we will continue to do that for you.

And if you you have more feel free.

So thank you.

Go ahead, Mr.

Just one last comment.

We um work probably more regularly with John and Kurt, and they've been great about helping us when we have questions that we've sent their way.

And so obviously we'll keep that going as well.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

So that's uh the end of the presentation on the changes in the zoning ordinance with respect to the structure heights and land uses.

There are some other provisions that I just wanted to make the commission aware of, the board aware of.

So under the zoning statute, if there are any existing land uses within the zones that don't meet the zone criteria at the date of adoption, those existing land uses can continue, provided that they're identified specifically in the ordinance.

So here's an example from a Detroit Lakes Minnesota zoning ordinance that we assisted with where they had a lot of uses.

They had a in this area, they had a uh like a wastewater treatment plan.

Um they had some commercial zones, things like that within zones A and B that they had to identify in their ordinance.

Um those uses were allowed to continue.

So there are as far as I can tell, as far as I've been able to identify only two uh similar types of uses uh that we affected by this ordinance.

So this is on that uh runway one three or northwest approach, there is a farmstead within zone A.

It is in within zone A today.

Um so that would be as a land use that um we would recommend that the board include identify specifically in the ordinance to make sure that that land use can continue.

Um and then on the other end of that runway, there's another farmstead that uh I think there's just some health buildings there that are within zone A that would you know be structures within zone A.

Again, that would be um identified specifically in the ordinance as a land use that could be allowed to continue.

Uh member Gupta, go ahead.

Um, would they affect their insurance in any of it?

I mean that increase risk of being in zone A.

I I doubt it.

I I guess I don't want to make a statement on that.

I I um I mean it's something it's an existing condition today.

They're in zone A today, so you know it may change it's not as if something's changing in terms of what's allowed.

Um did you I just think that's the important distinction.

Both of those residences are already in zone A.

I would be more concerned about it if we were, you know, a residence was previously in zone B.

Now it's going to be in zone A, but they're both in the most restrictive zones already.

So I just question yeah, well how the uh if you go back to the construction of the Mayo uh incinerator, and that needed an FAA approval to just because of the stack height, all the high, uh, but were they to uh and it's like 35 years old now, uh, were they the need to uh upgrade that facility uh perhaps even at a louder larger generator with a with a higher stack height with would would that be a doable option for the I'm not sure exactly where they're located.

Um start to the airport, I'm sorry, yeah.

Yeah, um between 13 and 20.

You know, if there were a change that so there the FA has criteria that uh determine when um you know a project proponent has to submit notice to FAA and they do an airspace study, and so that usually encompasses any large like you know uh stacks or you know, towers or anything that'd be associated with that.

So if the mail were to make some changes that trigger those criteria, you know, they'd have to submit the airspace um case to FA for review, and you know um if FA were to come back and say it's not a hazard, which you know I think depending on the location, they let most likely would.

Um trying to excuse me for a moment, make sure I was possible.

Um this would preclude their expansion out there to a larger system than other full water to right, and that's something we we could look at specifically that particular you know, um case.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

We can we we know where it's at and we we can look at the airspace and look at the particular um um height restrictions in that area.

The park 77 services go up at a fairly steep angle at that point.

So uh right.

Wherever the regulations were in 1992 admitted the answer.

Mr.

King, go ahead.

I you know the I can't speak to new cases, I guess.

Um that's certainly something I could look at before the next meeting.

So Mr.

Keene.

So I appreciate you going through this and reading it was much more difficult than having you kind of uh take us through it.

So I appreciate that.

I am really surprised by the comment that the FAA comments but doesn't enforce.

And who would be the enforcement body?

Is it the local zoning?

It's correct.

Yeah, and that's why zoning is so important for airports in that you're protecting your asset.

So that language that that's leads me to my next thing.

So we were joint powers board.

How does joint power if we end up with this thing?

How what is the enforcement mechanism?

Is there gonna be ordinance?

Is it your county and city ordinances are gonna be there?

So that those joined in the joint powers enforce it in their in their operations.

So how does that go back to the state ordinance?

So the the state statute, some of the revisions of the state statute made explicit that when a zoning board, a joint zoning board adopts an ordinance, the affected jurisdictions are obligated under state law to integrate it and enforce it.

And that was actually a loophole, you know, in the previous statute that they're trying to take care of because it was not explicit previously.

