05/30/84 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Alternate B - Basically same orientation of runway. This alternative achieves the best wind coverage. The runway is shifted, to the north about 600' but this plan requires less fill -- abOut 5'. The cemetery would still be in the primary surface zone; there is no way to exclude the cemeter without making runway adjustments that would involve acquiring DeZiels Restaurant, Commissioner Greenberg stated that the cemetery would be enhanced by removing the trees and planting shrubbery and that all grave markers'are flush with the ground. He also noted that the cemetery property was deeded to the City at the time the Industrial Park was formed. Mr. Otto stated that with Alternative B, Cty. Rd. 116 would have to be relocated. In reference to the A zone, FAA says you have to own fee~title for the inner most 1000' and remainder of the 2000' must be covered with clear zone easements. Mn/DoT requires acquisition of the entire A zone area. Mr. Otto stated that another alternative was presented to the State involving a reorientation of the primary runway and providing a cross wind runway in the 16/34 direction. This would be a staged development plan where the cross wind runway would be developed first and the State was negative to this plan. Chairman Ippel inquired if the Federal Government will participate in a one runway airport with 90% wind coverage on that runway. Mr. Otto replied that the State contacted FAA and they were agreeable to a one runway plan. Chairman Ippel inquired as to what happens between the second public meeting on the airport layout plan and the public hearing. Mr. Otto replied that after the preliminary plan is developed, it will,be submitted to Mn/DoT and FAA for comment. Cost estimates will be developed and environmental issues, etc., addressed. Mr. Otto stated that going out from the primary surface area we are looking at restricting buildings from encroaching within that 7:1 transition surface. PrestreSs may require obstruction lighting and there could be a problem with their new building. Discussion ensued regarding the best placement of airport buildings and Mr. Otto recommended the west side of the runway. Chairman Ippel inquired as to why the State is more restrictive on the approach area than the Federal government. Mr. Otto replied that you can downgrade to an approach surface that would be twice as steep and be in compliance with the Federal requirements but the State says when you have a paved surface you have to go with a 40:1 ratio. Mr. Otto stated that the City might aS well go ahead and purchase the needed property in fee because'when you deal in easements, you seem to get bit twice. AP/May 30, 1984 Page 2 of 4