Steps - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The property acreage recommended to be acquired increases by approxi- mately 48 acres under the concept of the 15-33 alignment. The associated costs are estimated to be approximately $80,000 higher with the alternative alignment than the Master Plan alignment. This assumes that the mobile homes can be relocated to another park within a reasonable distance. if not, costs would rise substantially. The zoning impacts of Zone B appear to be somewhat less with the alterna- tive alignment than with the Master Plan alignment due to larger commercial parcels across Hwy. 10 and to slightly larger parcels and undevelopable residential properties to the north. No recommendation of the alternative alignment was made to the Council since at that time the airspace feasibility had not been determined nor did the alternative alignment appear to present a significant advantage. Effects of No Decision on Runway Alignment The primary effects of not having a definitive runway alignment is that airport zoning or a development moratorium cannot proceed to protect the airport from development encroachment. The Council, however, could determine to place a moratorium over a larger area encompassing both alignments. Another effect has been the number of landowners potentially impacted and their heightened degree of uncertainty with respect to impacts. The environmental assessment is primarily aimed towards considering the impacts of a specific runway alignment. Thus, a determination should be made prior to proceeding with the assessment. Key Issues Related to the Alternatives A major reason for acquiring and upgrading the facility is to assure a greater year 'round utility of the airport thus making it more attractive to business users. The alternative 15-33 alignment may result in increased IFR minimums thus reducing the runway utility during IFR conditions. The utility of the airport under varying weather conditions is important to business users when considering an airport and raising the minimums would be a negative impact. The magnitude of the increase in minimums is unknown. Of major importance is that the Master Plan alignment has been presented at several public meetings. Much of the feedback that has been received from residents that would be acquired has been primarily concerned with receiving fair compensation for their property - not outright opposition. With the "Prestress" alignment, the potential exists to create a nucleus of opponents on each end of the runway. The residents to the north who formerly would have been acquired and relocated would now have the airport upgraded, but would remain. The impression thus far received from the mobile home park manager is opposition to the runway alignment. Since noise attenuation of mobile homes is significantly lower than conventional structures, the 15-33 alignment may be expected to be opposed by many of the mobile home park residents. In short, opposition by nearby residents may increase significantly with the 15-33 alignment. 3