And so there's a lot of zoning ordinances out there that aren't being enforced because there was not an explicit enforcement requirement for all of the underlying jurisdictions.

That's helpful.

Then the last thing, again, I'm just trying to connect the beginning of our meeting to where we're coming to a close now.

We're talking about are we doing a state's rule or are we doing the custom rule?

And I didn't see where we came to the that discussion.

Okay, so uh uh commissioner uh member guta and member woodwork, can you have your hand up?

So okay, so we're talking talking about zoning restrictions uh in this.

So wouldn't any of this come to planning and zoning?

Um you wanted to appeal to change it, some application comes to us at the planning and zoning, and we are thinking like, okay, we are looking at it, it's near the airport.

So yeah, I I I believe that the way the state model ordinance is written is the board of adjustment that is identified, does considers any variances or any appeals of any sort.

So I do not believe it would go to planning and zoning at any point for any sort of approval that goes.

Where would it go?

Um zoning board of appeal.

Is outlined in unified development code that says any variance requests.

That's true.

Yes.

Yeah, and that's that's among our recommendations to make.

Right.

Got it.

Okay.

Um just a couple more provisions.

I just wanted to make the board aware of.

So there is a provision in the state statute that talks about a hazard so severe for certain types of structures.

Um basically what and this is a lot of text.

I tried to summarize it.

But the point here is that um, you know, if there are existing land uses that fit these criteria, um so for that to take the first one, a structure that's located in zone A within a thousand feet of the end of the primary zone.

There are no land uses that fit that criteria at Rochester.

There are no land uses that fit the second one.

There's no land uses that fit the third one.

So I guess my point here is that the adoption of the zoning ordinance is not gonna require removal of anything that it currently exists today.

So yeah, if I might Mr.

Chair, uh subject of the incinerator as I zoomed in on what's available here.

That incinerator stack actually falls outside of your zone just outside.

And if you look at your your runway plan on it, everything that's built in that zone actually defines or moves in that direction away from your runway plan.

So that it is outside of it now.

So that restriction, there might be some restriction because it encompasses that closed space, but it's not yeah, it's not gonna have same restrictions as well.

Well, if you're looking at it, there's a water power in the zone.

It does not appear like any of those reflect in any of the topography that I'm seeing here.

And and and the then the conical services going up off the edge of that approach are exceptionally steep on those sides.

And so you're really worried about height there more than anything else.

Yeah, I don't I don't see it in the sure.

I've checked Mr.

Bear.

Uh on our five A, are we at the custom ordinance option?

Yes, we are.

Okay.

All right.

Uh yes.

Okay, so we're gonna move on.

Um the member group depth.

Just a five-minute piece.

Okay.

Uh oh, we're asking for a recess.

Uh uh, all in favor of a five-minute recess.

Okay, go ahead.

We we usually wait two hours at our city.

Is that well, if it's okay for this structure to be there.

I guess this is a preface here.

I have recommendations at the end.

I just want to let everyone know.

At the end of this presentation, I'm going to be recommending that you go with the state model.

But it's really important that the board is aware of this custom option and what everything that goes into it.

And just so you know that that option does exist and it is something that you can choose to pursue if you're going to be able to do that.

And just to clarify, that recommendation will come today.

And are we expected to vote on that today, or is that for our next meeting?

I was hoping we would vote on it.

Just to give us concrete direction because we want to prepare the ordinance.

And then at the next just so board members are clear that there will be a recommendation at the end of this presentation, and there will be a uh opportunity to vote on that.

So go ahead.

So the statute update in 2019 added this custom option.

And um, you know, because there were a lot of airports that had elected not to adopt the state model ordinance, and there was no alternative.

Um and in those certain cases, it was likely because there were some uh there was so much incompatible development near that airport that um you know there was need to be some consideration of you know compatible community development and making sure that um the community can continue to exist in this current form.

Um so um what if uh you know a zoning board decides to go the zoning the custom option route, there has to be a detailed study that's conducted.

And there are some you know very specific criteria I'll show in a moment that has to be studied in order to demonstrate that whatever the custom ordinance that the board is adopting uh provides a reasonable level of safety.

Basically, the board has to show to Mendot that they considered all of the potential safety hazards associated with you know the the custom zones that they they propose to adopt and that they're able to show that it provides that reasonable level of safety.

