The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20042698.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Moved by James Rohn, that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for: PLANNER: Monica Mika ITEM: Changes to Weld County Code Chapter 23: Section 23-1-90, amended definitions of DERELICT VEHICLE, HOUSEHOLD PETS, and KENNEL; corrections to stated elevations of Greeley-Weld County Airport in Sections 23-5-10 and 23-5-50; and correction to referenced Airport map in section 23-5-20; Chapter 24: correction to subdivision exemption process and time parameters in section 24-8-35. be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons: Please see attached information Motion seconded by Tonya Stobel VOTE: For Passage Against Passage Absent Michael Miller John Folsom Bryant Gimlin Bruce Fitzgerald James Rohn Tonya Stobel Chad Auer Doug Ochsner The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings. CERTIFICATION OF COPY I,Voneen Macklin, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adopted on August 3, 2004. Dated the 3rd of August, 2004. \V\IICA ) DThlaC Y) Voneen Macklin Secretary 2004-2698 dooy Doug Ochsner commented that the highest and best use is the minor subdivision which is the goal of the landowner. Mr. Ochsner stated it comes down to compatibility and there is a need for agricultural type lots that do promote 4H and not necessarily mansions. The concern is the lack of water for the ground. If these were larger lots with water it would be more acceptable. The compatibility is there but the size and design of the subdivision is in questions. Bryant Gimlin commented that the previous denial was based on the access, compatibility and the water. Those issues have not gone away but possibly changed order. The lack of water on the large lots is a major concern, there will be dust and dirt. Bruce Fitzgerald commented that compatibility is an issue. Tonya Strobel stated that there is a need for this type of housing and some have been approved through the recorded exemption and subdivision process. This development is not consistent with the surrounding properties. Michael Miller commented the compatibility issues are big. People have a responsibility to determine if the surrounding uses will be compatible with them and the dairy is not. The irrigation system is essential. There are some that do not understand that without water there is nothing but dirt and dust. The lack of effort on the part of the developer for irrigation water shows that it is not important to them. Dryland cannot have animals unless there is a way to irrigate. The water issues is the main reason he will not be in support and secondarily it is not compatible. This is not in best interest of the health safety and welfare of the county. Tonya Strobel moved that Case MZ-574, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commissions recommendation of denial. Bruce Fitzgerald seconded the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Michael Miller,yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; Tonya Strobel,yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald,yes. Motion carried unanimously. Doug Ochsner commented that this minor subdivision could get approval if the design was different,water and compatibility and water enter into this. Bryant Gimlin commented he is in favor of denial based on staff recommendations based on lack of irrigation and compatibility. Doug Ochsner left the meeting due to prior commitment. PLANNER: Monica Mika ITEM: Changes to Weld County Code Chapter 23: Section 23-1-90, amended definitions of DERELICT VEHICLE, HOUSEHOLD PETS, and KENNEL; corrections to stated elevations of Greeley-Weld County Airport in Sections 23-5-10 and 23-5-50;and correction to referenced Airport map in section 23- 5-20; Chapter 24: correction to subdivision exemption process and time parameters in section 24-8-35. Monica Mika, Department of Planning Services presented the proposed Code Changes, reading the recommendation and comments into the record. The Department of Planning Services is recommending approval. Lee Morrison stated there are two levels of licencing for birds that is based on both the number of birds and on the species. One requires a greater need for care and a smaller number of birds. Ms. Mika indicated that staff is referencing the definition back to the State regulations. Mr. Miller asked for clarification with regard to the term"ayes." Mr. Morrison stated that previously spell check was used and apes replaced the correct language. Game Birds are separately licensed through the Department of Wildlife. Ms. Mika continued with the proposed code changes. The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak. James Rohn moved that Case 2004-05, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Commissions recommendation of approval. Tonya Strobel seconded the motion. The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Michael Miller, yes; Bryant Gimlin, yes; James Rohn, yes; Tonya Strobel, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried unanimously. Further business discussed Mr. Morrison presented a request for a site visit for a substantial change case for Timber Rock that the applicant has submitted. A site visit can be done in a number of ways as a part of a meeting or individually. Testimony cannot be taken. The first item would be to recommend that the applicant apply or is granted a substantial change. Michael Miller clarified that the original was denied by both Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. He has done a site visit but it seems like a site visit would be more appropriate after the substantial change is determined. It would be best to do individually because as a group it would be discussed amongst each other. Lee Morrison added that this has not been requested for some time. Mr. Gimlin added that in the bylaws it indicates making site visits but a precedence should not be set to do as a group. Michael Miller stated it is more appropriate to have the substantial change hearing to determine if a site visit is more appropriate. Bruce Fitzgerald added that he would be more likely to accommodate a public utility request. Mr. Morrison and Ms. Lockman will address the request to the attorney for Timber Rock. Meeting adjourned at 4:45pm Respectfully`sub'mitted \'r i ` Voneen Macklin Secretary Affidavit of Publication NOTICE OF PUB HEAR-:CHANGES TO WC CODE WC PLANNING STATE OF COLORADO County of Adams SS. 1 A.Winkler Riesel of said County of Adams being duly sworn. say that I am publisher of Fort Lupton Press that the same is a weekly newspaper of general circulation was C—primed and published in the town of -• .�_ m Fort Lupton Nonce OF NAM Male thsaid county and state that the notice of advertisement.of which e annexed is a true copy has been published in said weekly The Wild County%NMry Can itso° • , newspaper for L consecutive weeks: that the notice was watoldapubldwrsgonTuetlry Augusi d published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said 3,2003,at 1:30 p.m.M the purpose of newspaper pe during Me period and time f publication said id notice considering Code Changes for the Weld Cys and in the newspaper proper ❑not in a supplement thereof: that County the first publication of said notice was contained in the-slue of PLANNER:Monica Mika ITEM : L t•cxr... .