Vance Brand Municipal Airport Airport Master Plan

Based Aircraft Forecast

Runway Length Guidelines 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.

Preliminary Alternatives Alternative 1 – Do-Nothing (Maintain 4,800’ length) Alternative 2 – Extend runway to 6,360’ Alternative 3 – Extend runway to 6,860’

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.

Alternative 1: Do Nothing

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

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

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.

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.

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

Airport Influence Area: Do-Nothing and Alternative 4

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

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.

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

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.

Evaluation Results 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 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.

Evaluation Results 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.

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.

South Side Airport Development Current and Proposed Master Plan

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 BRAND AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT Compatible Commercial Development Options: Aircraft Restoration Service Fixed Base Operator Avionics Repair Facilities Commercial Restaurant Aviation Related Service Operations

South Side Airport Development Current and Proposed Master Plan FRCC CAMPUS (30 acres)

Airport Noise Abatement Procedures: Updated in 2002.

New Procedures Include: 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.

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.

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.