Um so these are the criteria that have to be studied as part of a custom zoning proposal.

Um so we look at the location of the airport, we you know, inventory all of the surrounding land uses, look at the character of any neighborhoods in the vicinity of the airport.

Uh we take a detailed look at the type of operations at the airport, what type of aircraft, you know, what type of day they're coming in, um, kind of the the relative usage of each runway end.

Um we calculate the accident rate at the airport can compared to statistically significant sample, basically to show you know the likelihood of aircraft accidents in the area surrounding the airport and superimposing that on the planned land uses to show that there's a reasonable level of safety.

Um and also have to look at okay if there are any plans to to develop anything in the vicinity of the airport, and how are we making sure that those are you know those proposals will will be safe.

So um I'm gonna provide two examples here.

There's only been a handful of airports have done this because um the statute was was updated in 2019.

Um so I'm gonna talk about Lake Almo in the the Twin Cities metro area, and then also Duluth has pursued this custom option.

So Lake Elmo on the left here, uh this is their previous airport zoning overlay, which uh bears very little of any resemblance to the state model ordinance.

I don't know the history of that, but a major reason that they were adopting decided to adopt a new ordinance was because it didn't meet that those ordinance, you know, the state model.

They also built a brand new runway.

They relocated their main runway and extended it.

Um so that changed some of the the runway and the other.

Mr.

Carlson, yeah.

I I just just for those that aren't familiar, uh, where Lake Elmo is.

It's an eastern suburb of the Twin Cities area, very dense area, small general use airport, no commercial airlines or anything like that.

But I just kind of wanted to set that type of in a fast growing in a fast growing area, very thin area.

Yes.

Up in the Twin Cities Metro, kind of on the side.

So thank you.

Yeah.

Um and the airport is located very close to the city center of Lake Elmo here.

Um so for the in the state model, these would be the state model zones for uh Lake Elmo.

Um this shows the future land use.

So there's um an area that's zoned for medium densal density residential within zone B, so that wouldn't meet the density criteria.

So you know there would be no structures allowed in that zone A.

There's also in the townships, these are all zoned for residential, they're mostly large lock development.

But you know, if they were to adopt the state model, there'd be restrictions on any sort of subdivision of those large lot developments.

So there were a lot of land uses surrounding the airport that uh made the airport decide that and the Jordan Airport zoning board to decide you know, we should go the custom route and take a look at any impacts on these land uses.

So uh there was a very detailed safety risk study that they did.

They they uh all these points on the left here, they basically took from a study that was done at the University of California, Berkeley that plotted all of those accidents, and then basically it was an aggregation of all the accidents that have occurred across the country and with respect, you know, distance from the runway end.

Um, and then there was a statistical calculation that was done that determined what is the risk of an aircraft accident, what's the frequency of it uh within a certain grid pattern.

Um, looking in closer at the airport, you know, they determined okay, there there would be an accident in this grid square once every 3,000 years or something like that.

Um, and then uh basically use that the conclusions of that safety risk study to uh you know propose something smaller.

I think this is what they propose uh for for their zones in the yellow here, and then this ended up just being part of zone C because they just established that the likelihood of any aircraft accident is like once every several hundred years.

Um so they adopted just the the um the basic part 77 focuses that um that we talked about earlier, but then on the land use side, they adopted um a different dimension zone.

Uh they did not do the zone A zone B.

They did what they'd called Jaz B zone one, which is just the blue area here.

Um and I think primarily it just prohibited structures, uh those areas.

So um so that was a very lengthy process.

Um, you know, there was a lot of study that needed to be done, uh, a lot of you know discussion and determination okay, what are our options for the custom zone boundaries?

Um, you know, so it's it's a very uh in-depth process to go through.

Um at Duluth, they had an old airport zoning ordinance from 1988.

Um they made some changes to their airfield as well.

Um, and they decided to go the custom route because similar to Lake Elmo, they had some commercial areas and residential areas within the mixed state model zones A and B.

Um, and so they wanted to make sure that they um allowed those uses to continue.

Um so we had a lot of different types of spaces on all four runway ends here um that needed to be considered, and there were a lot of different jurisdictions that were involved Duluth, Hermantown, St.

Louis, and Rice Lake.

They all um, you know, each of them had their own incompatible land uses that they needed to consider.

Um, and they did just a little bit different statistical analysis.