( `k f .` said newspaper bearing the date of 7pworna A.D. CaYPte Weld Carty CdGCleMer23:Section "— and the last publication thereof,in the issue n sf aid newspaper. t40 aa of DERELICT VEHICLE. HO bearing date, the 7117rtWM1 that the said PETS,and KENNEL:corrections to slated elevations of Fort Lupton Press In Sections 234-10« �Wand° :wand aoneb7bn to referenced Airport map In has been published continuously and uninterruptedly during the section 23420;Chapter 24:comedian pennd of at least fifty-two consecutive weeks neat prior to the first aubdMalon exemption Pmase and lime issue thereof containing said notice or advenisement above referred parameters In salon 244.35. to: and that said newspaper was at the time of each of the The pubicheregM be held at to Weld publications of said notice duly qualified for that purpose within County Planning Deportment 918 7641 the meaning of an act entitled. "An Act Concerning Legal Notices. Advertisements and Publications and the Fees of Printers and Street,Greeley,CctaWo.Comments p Publishers thereof,and to Repeal all Acts and Pans of Acts in objections related to the above request Conflict with the Provisions of this Act'approved April 7, 1921. ahoad be submitted h1 wilting to the Weld and all amendments thereof,and particularly as amended by an act Canty Department of Planning Services approved March 30. 1923.and an act approved May 13. 1931. 1555 N.17th Avenue,Greeley,Colorado 80631,betroths above date or ore:eseed at the public hearing on August 3,2004. Karen Lambert Copes of the application we evalagefor public Inspection In the Department of Morning Sambas,1555 N.17th Away, Publisher GrVeeley, Cobrado 80831. Please cal 3540,)Fax k)Macklin et(0 )3548100,Era Subscribed and sworn CO before me this day of the sing so that Pdatebi hewing n made If in .Z/1.7120f19 A.D.. accommodations an be made t, In accordance with the require *Pedal wlal /� / Dlse mods Act, you requln ain / / /� s y accommodations warm* in of a pr8pprs 11 �X//Y)LI1�L///xD r 7// /�✓7JJ aausicheduled before the Planning Commission for hewing am subject to continuance,the to lack of quorum or Notary Public otherwise. Contact the Department of Planing Services a(970)353-6100,ebt 3540,for hearing continuance information. 139 NORTH MAIN Nahael Miller.Chair Weld County Pinning Commission To be published In the Fort Lupton Prow BRIGHTON. CO 80601 To be published one(1)time by July 17, 2004. F,l( CCMl;:f Iss n Expo`@S Sec. 23-5-10. Definitions. As used in this Division, unless the context otherwise requires: AIRPORT ELEVATION.: The established elevation of the highest point on the usable landing area (four thousand six hundred ninety [4,6907] feet above sea level). Sec. 23-5-20. Airport zone. In order to carry out the provisions of this Chapter, there are hereby created and established certain zones which include all of the land lying beneath the approach surfaces, transitional surfaces, horizontal surfaces and conical surfaces as they apply to Greeley-Weld County Airport. Such zones are shown on the Greeley-Weld County Airport Zoning Map Airport Airspace (FAR Part 77 Surface), being Exhibit IV of the document entitled, "Airport Master Plan,"and dated December 15, 2003 consisting of one (1)sheet, piepaied by Isbill Associates, Inc., Airport Consultants, dated Junc 1994, the most reed a copy of which is on file at the Clerk to the Board's office and the Department of Planning Services. An area located in more than one (1) of the following zones is considered to be only in the zone with the more restrictive height limitation. The various zones are hereby established and defined as follows: Sec. 23-5-30. Airport Zone height limitations. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, no structure shall be erected, altered or maintained, and no tree shall be allowed to grow in any zone created by this Chapter to a HEIGHT in excess of the applicable HEIGHT herein established for such zone. Such applicable HEIGHT limitations are hereby established for each of the zones in question as follows: D. Transitional Zone: Slopes seven (7) feet outward for each foot upward beginning at the sides of and at the same elevation as the primary surface and the approach surface, and extending to a HEIGHT of one hundred fifty (150) feet above the AIRPORT ELEVATION which is four thousand six hundred ninety (4,6997) feet above MEAN SEA LEVEL. In addition to the foregoing, there are established HEIGHT limits sloping seven (7) feet outward for each foot upward beginning at the sides of and the same elevation as the approach surface, and extending to where they intersect the conical surface. Where the precision INSTRUMENT RUNWAY approach zone projects beyond the conical zone, there are established HEIGHT limits sloping seven (7) feet outward for each foot upward beginning at the sides of and the same elevation as the approach surface, and extending a horizontal distance of five thousand (5,000) feet measured at ninety-degree angles to the extended RUNWAY centerline. E. Horizontal Zone: Established at one hundred fifty (150) feet above the AIRPORT ELEVATION or at a HEIGHT of four thousand eight hundred forty (4,8407) feet above MEAN SEA LEVEL. VISUAL RUNWAY: A RUNWAY intended solely for the operation of aircraft using visual approach procedures. (Weld County Code Ordinance 2004-5) See.23.5.20. Airport zone. In order to carry out the provisions of this Chapter,there are hereby created and established certain zones which include all of the land lying beneath the approach surfaces.transitional surfatta,horizontal stn litres and conical surfaces as they apply to the Greeley-Weld County Airport. Such zones are shown on the Greeley-Weld County Airport Airspace(FAR Pan 77 Surface),being Exhibit IV of the document entitled,"Alrpnn Master Plan;dated December 15,2003,a copy of which is on file at the Clerk to the Board's office and the Deputment of Planning Smiees. An area located in more than one(I)of the following zones is considered to be only in the zone with the more Mtneive height limitation. The various zones are hereby established and defined as follows: A. Utility Runway Visual Approach lone: The inner edge of this approach zone coincides with the width of the primary surface and is two hundred fitly(250) feet wide. The approach zone expands outward uniformly to a width of one thousand two hundred fifty(1.250)tees at a horizontal distance of five thousand(5.000)feet from the primary surface. Its centerline is the continuation of the Interline of the RUNWAY. B. Runway Larger Than Utility Visual Approach Lone: the inner edge of this approach zone coincides with the width of the primary surface and is one thousand(1,000)feet wide. the approach zone expands outward uniformly 10 a width of one thousand five hundred(1.500)feet at a horizontal distance of five thousand(5,000)feet from the primary surface. Its centerline is the continuation of the centerline of the RUNWAY. C. Precision Instrument Runway Approach Zone: The inner edge of this approach zone coin- cides with the width of the primary surface and is one thousand(1,000)feet wide. The approach zone expands outward uniformly to a width of sixteen thousand(16,000)feet at a horizontal distance of fifty thousand(50,000)feet from the primary surface. Its centerline is the continuation of the centerline of the RUNWAY. D. Transitional Lone: The transitional zones are the areas beneath the transitional surfaces, E. Horizontal Zone: The horizontal zone Is established by swanbring arcs of the thousand (5.000)feet radii for all RUNWAYS designated utility or visual and ten thousand(10,000)feet for all others from the center of each end of the primary surface of each RUNWAY and connecting the adjacent arcs by drawing lines tangent to those ones. The horizontal zone does not include the approach and transitional/ATM., F. Conical Zone: The conical zone is established as the area that commences at the periphery of the horizontal zone and extends outward therefrom a horizontal distance of four thousand(4,000) feel. (Weld County Code Ordinance 2004-5) Sec.234-30. Airport Zone height limitations. