Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />33 alignment was further compared to the Master Plan alignment <br />through a preliminary assessment. Figure 4-6 illustrates both <br />runway alignments. The 15-33 alignment was also submitted to <br />FAA for airspace feasibility determination. <br />A preliminary analysis evaluated the advantages and <br />disadvantages of the 16-34 Master Plan alignment and the 15-33 <br />"Prestress" alignment. The following factors were used in the <br />preliminary assessment: <br />Wind coverage <br />Impact on residents and businesses <br />Property acquisition <br />Costs <br />Zoning impacts <br />Wind coverage was essentially the same for both alignments. <br />Under the Master Plan alignment, two commercial properties, <br />MacGregor's and Tom Thumb, are recommended to be acquired. <br />Neither of these properties would be acquired under the 15-33 <br />alignment. The Master Plan alignment requires the acquisition <br />of 14 at that date) conventional homes to the north. The alter- <br />native requires the acquisition of three conventional homes <br />to the north. The southward shift and rotation, however, im- <br />pacts a conventional home and 14 or 15 mobile homes lying out- <br />side of the 2,000' clear zone but within Safety Zone A. <br />The property acreage recommended to be acquired increases by <br />approximately 48 acres under the concept of the 15-33 alignment. <br />The associated costs are estimated to be approximately $80,000 <br />higher with the alternative alignment than the Master Plan <br />alignment. This assumes that the mobile homes can be relocated <br />to another park within a reasonable distance. If not, costs <br />would rise substantially. The zoning impacts of Zone B appear <br />to be somewhat less with the alternative alignment than with the <br />Master Plan alignment due to larger commercial parcels across <br />Hwy. 10 and to slightly larger parcels and undevelopable <br />residential properties to the north. <br />Approximately the same number of both homes and residents would <br />be relocated under either alignment. Only the type and tax base <br />differ. The Council has expressed the desire to have the im- <br />pacted residents relocate in the City. Relocation of residents <br />into conventional homes within the City appears to have greater <br />potential than does relocation of mobile homes within the City. <br />The length of time that the Prestress property would be on the <br />market was a valid concern with this alternative. The property <br />has since been acquired by another concrete firm. Since this <br />alternative did not appear to present significant advantages <br />over the Master Plan Alignment, the City reaffirmed the Master <br />Plan alignment as the development plan. <br />4-9 <br />