Laserfiche WebLink
<br />' positioning as Alternate #5 and the same Primary Runway 17-35 orientation as <br />' Alterhate #7 although the location has been modified as shown in Figure 10. <br />' P <br />i <br />R <br />17-35 h <br />b <br />l <br />t <br />d It <br />d <br />t <br />f L <br />k <br />t <br />b with <br /> r <br />mary <br />unway <br />as <br />een re <br />oca <br />e asca an <br />as <br />e eas <br />o <br />a <br />e <br />o <br />' Alternates #5 and #6, it is located as f ar south as possible so the south approach <br /> zones maximize their use of the floodway fringe areas, shown in Figure 2. A sub- <br />' stantial portion of the north clear zone lies over the County Ditch #51 - Trott <br /> Brook floodway, but the outer reaches of zone A and all of zone B occupy resi- <br />t dentially zoned, yet undeveloped, land. <br />' The impacts of Crosswind Runway 9-27 are the same as discussed in Alternate #5. <br />' Like Alternate #7, the Primary Runway 17-35 orientation provides almost an 80 <br />percent wind coverage while the combined runway wind coverage exceeds 95 percent. <br />' CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS <br />' Based on the previously discussed eight (8) alternative layouts on the two airport <br />sites under consideration, the General Mills property site provides the greater <br />' flexibility and has the least serious ground space limitations. <br />' None of the alternatives considered at Site #1, immediately west of the existing <br />' Gateway North Industrial Airport, achieved the desired 95 percent wind coverage. <br />Any reorientation of either runway at Site #1, in an attempt to achieve the 95 <br />percent coverage, will necessitate the taking of existing, residential homes to <br />the north in order to achieve the necessary clearance above the railroad tracks <br />' to the south. Virtually all of the land space required for the runway primary <br />' surfaces and approach. zones at Site #1 are prime development lands for industrial, <br />' 19 <br />