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter,no structure shall be erected,altered or maintained. and no tree shall be allowed to grow, in any zone created by this Chapter to a HEIGHT in excess of the applicable HEIGHT herein established for such zone Such applicable HEIGHT limitations arc hereby established for each of the zones in question as follows: 1 II-20011 �'�P.hi 'T Master Plan EMI 1 - -_ _ -a_ t fl - a o Bl� 20494 I x/77722 " I lacii MASTER PLAN f ffrIT ITable of Contents Page No. 1.0 Introduction 1-1 Study Goals and Objectives 1-1 I Study Approach 1-3 Public Participation 1-4 Public Participation Meetings 1-4 I 2.0 Inventory 2-1 Study Area Characteristics 2-1 Study Area 2-1 I Historic Development 2-3 Socioeconomic Characteristics 2-4 Natural Environment 2-6 Existing Land Use 2-7 Ill Ordinances and Regulations 2-11 Area Airspace 2-14 Airspace Limitations 2-17 I Enroute Airways System 2-18 Airport Facilities 2-18 Airfield Facilities 2-19 I Terminal Area 2-22 Hangar and FBO Area 2-24 Existing Utility and Drainage Systems 2-27 Sanitary Sewer Collection System 2-27 I Water Distribution System 2-28 Storm Drainage System 2-28 3.0 Forecasts of Aviation Demand 3-1 I Introduction 3-1 Based Aircraft 3-2 General Aviation Aircraft Operations 3-3 I Other Aircraft Operations 3-3 Local and Itinerant Aircraft Operations 3-4 Instrument Operations and Approaches 3-4 I Peak-Hour Aircraft Operations 3-5 Airport Reference Code 3-6 Comparison with Other Forecasts 3-7 I 4.0 Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements 4-1 Capacity Analysis Overview 4-i Airfield Capacity Methodology 4-1 Airfield Layout 4-2 I Meteorological Conditions 4-2 Characteristics of Demand 4-5 Airfield Capacity Analysis 4-9 I Hourly Capacity of the Runway System 4-9 Taxiway Capacity 4-10 Annual Service Volume 4-10 I Terminal Area Capacity Analysis 4-11 Terminal Building 4-11 2004 TOC-1 I MASTER PLAN �'�} n1T I Terminal Aircraft Apron 4-13 Air Cargo Capacity 4-13 Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) Facilities Capacity 4-13 I Automobile Access and Parking Capacity 4-13 Facility Requirements 4-14 Airfield Requirements 4-15 I Terminal Area Facilities Requirements 4-23 Security 4-27 5.0 Development Alternatives 5-1 I Airfield Alternatives 5-1 Objectives 5-1 Constraints 5-2 Alternatives 5-2 ' Facility Development Alternatives 5-3 Objectives 5-3 Constraints 5-4 I Alternatives 5-4 Airport Development Alternatives Evaluation 5-16 Evaluation Criteria 5-17 I Alternatives Evaluation 5-18 Expansion/Flexibility/Function 5-18 Environmental Impacts 5-19 Vehicular Access 5-20 I Construction Cost 5-22 Operational Flow 5-22 Utility Infrastructure 5-22 I Security Considerations 5-23 Sensitivity Analysis 5-23 Recommended Alternatives 5-24 Development Alternatives Recommendations and Summary 5-24 I6.0 Environmental Review 6-1 Soils 6-1 I Endangered Species 6-1 Noise 6-1 Compatible Land Use 6-3 I 7.0 Airport Plans 7-1 Airport Layout Plan 7-1 Runway System 7-1 Runway 9/27 7-1 ' Runway 16/34 7-1 Taxiway System 7-3 Runway 9/27 Taxiway System 7-3 I Runway 16/34 Taxiway System 7-3 Instrument Approach Criteria 7-3 Property/Easement Acquisition 7-3 I Landside Development 7-4 Airspace Plan 7-4 Inner Portion of the Approach Surface Plans 7-4 Terminal Area Facilities 7-5 I Terminal Building 7-5 Terminal Apron 7-5 ' 2004 TOC-2 I itiAllio' ' MASTER PLAN I Ground Access 7-5 Automobile Parking 7-5 Facility Development 7-6 I Phase I (0— 6 years) 7-6 Phase II (7 10 years) 7-7 Phase III (11 -20 years) 7-7 I Other Development Potential 7-7 Industrial Aviation Alternatives 7-8 Aviation Support Facilities 7-8 I Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Facility (ARFF) 7-8 Snow Removal and Maintenance Equipment (SRME) Building 7-8 Fuel Storage Facility 7-9 Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) 7-9 I Miscellaneous Support Facilities 7-9 Airport Property Map 7-9 Land Use Drawing 7-9 I Land Use Planning Guidelines 7-9 FAA Actions Related to Land Use Planning 7-10 Roles and Responsibilities 7-10 Land Use Patterns around General Aviation Airports 7-11 I Incompatible Land Uses 7-11 Greeley Weld County Airport Authority Commitment 7-11 Land Use Controls for the Greeley-Weld County Airport 7-12 ' 8.0 Development Program 8-1 Financial Plan 8-1 Operating Revenues 8-1 I Operating Expenses 8-4 Net Operating Income 8-6 Observations 8-7 I Capital Improvement Plan 8-10 Project Descriptions Phase I (0-6 Years) 8-10 Project Listing Phase II (7-10 Years) and Phase III (11-20 Years) 8-17 Cost Estimates 8-18 ISummary 8-22 9.0 Airport Layout Set 9-1 I I I I ' 2004 TOC-3 I PArfil ' ' MASTER PLAN illigit1/207 JHP/7Alr 1 List of Figures Page No. ' Figure 1.1 Master Plan Process 1-2 Figure 2.1 Location Map 2-1 Figure 2.2 Vicinity Plan 2-2 I Figure 2.3 Existing Roadway Classification 2-10 Figure 2.4 Part 77 Surfaces 2-13 Figure 2.5 Area Airports 2-15 Figure 2.6 Airspace Chart 2-16 I Figure 2.7 Existing Airfield Facilities 2-20 Figure 2.8 Existing Terminal Area 2-23 Figure 2.9 Existing Apron 2-25 ' Figure 4.1 Existing Airport Layout 4-3 Figure 4.2 All Weather Wind Rose 4-6 Figure 4.3 IFR Weather Wind Rose 4-7 Figure 4.4 Terminal Area Layout 4-12 I Figure 5.1 Terminal Sites 5-6 Figure 5.2 Apron Expansion 5-7 Figure 5.3 Site A 5-10 Figure 5.4 Site B 5-11 I Figure 5.5 Site C 5-13 Figure 5.6 Through-the-Fence Development 5-15 Figure 6.1 Noise Contours 6-4 Figure 7.1 Airport Layout Plan 7-2 I Figure 7.2 Land Use Planning Zones 7-14 Figure 8.1 CIP Phase I (0-6 Years) 8-11 Figure 8.2 CIP Phase II (7-10 years) 8-12 ' Figure 8.3 CIP Phase III (11-20 Years) 8-13 I I I I 2004 TOC-4 It'rig ofilli1/47 I MASTER PLAN J//AINFL'J I List of Tables Page No. ITable 2-1 Historical Population Growth Trends 2-5 Table 2-2 Population Growth Projections 2-5 Table 2-3 Historical Per Capita Income 2-5 I Table 2-4 Total Full-and Part-time Employment: Historical 2-6 Table 2-5 Inventory Data 2-26 Table 3-1 Comparison with Competing Airports 3-1 Table 3-2 Based Aircraft Forecast 3-3 I Table 3-3 General Aviation Aircraft Operations Forecast 3-3 Table 3-4 Air Carrier and Military Aircraft Operations 3-4 Table 3-5 Local and Itinerant Aircraft Operations 3-4 1 Table 3-6 Aircraft Instrument Operations and Approaches 3-S Table 3-7 Peak-Hour Aircraft Operations 3-6 Table 3-8 ARC Components 3-6 Table 3-9 Representative Aircraft Using Airport by Airport Reference Code (ARC) 3-7 I Table 3-10 Comparison with Other Forecasts 3-8 Table 4-1 Wind Coverage of Existing Runways 4-5 Table 4-2 Operational Fleet Mix Aircraft