Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

Vance Brand Municipal Airport

Airport Master Plan

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Fore

cast

No.

of B

ased

Air

craf

t

2001 2006 2011 2021

Based Aircraft Forecast

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

AIRPORT AND RUNWAY DATA

Airport elevation . . . . . . .. . . . . . 5055 feet

Mean daily maximum temperature of the hottest month 88.00 F.

Maximum difference in runway centerline elevation . . 24 feet

EXISTING RUNWAY LENGTH  . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 4800 feet

RUNWAY LENGTHS RECOMMENDED FOR AIRPORT DESIGN

 Small airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats

75 percent of these small airplanes . . . . . . . . 4610 feet

95 percent of these small airplanes . . . . . . . . 6200 feet

100 percent of these small airplanes . . . . . . . .6360 feet

Small airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats . . . 6360 feet

 

Large airplanes of 60,000 pounds or less

75% of large airplanes at 60% useful load 6860 feet

Source: FAA software.

 

Runway Length Guidelines

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

Preliminary Alternatives

• Alternative 1 – Do-Nothing (Maintain 4,800’ length)

• Alternative 2 – Extend runway to 6,360’

• Alternative 3 – Extend runway to 6,860’

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

Final Alternatives

• Alternative 1 – Do-Nothing (Maintain 4,800’ length)

• Alternative 4 – Extend to 5,650’ (adds 850’ fully usable length and does not relocate N. 75th Street)

Note: Alternatives 2 and 3 were eliminated from further consideration by vote of the Airport Advisory Board. Alternative 4 was added following the first public information meeting and third regular meeting of the AAB.

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

Alternative 1: Do Nothing

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

Alternative 4: Extend Runway (adds 850’ fully usable length)

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

Evaluation Criteria• Safety• Ability to meet aviation needs• Airspace• Surface Access• Environmental Factors• Availability of Utilities• Land Requirements• Costs• Community Compatibility• Local Acceptability

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

Evaluation Results

• Safety: Alternative 1 does not address the needs of larger aircraft types that currently use the airport e.g., Cessna Citation Bravo, KingAir 90, etc. Alternative 4 provides additional distance for take-off, landing, and emergency operations.

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

Evaluation Results

• Meet Aviation Needs: Alternative 1 (current length 4,800’) meets the needs of 75 percent of small airplanes with <10 passenger seats. Alternative 4 provides (length of 5,650’) nearly 90 percent of the runway length recommended for these small airplanes.

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

• Airspace: Alternative 1 does not alter existing airspace requirements. The change imposed by Alternative 4 is to small to cause any major disadvantage.

Evaluation Results

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

Airport Influence Area: Do-Nothing and Alternative 4

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

Evaluation Results

• Surface Access: Neither Alternative requires an disruption of the surface access system, notably North 75th Street, in the area of the airport.

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

Evaluation Results• Environmental Factors: Alternative 1

enjoys an advantage because it does not require any development. Alternative 4 would generate construction impacts (dust, etc.) that will need to be mitigated. Alternative 4 will also require land acquisition (approx. 27 acres and relocation of one affected owner. Noise exposure exceeding 65 Ldn would not extend beyond proposed airport land and easements.

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

Evaluation Results

• Availability of Utilities: The alternatives are considered equal with respect to this criterion. Neither will impose significant new requirements.

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

Evaluation Results

• Land Requirements: Alternative 1 does not require land acquisition. Acquisition of avigation easements would be recommended. Fee simple acquisition of approximately 27 acres and one residence would be recommended under Alternative 4.

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

• Costs: Alternative 1 does not require capital expenditures for runway extension. Estimated costs for Alternative 4 are $2.4 million ($2.16 FAA; $120,000 state; and $120,000 local)

Evaluation Results

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

Evaluation Results

• Community Compatibility: Alternative 4 requires no zoning or land use changes and community compatibility impacts are minimal. It requires no zoning or land use changes. Alternative 1 has no additional compatibility effects.

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

• Local Acceptability: Alternative 1 is preferred by opponents of airport expansion. Alternative 4 is a compromise generating less opposition than more ambitious runway extension alternatives.

Evaluation Results

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

Conclusions

• Alternative 1 imposes fewer impacts because it makes no improvements.

• Alternative 4 addresses aviation safety for airplanes that use the airport now and in the future.

• Consultant’s and AAB’s recommendation: Alternative 4.

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

South Side Airport DevelopmentCurrent and Proposed Master Plan

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

VANCE BRAND AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

• Compatible Commercial Development Options:– Aviation Manufacturing Operations– Non-Aviation Manufacturing Operations– Community College Aviation Technical

School– Aviation Paint Shop– Aircraft Maintenance Facility

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

VANCE BRAND AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

• Compatible Commercial Development Options:– Aircraft Restoration Service– Fixed Base Operator– Avionics Repair Facilities– Commercial Restaurant – Aviation Related Service Operations

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

South Side Airport DevelopmentCurrent and Proposed Master Plan

PROPOSED

FRCC

CAMPUS

(30 acres)

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

Airport Noise Abatement Procedures: Updated in 2002.

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

Traffic pattern altitude 6,050 MSL (raised 150 feet)

• Pilots should climb to at least 500 hundred feet AGL after takeoff before turning crosswind.

• Pilots are requested to avoid making touch and go landings at the Longmont Municipal Airport before 8AM and after 8 PM.

• Avoid flying over the city and outlying residential areas as much as possible.

New Procedures Include:

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

•Airport Master Plan Summary and Notes:

• The Airport Master Plan is a planning tool to help guide the future of the airport for all aspects of aviation and community needs. This is a ten-year plan that will be updated again in the future.

• The projects contained in the Airport Master Plan are unfunded at this time.

Vance

Bra

nd M

uni c

i pal A

irport

•Airport Master Plan Schedule:

• Staff and AAB to receive City Council direction on January 7, 2003.

• Approximately 6 weeks for completion of final draft.

• Final “Draft” of the Master Plan with the Council chosen options to be presented in March 2003.

• Anticipate adoption of final Master Plan by Resolution in April 2003.