I'm not as familiar with this one, but um, you know, pretty detailed logarithmic study on the um on the aircraft accidents.

Um and then they ended up adopting something that looks more like the zones A and B, but they established different restrictions for zone what they called zone one, which is the purple, zone two, which is the red, zone 2.5, which is the orange here.

So this is ultimately what they adopted for land use zoning.

And then they did adopt similar to Lake Elmo, they just adopted what that part 77 surfaces.

So, you know, so far the the custom uh the airports that elected the custom option and done it from a land use perspective.

They they haven't you know promulgated their own airspace zones, they've just adopted the federal ones, but really looking at the land use side to make sure that they're uh providing you know compatible community development.

So one question?

Go ahead.

Um when they uh established their own custom plan.

Did they hire an outside body to help them demand on it?

Yes.

Well, I think uh well, Lake Elmo, they actually did it in-house because they have their own planning development department.

Um we did help them with another airport they did.

So they um but Duluth, I think, um, a consultant to do most of the analysis.

So okay.

So even though we wouldn't be putting today, the plan is not going to happen today, right?

If I mean if we if we adopt a custom plan, then we won't really have a finite plan.

It's it'd just be in the process.

Yeah, if you just follow up on uh on member Gloupia's question, can you give us a sense?

You said they were lengthy process processes.

How long was the Lake Own Mole or and the Dilut process?

At least a year.

Um because there were a lot more zoning board meetings, but there was also a lot more coordination with MIMDAP in order to you know get them to accept the safety risk study.

Um and you know, I think we there end up ended up being multiple public hearings in both cases because uh there's initial public hearing on the initial proposal, then it went to Mendoc, and Mindot came back with a bunch of comments, they made some revisions, they went out for public comment again.

So um I know in both cases it was more than a year-long process.

So uh as Brent mentioned earlier, uh so we had our kickoff meeting uh in November.

This is where we are today, and we'd like the the board to consider um voting on standard or custom.

If there's a if you selected the custom, we you direct us to develop this analysis, right?

You know, develop some recommended zones, we'd come back to you with that.

Um, and then once there was agreement of the board a direction you wanted to go, then we'd go back and we develop the ordinance.

So we just do the analysis first, and then and then the board would accept the analysis and then we develop the ordinance and can come back to you again.

So this is basically an extra meeting that would occur.

If the board goes to the commissioner standard route, then we can prepare the draft ordinance and map immediately, bring it back to you at our next meeting.

Um, if everything looks good, we could have the public hearing at that meeting.

Um, and depending on the the public comments you receive at that time, you know, after the public hearing, you could actually approve the ordinance for us to submit to MINDAT.

Can I ask a question?

Uh uh so if we were to uh accept the uh the the standard recommendation the recommendation today and then heard uh additional information at the public hearing.

Can we go back?

Yeah, the board could at that time consider okay, maybe we want to go the custom route if you know if there's a reason to.

Or or if there are more substantive changes that yeah, we or we could schedule another meeting, it'll just kind of depend on what the public input is and yeah.

But the the model ordinance that we've been talking about is it it is sort of there's a template, right?

Where we would basically plug in the specifics of RST.

Um that's why and we would develop some pretty detailed maps uh of the air space to make sure that you know each jurisdiction can consider okay, you know, if you had a question about an incinerator or a tower or something in your own community, then you could take a look at those detailed maps.

So um we would provide those in advance in the next meeting questions, uh board members.

And I also I I it since we did already suspend the rules, I would also invite our friends from Stuartville.

If you have any comments, uh feel free, I think that the suspension of the rules is for the entire meeting.

So questions.

I was uh city minister here in Princeton and uh also we're the head of airport manager, and uh we work closely with uh officer aeronautics and FBA and just so the comments adopting that state plan certainly worked well for us.

And so I guess that could work for you.

Should be a good thing.

Okay.

Is there is there a motion?

Go ahead.

That's what I guess.

I have a motion with the discussion.

I'll I'll move to adopt the standard process for uh our uh adjustments to the zoning for airport, airport zoning.

Uh it's been moved by uh by board member keen and seconded by board member Kenworthy uh discussion.

My only discussion is that the I don't know what the template looks like, but uh I guess we'll have we'll we'll trust our staff on that.

Um what I really could you know if I had any concerns and I I think history has borne this out in other reports around the country, it's yeah, it's not like crashes, it's some mitigation.