Classification System 4-8 Table 4-3 Operational Fleet Mix 4-8 I Table 4-4 Hourly Capacity of the Runway Configurations 4-10 Table 4-5 Hourly Capacity of Crossing Taxiways 4-10 Table 4-6 Terminal Building Vehicle Parking Capacity 4-14 Table 4-7 Geometric Runway Design Standards 4-17 I Table 4-8 Geometric Taxiway Design Standards 4-18 Table 4-9 Pavement Strength Matrix 4-19 Table 4-10 RNAV(GPS)Approach Procedure Minimums to Runway 16 4-19 I Table 4-11 Instrument Approach Operational Benefit Values— Runway 16 4-20 Table 4-12 Aircraft Benefit/Cost Model Data Inputs 4-22 Table 4-13 Based Aircraft Hangar Space Requirements 4-24 Table 4-14 Based Aircraft Tiedown Spaces and Area Requirements 4-25 I Table 4-15 Transient Aircraft Tiedown Space Requirements 4-25 Table 5-1 Roadway System Demand 5-8 Table 5-2 Terminal Building Capacity and Demand 5-9 Table 5-3 Sensitivity Matrix— Basic Weighting Factors 5-23 I Table 5-4 Sensitivity Matrix— Equal Weighting Factors 5-23 Table 5-5 Sensitivity Matrix— Emphasize Cost and Utility Infrastructure 5-24 Table 5-6 Sensitivity Matrix— Emphasize Environmental Considerations 5-24 Table 6-1 Comparative Noise Levels 6-2 I Table 7-1 Compatible Land Use Matrix 7-15 Table 8-1 Pro Forma Operating Revenues 8-3 Table 8-2 Pro Forma Operating Expenses 8-5 I Table 8-3 Airport Staffing Requirements 8-6 Table 8-4 Pro Forma Net Operating Income 8-8 Table 8-S Phase I (0-6 Years) Development Plan Project Costs 8-19 Table 8-6 Phase II (7-10 Years) Development Plan Project Costs 8-20 Table 8-7 Phase III (11-20 Years) Development Plan Project Costs 8-21 I I2004 TOC-5 1 I MASTER PLAN /�JIJrUfl ' 1.0 Introduction ' The Greeley-Weld County Airport has become a significant component in Colorado's system of general aviation airports. General aviation activity has become a major growth factor at the airport. With total activity levels of approaching 150,000, accommodating these levels of activity is one of the challenges of the future due to the existing landside and airspace constraints. ' Based on these conditions, this master planning study is being undertaken to update the existing Greeley- Weld County Airport Master Plan and Development Program and develop long-range guidance that will allow for orderly development at Greeley-Weld County Airport enabling it to continue to meet the City and Counties air transportation needs. ' Because this study is emphasizing the airport's role in serving the community,both in service levels and environmental compatibility, a broad spectrum of individual concerns is involved. These concerns are not limited to aviation or planning issues. Mutual understanding and constructive dialogue is required among all portions of the affected citizenry to lead to the development of an effective plan. Study Goals and Objectives Airport master planning studies are the vehicles established to prepare plans for individual airports throughout the country. While the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) mandates the general approach and format, the success of such study efforts largely depends on the goals and objectives of the plan. If the plan is responsive to community goals and objectives, its effectiveness is greatly increased. Figure 1.1 graphically presents the master plan process. ' Goals and objectives are the essential bridge between technical evaluation of alternative plans and the needs of the community. The evaluation process combines quantitative standards or relatively precise criteria with qualitative judgments. Setting goals and objectives in the planning process directs the quantitative ranking and judgments toward conformity with underlying values. The overall goal of this study is to prepare a comprehensive Master Plan update for the Greeley-Weld ' County Airport. This plan will provide guidelines for the orderly development of airport facilities necessary to meet the area's needs through the year 2023. Preparation of the updated plan will be accomplished in a manner consistent with the Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority's needs and in conformance with applicable guidelines set fourth by the FAA. The objectives of the study are related to physical, social, environmental, and economic concerns of how the airport facilities should develop. The physical objectives for the new airport master plan study would ' provide for the development of facilities and services in a manner consistent with, and complimentary to local economic and social development. The following objectives have been identified as being significant to the development of the proposed planning efforts. • To provide airport facilities and services for all users in a manner that maximizes safety, efficiency, and opportunity for use. • To consider safety as a primary factor in all decision-malting situations in the development of the airport. 2004 1-1 I I MASTER PLAN IAdvisory Committee Meeting Public Meeting ' Inventory 1 Demand Forecasts Advisory Committee Meeting ' Capacity Analysis IFacility Requirements IAdvisory Committee Public Meeting Meeting I Alternatives Identification ' l Alternatives Evaluation Alternative IRecommendation Advisory Committee Meeting Public Meeting Airport Layout Plans i Advisory Committee Public Meeting 1 Financial Meeting - IPlans Public Meeting 1 Advisory Committee I Meeting Figure 1.1 Master Plan Process I 2004 1 MASTER PLAN • To develop Greeley-Weld County Airport in a manner which meets acceptable physical development standards preferred by Federal, state, and local agencies. ' • To provide improvements necessary to meet acceptable performance standards for parameters such as airport capacity. 1 • To develop the airport in a manner which conforms, as nearly as possible, to the environmental concerns in state and Federal legislation. • To identify improvements necessary to ensure adequate surface access facilities to the airport facilities. 1 • To ensure compatibility with local land use patterns and plans. • To strive for the minimal amount of noise impact and air and water pollution as is feasible in the development of the airport facilities. • To identify priorities for allocation of financial resources. • To enhance the opportunities for local economic development and improved employment consistent with local growth policies and plans. • To develop a public awareness of the airport planning and development process. • To encourage and utilize comments from all sectors of the aviation community in developing an airport master plan that can be adopted, endorsed, and implemented. • To ensure that the public, along with federal, state, and local officials, has an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process during the development of the plan. ' Study Approach To meet the study goals objectives, the study process was designed to systematically identify the level of aviation demand to be generated; determine the adequacy of the existing facilities to accommodate this demand; recommend those facility additions which are required; identify a number of alternative ways to accomplish the recommended development and choose the preferred option; develop a detailed set of planning drawings that graphically depict all aspects of the plan recommendations; and develop a realistic. implementable plan for financing the facilities improvements. The development of the plan took place within the context of a public coordination program that incorporated community input into all important study decisions. The steps for completing the study included: • Airport Requirements: The first phase produced a determination of anticipated growth in aviation demand at Greeley-Weld County Airport, an evaluation of airport capacity, and the ' identification of short-, intermediate-, and long-range development needed to service that demand. 