06/19/85 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Council's zegional aysbm plan; Benson is being dropped ~c~ the 1990 plan. With regards to forecast data, ~. Otto stated that it is anticil~ted that Gateway will ext~rience increased growth to 50 based aircraft over a 20 year time frame assuming 1989 is the construction year for imixov~ents. The forecasted annual operation~ are anticipated to rise fran 8,520 in 1984 to 36,920 in the year 2005. Mr. Otto referred to airport facility requir~nents and stated that the minimum facility eligible for State and Federal funds is a Basic Utility Stage II airport which would serve 95% of all aircraft under 12,500 pounds; predominantly single engine and light twin engine aircraft; 3300' x 60' paved runway; land acquisition; 40:1 non-precision approach surfaces; 500' x 2000' x 1100' clear zones; 500' wide primary surface; parallel taxiway system; land use safety zoning; height limitation zoning; and building area space (arrival/departure building, T hangars, parking lot, utilities). Mr. Otto stated that the major enwirorinental ooncerns ooming out of the Airport Master Plan Study are perceived noise and safety problems, proximity of sanitary landfill, and socio-eoonomic impacts. Mr. Otto stated that the Ix el im ina ry ooncerns with the draft Airport Master Plan by the reviewing agencies are: 1. Proximity of landfill (existing guidelines are that a landfill is not allowed within 5000 feet of a runway serving piston aircraft). 2. (Dst of project relative to total develolm~_nt available. Potential expansion at Gateway is restricted because of the maximum 3300' runway. 3. Alternative sites not being addressed. It was pointed out in the Airport Master Plan that the directive was to study the Gateway North site only. 4. Eligibility for State and Federal funding requires inclusion in the Regional, State and National Air Syst~ Plans. Mr. Otto then presented an airport layout map showing runway placement and reoomnended land acquisition. ~e develol~nent of Gateway North would require the relocation of Gounty Road ~116 to provide adequate clearances over the road and land acquisition is eligible for Federal participation. Mr. Otto stated that it is technically feasible to develop the site. Mr. Otto stated that there is plenty of runway capacity in the Metro area, but there is a shortage of hangar capacity; Gateway could hangar at least 90-100 aircraft and if ~ be, there is area to the east of the airport that could be reserved for future hangar develoI~nt which would increase Gateway's hangar capacity to 150 aircraft. Mr. Otto then presented a layout showing obstructions in the clear zones and airspace zones -- telephone/telegra~ lines, nmerous residential structures, and a couple of ocm~nercial properties. All existin9 structures or obstructions that would be reoc~ for aGguisition would be r~m~3ved or May 15, 1985 Page 3 of 11