And uh and that's what cost the taxpayers money.

Yeah, so the question is under the under the state option, would there be an option to reference within the zoning code uh a reference to any required building code requirements around the subject of sound medication?

Um I would recommend if that was something that the board wanted to consider that you consider it as a separate, you know, uh separate from this because the state model, if you go to the state model ordinance route, because if the state model ordinance, there's nothing about noise insulation or anything in the state model ordinance, and so we would essentially be developing a custom ordinance if we were to add that.

Probably because it's min dot, they don't deal with it.

Yeah, so if it's something that the board really wanted to adopt, I would consider I would recommend that you you consider it as a separate you know, ordinance or something.

However, I can tell you that you know if you adopt the model ordinance, you're very unlikely to have any noise issues that you need to mitigate because zone A is primarily where you're where your noise issues are going to be, and they're just not going to be anything there to mitigate.

So a follow-up to Mr.

Sedjum's question.

Would this body have the uh the ability to have a separate ordinance regarding noise mitigation?

I don't know.

That might be a legal question we need to come back with.

Uh he was asking if the board has the authority to adopt uh separate noise regulations, like noise installation regulations, and I don't know if like the state statute just uh is explicit about that or not, probably not.

Could this be could this be a topic of exploration at our next meeting?

Kind of I know from uh from the the Mac model that they're a self-contained jurisdiction, and so their no all of their noise mitigation is at administered and funded by the MEC.

And so we did that all inclusively and didn't rely on any other jurisdictions, the city of Minneapolis, City of St.

Paul, or the state to uh to regulate or fund that.

Right.

And so it'd be kind of difficult because yeah, you can certainly bring back some information on that whole program and and you know, um maybe provide some information that provides more, I guess, assurance that there are.

I mean, we wouldn't issue be in a place where we created an unfunded mandate for uh local jurisdiction.

Yeah, yeah, Mr.

Chair, yeah.

That's what I would my concern was you're going down a rabbit hole here on a on a on a topic matter that uh may be beyond our our our issues.

Understand, but the that the noise mitigation, who's who really has that responsibility, where would that responsibility lie and and who would pay for anything that's gonna happen?

Well, Mr.

My question was about this witness fate option, give a an airport zoning commission board, I guess we call it uh the option of including by reference, uh a airport uh airport zone of whatever whatever the type the zoning regulations which would incorporate building code sound medication uh provisions within it.

Um I go ahead, go ahead, Mr.

Woodward.

Oh, we shouldn't go ahead.

I don't think we can be more restrictive than the building code.

Um so I think if we're looking at some of that, I think we need to consider what our building code allows is a state building code, but we can't impose measures that are more restrictive than that.

Well, it must have been Minneapolis.

Well, it it's uh from a from a MAC standpoint, as I said, MAC is its own jurisdiction, right?

It is its own body, it actually has taxing authority that has that has never used, but it it funds uh a uh sound mitigation program within itself within its own budget and does not rely on state dollars or local dollars to do that.

So there is a fixed budget item that we then at the time, since I was on the board, then would be able to do uh uh 3,000 homes this year, 2000 the next year, given in in and then there's the noise patterns that also that that is different than these uh height restrictions, it's where the noise uh goes.

So from that standpoint, Mr.

Regal.

Yeah, so so um and without diving much deeper down down the rabbit hole here a little bit.

So during our um last master planning effort, um what we'll call it five years ago, we did do at least the basics of a part 150 study, which is the study of noise.

And again, without me looking at that right now today, I believe the vast majority of the noise that's can that's made at the airport is contained on airport property itself.

And um, I mean, I don't know if if we could I don't know how to say that any better.

Yes, I I could just do a short primer on that in the next meeting, just you know, showing you the noise analysis that was out of the master plan, explain some of the metrics and how that how that relates to sound insulation.

Yeah, absolutely.

Um but yeah, I mean, if if this power look for an information item at the next meeting.

So back to our motion, any more discussion.

There's been a motion uh for us to adopt the uh the model ordinance.

I think mayor questions.

Oh, Mary Mayor can go ahead.

I realize we'll still be under the airport restrictions, like we always said we're gonna have to call regulations.

Just by no means if you pass this, say the start will call under Rochester jurisdictional planning zoning or ordinances or any of that.

Not that uh I'll turn to our city attorney to the zoning board the joint zoning board is made up of the uh representatives from from all the affected counties, yeah.