2004 1-3 ASrr1T " 1711711_ 1%7F' MASTER PLAN infigl ' • Analysis of Alternatives: The second phase identified and evaluated alternative ways to meet the facility requirements. This culminated in the selection of a recommended development plan. ' • Airport Plans: In the third phase planning drawings were prepared depicting existing facilities; proposed development; on-airport land uses; and clear zones, obstructions, and FAR Part 77 requirements. • Financial Plans: The fourth phase involved proposed development staging, cost estimates, and an economic feasibility analysis. Public Participation ' An Airport Advisory Committee (AAC) served during the development of this Master Plan. The basic role of the advisory committee was to review the plans and proposals of the consultant, interact with them during the review, make consensus recommendations, and,finally, endorse the recommendations of the completed study. During the course of the study working papers were prepared at the completion of major study elements. At each of these strategic decision points, draft copies of the latest completed chapter(s) were submitted to allow the Airport Authority,city, county, and the appropriate committee an opportunity to review and evaluate the work efforts, results, and conclusion of each element. This set the stage for AAC public information meetings that provided a forum for questions, recommendations, and discussion of what ' would be involved in the next element. This study process offered all of those concerned a voice in the proceedings, kept everyone informed, and precluded the possibility that unexpected or unrealistic recommendations will be delivered at the end of the study. Although the AAC had no binding decision-making power of their own, their recommendations were essential to the development of plans that are both realistic and feasible in order that implementations may ' be accomplished through the normal regulatory process. Public Participation Meetings ' Public informational meetings were held some were at the same time as the AAC meetings. Materials were presented concerning the study's purpose, progress,findings, and recommendations as appropriate. These public participation meetings served two essential purposes: 1) to obtain input necessary to ' identify local concerns; and, 2) to provide for discussion of problems, ways to solve those problems, and the reasons for choosing given solutions. I I ' 2004 1-4 tRU/fl- MASTER PLAN J/ SIi9RflhV ' 2.0 Inventory Presented in this chapter are the data and information that were collected for this Greeley-Weld County Airport Master Plan. The inventory effort acquired information on the regional setting from a variety of perspectives.Three major discussions are presented herein: • Study Area Characteristics • Area Airspace • Airport Facilities Study Area Characteristics The historic and present character of an airport's environs has a direct relationship to the historic and existing character of the airport itself. Future changes in area characteristics will likely cause changes in the airport, or,conversely, be caused by developments at the airport. For these reasons,defining the historical,present, and future characteristics of the airport's study area is the first step in master planning. Past and present conditions are readily determined, but the selection of a future growth scenario is much less precise. This section describes the study area and defines its historic and existing characteristics while reviewing the various growth trends and projections for the area. Selection of a future community growth scenario will be accomplished in the context of established community plans and policies. Study Area The Greeley-Weld County Airport is located two and one-half miles east of the city of Greeley, in Weld County, Colorado, as shown on Figure 2.1. Weld County in located in northeastern Colorado. The city of ' Greeley is the population and commerce center for Weld County. With a 2000 population of 180,936 persons, Weld County ranks eighth in population of the state's 64 counties. Figure 2.1 ' Location Map 2004 2-1 I n �/JWri LI�J Mill CONDi MASTER PLAN ,� rPll ' The Greeley-Weld County Airport is the third busiest general aviation airport in Colorado with current operations of 145,000 annually. Other airports in the area include Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, Fort Collins Downtown, and the Easton-Valley View Airport. Figure 2.2 shows the Greeley- Weld Airport in relation to these airports and major population centers. The Airport is located near the largest population centers of northeastern Colorado 2.5 miles east of Greeley, 23 miles to the southeast of Fort Collins, and 22 miles east of Loveland. It is approximately 50 miles north of Denver,and 50 miles south of Cheyenne, Wyoming. Interstate 25, a major north-south expressway,is approximately 15 miles to the west. The Airport itself is located along SH 263 and 2.5 miles east of US Highway 85. $t¢eli AiMunicipal •i,Munun ss BS T fi MGreel / Fort M9�yan Weld Co Y/ Munl[Ipal luport W Ai County {.Ri,port .t. 36 r' a 66 9 Jefferson 6 untY airport+ DenInternational Art e. —410 9 1 fi ' Figure 2.2 Vicinity Plan The study area for this Master Plan refers to the Greeley Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area(PMSA). ' A PMSA is defined as a county, or group of counties comprising the central or core city's theoretical sphere of influence. As this definition implies, events occurring within the PMSA will have a direct impact on its core city and vice-versa. The Greeley PMSA is surrounded by Wyoming to the north, Logan County to the northeast (primary city Sterling),Morgan County to the east(primary city Fort Morgan), Adams County to the south (primary city Brighton), Boulder County to the southwest(primary city Boulder), and Larimer County to the northwest(primary city Fort Collins). For this Master Plan, the Greeley PMSA was utilized when analyzing the effects on study area of characteristics such as population, income, and economics. In the Master Plan, the Greeley PMSA is considered to be Weld County and will be referred to as Weld County. I I ' 2004 2-2 ' MASTER PLAN / r •' Historic Development The Greeley-Weld County Airport was founded in 1944 as the Greeley Municipal Airport. The initial ' construction included Runway 15/33 (a 1,400-foot-long and 75-foot-wide gravel runway), Runway 9/27 (a 3,000-foot-long and 75-foot-wide gravel runway), and Runway 3/21 (a 2,700-foot-long and 75-foot- wide gravel runway). A hangar, wind cone and rotating beacon, and low intensity lighting for Runway ' 9/27 were also part of initial construction. This was followed in 1948 by the first ten-unit metal T-hangar. The next year additional acreage was purchased for future expansion, bringing the total property area to 267 acres. The Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA), predecessor to the FAA, participated in this and earlier expenditures. The 1950s saw the addition of apron area, more T-hangars and paving of Runway 9/27 to 5,000 feet long and 75 feet wide. In 1962, a joint resolution was enacted between Weld County and the City of Greeley. This agreement ' recognized the importance the airport would play in area development pointing out that it was "in the best interest"of both the City and the County to participate in airport funding. As a result, the City sold to the County one-half interest in the airport for$10.00. An Airport Board was created in this resolution with the authority and responsibility to organize and administer airport matters, cooperate with state and federal aviation authorities, and submit proposed budgets to the County Commissioners and the city Council. The budget, which was to be approved, modified or rejected, was then subject to 50-50 cost sharing by both entities. Airport Board expenditures are limited to approved allocated funds. The resolution further stated that the airport "shall also be organized and operated so far as practicable so as to be eligible to receive State and Federal and private funds." During the mid and late 1960s the Board supervised the addition of more T-hangars, a paved parallel 9/27 taxiway, a terminal building, gasoline storage and new medium intensity lighting for runway 9/27. With increased activity at the airport, in 1969 the Board investigated the feasibility of building a control tower. It was determined that such a tower was not feasible at the time due to the costs. At the same time the Board began discussing funding requirements for the extension of runway 9/27. Also in 1969, Trans- Central Airlines, a small commuter airline, requested and obtained permission to operate a nonscheduled ' airline service to Greeley from Denver. In 1978, this route was acquired by American Central Airways, which operated five scheduled flights daily to Denver. As the role of the Airport gained more importance in the community,both the City and the County recognized the need for long-range planning and land use compatibility. In 1970, the City prepared a long-range engineering study on the growth needs of the airport defining related zoning problems ' associated with the Airport's growth. At this same time, the FAA informed the airport of its guidelines for zoning requirements. On this basis, the City included the Airport in its comprehensive plan, which subsequently defined land uses in the general area of the Airport. In 1971, Voorhees and Associates completed the limited airport plan for the County Planning Commission. The Airport Board then began plans and subsequently acquired property west of the then existing Airport boundary. Acquisition of the new property accommodated the anticipated extension of Runway 9/27 and provided sufficient clear zones in accordance with FAA requirements. T-hangars and jet fuel storage were added in the early 1970s according to the Airport Layout Plan update in 1975. This was required by the FAA for return funding on the purchase of property for the extension of Runway 9/27. In 1978, a new Master Plan was prepared to update previous studies, define current and future needs,be consistent with agency land use goals and conform to FAA guidelines and requirements. This master plan was supplemented in 1980 and was formally adopted by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners, the Greeley City Council, and the Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority in August 1980. The FAA approved the Master Plan I ' 2004 2-3 ' MASTER PLAN ��/rl'�Lr7f that included the Airport Layout Plan. The Environmental Assessment received a Finding of No Significant Impact(FONSI) from the FAA. ' Following the adoption of the Master Plan in 1980, several projects were undertaken to upgrade the airfield to meet forecasted aviation demands. The following projects were completed with joint federal (FAA) and Sponsor funding under both the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970 (ADAP) and the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (ATP). 1981 Extension and lighting of Runway 9/27 to 6,200 feet; installation of drainage structure in Sand Creek; expansion of the aircraft parking apron. 1981-1983 Acquisition of land parcels recommended in the Airport Master Plan (Airport site now comprises 777 acres). 1983 Grading for localizer for Instrument Landing System installation; grading and drainage of safety area; installation of fencing; and construction of irrigation pond. 1983-1984 Installation and commissioning of Instrument Landing System with Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System (MALSR) with runway alignment indicator ' lights for Runway 9. In addition, the Airport completed the following improvements without federal funding assistance: ' 1981 Construction of 26 T-hangars (114 now operated by the Airport Authority). ' 1982 Construction of new aircraft holding apron for Runway 27. 1983 Construction of taxiway to agricultural sprayer building area. In 1984, a Supplemental Report and Master Plan Update was prepared by Isbill Associates. The documents developed recommendations for the priority by which the additional improvements should be accomplished and provided a five-year(1985-1989) prioritized schedule of recommended improvements with cost estimates. In 1993 another Airport Master Plan Update Study was prepared. The objectives of this study were to ' provide a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of three principle alternatives for the long-term development of the Greeley-Weld County Airport. The new Runway 16/34 was evaluated during this update and was ultimately constructed between 1997-2000.The new runway was opened in 2001. The full-length parallel taxiway was completed in 2002. Socioeconomic Characteristics ' An area's socioeconomic profile can have a direct relationship to its demand for aviation-related activities. Experience has shown that the most significant factors in this profile are population,income, and employment. Each of these is studied from an historical perspective in the following pages. 1 Population: Greeley is a commercial and retail center for the agricultural economy that dominates Weld County. The city contains approximately 42 percent of the entire county's population. Table 2-1 depicts the population changes that have occurred in the Greeley area since the 1970 census. This table shows ' 2004 2-4 pp TT/ry fill 17ilthigi I MASTER PLAN 711V:O7 I that the growth of the city has been increasing at a rate of 36 percent from 1970 to 1980, 14 percent from 1980 to 1990, and 27 percent from 1990 to 2000.The city has seen an annual growth rate from 1970 to 2000 of 3.26 percent. Greeley was ranked 12th in population in Colorado by the 2000 census. IThe growth rate in Weld County has followed a similar trend and is slightly higher at approximately 3.45 percent per year.The city's share of population in Weld County has remained relatively steady with a Ipeak from 43 percent in 1970 to 45 percent in 1990, and a decline to 42 percent in 2000. Table 2-1 Historical Population Growth Trends IYear City of Greeley Weld County Colorado USA 1970 38,902 90,012 2,223,979 203,798,722 1975 45,9542 108,479 2,586,144 215,456,585 I 1980 53,006 123,767 