And City Rochester.

Um so yeah, the city of Rochester can't impose zoning on the Storeville, but the joint airport zoning board can under state law as far as airport as far as airport.

I understand that's part of that.

I can just make a little more fame on the board.

I don't know.

This plan that we weren't asked to be on this report.

So you know we're as affected by this as much or more than a lot of people in Dollars More coming up.

That being said, that's on the way, but I just want to make sure we're not falling under Rochester's jurisdiction planning zone.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Are there any further discussion on the motion?

Well, can I because they are forever?

I mean, who your point I think who enforces this 25 years from now?

Yeah.

And well, as long as this is on the books, they're affected.

And we we have clarified that it is the board of zoning of appeals.

Am I saying that that it will be part of the recommendation?

Now that can be further discussion as we move forward, correct?

Yes.

So uh so that is the the administrative body that will be right.

May City of Storm Bill be responsible for you know considering zoning ordinance and any sort of building permit applications, those sorts of things.

We have been for right.

So but if there's any requests for a variance or appeal, then we go through this board of adjustment recommending the Rochester building board appeals.

Clear.

Uh so there's a motion on the table.

All in favor say aye.

Aye opposed say nay.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Um moving on to uh uh our other business.

Uh we have uh member sending our question.

Okay, uh uh we have select meeting uh number three, date and time, and this will be a public hearing as well, Mr.

If I may, um so kind of like we did last time.

I think it's beneficial for us to set our next date where we've got everybody here, we've got calendars out.

Uh we think it's gonna take us about six weeks to put this next uh ordinance together, uh give us a little buffer time.

So we are proposing a date sometime uh that last week of March, first week of April.

Um put my calendar.

Um is there any consensus the week of March 30th?

I would also put out there that given that we will have a public hearing here.

If we may consider hours later in the day that can meet with uh public availability.

I think that's something to consider, and we'll work with Ed Cables to make sure that this is obviously properly noticed as a public hearing, which would include you know, notification and the post bulletin, etc.

Members dates last week in March.

I I agree.

I mean it's I mean, I don't think it's gonna be a controversial whether it was why it ought to be probably towards the evening or something like that.

Yeah.

I think our consensus has been Friday morning, but with since the public hearing, I think I'm hearing uh a more of a move motion to have it uh near the end of the business day on a non-Friday or Thursday.

Yeah.

Um I'm looking at the calendar, it says Thursday, April 2nd.

Um Thursday meetings, I can't do it.

Okay, let's go uh I'm gonna start writing in these problems, but not changing tax.

But uh Wednesday, April 1st, Fool's Day at five o'clock.

So the planning is the new commission meeting.

No, no, okay.

Then I then I'm I don't need to.

No, go ahead.

Yeah, come uh so uh April 1st works works for me.

I'll make a motion that our next meeting of the Gasby is April 1st at 4 o'clock in this room as a as a and where we're gonna hold a public hearing on the new ordinance.

You're at least at five, is it four or five?

Oh can I I'd say five.

No, we're that I'll commend my amendment to say five p.m.

Yeah uh is there a second uh motion made by uh member keen second invite member any further discussion all in favor of uh Wednesday April 1st at five o'clock uh as our next meeting that would be say aye but here yes and and uh do we know if we could get the chambers for that um I will um this will kind of be our default but we can look to see if we can get council chambers um for that meeting yes I think it'll be okay yeah yeah yeah this might be fine yeah okay all in favor say aye aye was this television I mean could it be oh we have here we have an owl we are after people I I don't think we have the capability to like live stream it all of the meetings are certainly uh recorded and will be posted to the city's website for members of the public to view I think it'd be preferable to have a better so the I don't think it's gonna be a big deal but it could be a big deal so it's preferable to uh have the owl in this room and be able to stream it at least post the meeting I I think Mr.

Chair if I might go ahead to um satisfy uh board member sendjam's concerns what we could do is we could create a Microsoft Teams link and we could all advertise that Teams link uh on the agenda like we kind of did during the pandemic so if any member of the public couldn't make it here in person they could um certainly listen in and provide comment and we open a comment period or during the public hearing via Teams is that satisfactory sure oh yeah all right okay uh all in favor say aye aye opposed say nay sounds good april fool's day any other business none to adjourn all all in favor of adjourning say aye aye opposed we are adjourned thank you