2,908,803 227,224,719 1985 56,7712 131,402 3,208,726 237,923,734 1990 60,536 132,161 3,307,618 249,622,814 I 1995 67,443 152,140 3,826,653 266,278,393 2000 76,930 183,058 4,323,410 282,124,631 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2 Population interpolated for other data points ITable 2-2 illustrates that Greeley and Weld County can be expected to show continued growth. Historical data reveal that both are increasing in population at a higher growth rate than Colorado. I Table 2-2 Population Growth Projections I Year City of Greeley Weld County Colorado USA 2000 76,930 181,931 4,324,920 282,124,631 2005 86,934 1 215,022 4,731,144 287,716,000 2010 95,191 252,124 5,162,179 i 299,862,000 I 2015 102,000 ' 295,279 5,600,477 312,268,000 2020 109,000 1 345,033 6,042,949 324,927,000 2025 115,000 ' 403,066 6,495,766 337,815,000 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. ' 1 Population interpolated from other data points. Income: Table 2-3 lists the areas per capita income figures since 1970. It indicates that the city of IGreeley and Weld County have lower per capita income than the national average. Table 2-3 Historical Per Capita Income IYear City of Greeley Weld County Colorado USA 1970 $ 3,587 $ 3,587 $ 4,055 $ 4,095 I 1975 $ 5,984 $ 5,984 $ 6,321 $ 6,155 1980 $ 8,424 $ 8,424 $10,809 $ 10,183 1985 $11,885 $11,885 $15,416 $14,705 1990 $15,675 $15,675 $19,680 $19,572 I 1995 $18,032 $18,032 $24,289 $23,255 2000 $22,539 $22,539 $32,434 $29,469 Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis I 1 2004 2-5 i �l I MASTER PLAN JAW/Wig I Employment: The employment data shown in Table 2-4 indicate that wage and salary employment is the largest category of employment in Weld County, followed by nonfarm proprietors' employment. Nonfarm employment is the largest employer by industry. Private employment is the largest category, I with the major contributors from manufacturing, retail trade, and services. The major contributors from government are state and local governments. I Table 2-4 Total Full-and Part-time Employment: Historical Item 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 I Total full-&pan-time employment 34,603 47,665 54,709 61,127 67,085 80,322 96,972 By Type Wage and salary employment 25,120 36,828 42,815 46,886 51,777 62,270 75,515 I Proprietors employment 9,483 10,837 11,894 14,241 15,308 18,052 21,457 Farm proprietors' 3,833 3,576 3,119 3,175 2,966 3,133 3,042 Nonfarm Proprietors' 5,650 7,261 8,775 11,066 12,342 14,919 18,415 By Industry I Farm employment 6925 6944 6481 5957 6354 5127 5900 Nonfarm employment 27,678 40,721 48,228 55,170 60,731 75,195 91,072 Private employment 21,146 32,165 38,506 45,304 51,167 64,530 78,585 Ag.Services,forestry,fishing,&other 486 627 804 1,357 1,622 1,962 2,346 I Mining.. 271 370 613 1,419 1,246 1,435 1,830 Construction 1,994 3,276 3,927 4,665 3,400 5,262 7,378 Manufacturing 3,265 6,668 6,858 8,021 10,025 11,437 12,513 Transportation and public utilities 1,308 1,800 2,382 2,579 2,737 2,981 3,859 I Wholesale trade 1,041 2,100 2,275 2,236 2,752 3,824 4 391 Retail trade 5,109 6,739 8,431 9,254 9,643 12,637 14,888 Finance,insurance,and real estate 3,155 3,676 4,279 4,427 4,037 4,967 7,808 Services 4,518 6,909 8,937 11,346 15,705 20,025 23,572 I Government and government enterprises 6,532 8,556 9,722 9,866 9,564 10,665 12,487 Federal,civilian 336 339 367 377 505 463 678 Military 382 398 410 593 538 459 503 I State and local 5,814 7,819 8,945 8,896 8,821 9,743 11,306 State N N 2,597 2,123 2,308 2,762 2,976 Local N N 6,348 6,773 6,213 6,981 8,330 Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis IManufacturing, Retail Trade and Services represent about 50 percent of total payroll employment in Weld County. IConstruction was Weld County's fastest growing economic sector in the 1990s. Since 1990, the average growth rate of Weld County's major employment sectors has been about 50 percent, while construction Iemployment increased over 100 percent between 1990 and 2000. The trends established in the last 10 years are for Weld County's economy to continue to diversify and strengthen. This indicates that Weld County and its economic environs will experience growth in the I number of jobs and associated income. Natural Environment The natural environment of the community or area served is an important determinant in planning the development of an airport. A number of environmental factors have potential direct and indirect physical ' effects on the Greeley-Weld County Airport. These natural features include: I2004 2-6 /L f711-?l�J" ' MASTER PLAN Iil /7A'J ' • Climate • Topography • Soils ' • Endangered Species Climate: Greeley's climate is characterized by mild to cold winters and mild to hot summers.The hot summers can be reflected in the statistical average of approximately 90 days per year with temperatures greater than 80oF(26oC). In the winter, cooler temperatures prevail; the temperature falls below 32oF (0oC) about 120 days annually. Humidity is low. Greeley receives 270 days of sunshine annually. ' Winds have an average velocity of less than 10 miles per hour. Violent summer weather generally originates in the West over the Rocky Mountains and moves easterly through the Greeley area while ' winter storms follow a north to south pattern. Precipitation in the area varies throughout the year. May is the wettest month with an average rainfall of ' over two inches; February the driest at less than one inch. Precipitation during the winter months is usually limited to snow with some rain. Because Greeley is along the Front Range,thunderstorms generally occur during the late spring or summer. Usually the storms are limited to heavy rainfall,but winds as high as 60 to 90 mph have been recorded and there can be damaging hail. Heavy fog may occur this time of the year. The weather's effect on aviation is normal when compared with other regions in this portion of the ' country, with an average of more than 300 visual flight restriction(VFR) flying days annually. The rest of the time the airport is only partially usable due to heavy fog or violent weather. Since winds greater than 30 mph do occur, runway orientation and crosswind coverage must be considered. ' Topography: Greeley is situated in topography of rolling hills typical of semi-arid western climates and is approximately fifty miles north-northeast of Denver along the South Platte River. Greeley is bound by ' the Cache la Poudre River to the south and the South Platte River to the east. The Greeley-Weld County Airport is located at the western edge of the high plains, 20 miles east of the foothills of the Rocky Mountains at an elevation of 4,697 feet. The Airport itself is in an area of relatively flat or gently rolling land. Local topographic features will not limit airport development, although there may be increased cost in ' some areas due to the topography and drainage channels. Soils: There are cretaceous sedimentary primary soil types in the airport area associated with water deposition. These soils are very clayey in nature and present slight to moderate limitations on development. t Endangered Species: Weld County is the historical range of many types of wildlife. However, no endangered species are found in the area surrounding the Greeley-Weld County Airport. ' Existing Land Use Examination of land use and growth patterns is useful in determining where future concentrations of residential,commercial, and industrial uses are likely to occur. Land use analysis in the vicinity of an ' airport is of particular importance since any local zoning ordinances or known land use conflicts must be ' 2004 2-7 jzzeiut/ ify ' MASTER PLAN A/RPIIHJ il ' carefully considered when evaluating alternatives for airport development. Impacts on land uses will be studied in greater detail in Chapter 5, where the alternatives are described. I Transportation Network: The examination of existing and planned surface transportation networks is useful in determining where future development around an airport is likely to occur. I During 2001 and 2002, the City of Greeley prepared the Greeley Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Mobility 2020. This document represents a general overview of existing transportation systems and proposed improvements, as well as transportation planning criteria and transportation policies. Figure I 2.3 illustrates the regional road system that services to the Greeley-Weld County Airport. Five roadway types were identified: • Expressways' -Primarily serve long-distance travel between major communities. Expressways provide the greatest mobility, with strictly controlled access allowed only at interchanges or major intersections. I • Arterials (Major and Minor)t - Major and minor arterials carry longer-distance major traffic flows between important activity centers. The primary difference between freeways and major arterials is access; freeways have fully controlled accesses with no at-grade intersections, while I principle arterials usually include limited at-grade intersections. Minor arterials augment the major arterial system and place a higher emphasis on access. • Collectors' - Collector roads link local streets with the arterial system. Both mobility and access I take equal precedence on these roadways. Travel speeds and volumes are moderate and distances traveled are short to medium. Collectors provide for intercommunity,intercity, and intracity traffic movements, such as connections between city centers, schools, and neighborhoods. I • Local Roadways'—The primary function of local roads is to provide access to adjacent land uses in both urban and rural areas, whether it is residences, businesses, or community facilities. They are typically low speed,closely spaced, two lanes wide, and carry relatively low traffic volumes. IThe two expressways in the Greeley area are the US 34 Bypass running in the east-west direction and the US 85 Bypass running in the north-south direction. Arterials in the north-south direction include 8'h I Avenue(US 85 Business) and 35th Avenue. Greeley-Weld County Airport is primarily served from the US 85 Bypass with direct access provided from SH 263 (8'll Street). SH 263 is currently classified as a minor arterial and is a narrow, two-lane roadway from the US 85 Bypass to the airport access roadway. IImproved access to the Greeley-Weld County Airport was considered during development of Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The 2020 Streets Master Plan shows SH 263 becoming a major I arterial with widening to four lanes. SH 263 also is identified as an Entryway Corridor to Greeley. Entryway corridors are areas that represent a physical introduction of the city to its visitors, residents, and travelers. IWeld County is also studying potential routes for a north-south arterial roadway east of the Greeley — Weld County Airport, connecting State Highway 14 to US Highway 34. The route is intended to be ' within one mile of Weld County Road 49. Working with the Colorado Department of Transportation ' City of Greeley,Department of Planning,Greeley Comprehensive Transportation Plan,Mobility 2020.June 2002,prepared by Felsburg Holt &Ullevig. I2004 2-8 MASTER PLAN ASI"J�YT 1 , (CDOT) and the local agencies in the corridor, Weld County has identified potential routes for the arterial roadway. Several potential routes have been identified and presented to Weld County, by the consulting firm Felsberg, Holt and Ullevig and are currently being reviewed. 1 The layout alternatives follow the Weld County Road 47 alignment to the east of the airport, Weld County Road 49 alignment, or the Weld County Road 541 alignment. The south end (US Highway 34 ' intersection) will be at Weld County Road 49, and alignments then shift as one heads north. This future arterial will provide additional access from the east side of the airport and may also facilitate increased development along the eastern side of the airport. I I I I I I 2004 2-9 MU M M ER a a in M Inn In a a — M Olin 0 e fa 011a Aare. a-- c Fort Collins, O rat MYroH&a. O4 B n r Wlndso tanaal MEd GmlyyWNd CVtrlly evuon Loveland 1 \'-'1.4"---L. Greeley � Y ,U.�Yw+fLL ....was. N r 7 r.4�Y.n�rti T R 3 w 1 /g [//f ' MASTER PLAN 7PIIJW Public Transportation: Public transportation is an important aspect of the surface transportation system. The adequacy of such service to the airport is a concern since it provides an important link between the airport and the people being served. There are several alternative public transportation systems operating in Greeley. Currently, there is no scheduled public transportation system that extends to the airport. Rail Service: As stated in the Greeley Comprehensive Transportation Plan', "Rail transportation in the Greeley area primarily serves the purpose of moving freight. The Union Pacific Railroad (UP)is the one Class One Railroad serving the Greeley area.The Great Western line extends from Greeley to Fort Collins,where it joins with the Burlington Northern line that extends from Montana to Texas. The UP line runs along the US 85 corridor from Denver to Cheyenne,Wyoming. Passenger service though is no 1 longer available." Growth Trends: The Greeley Comprehensive Transportation Plan gives an indication of the city's ' anticipated growth trends. The plan states that, "a summary of the 1998 and projected 2020 residential and employment data within Greeley's Long Range Expected Growth Area shows approximately 65,300 households are forecasted for the year 2020, and over 98,000 jobs are forecasted. The number of households in the area is projected to increase at a rate of over 3.5 percent per year over the next 20 years, and the employment is projected to increase at a rate of 3.3 percent per year. Retail employment is projected to increase at a rate slightly ' higher than that of non-retail employment." The plan also states "the highest concentration of household growth is expected to occur in the western ' section of Greeley, extending beyond the existing City limits. The highest concentration of employment growth is expected to occur primarily along the US 34 corridor and approaching the I-25 corridor." Ordinances and Regulations An airport master plan must examine local ordinances and regulations in order to make recommendations that comply with the wishes of the area residents as expressed through such ordinances and regulations. ' Greeley promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community through the adoption of ordinances that then become part of the Greeley Municipal Code. The Greeley Municipal Code establishes zoning districts to classify the use of land within the city limits. Some areas that could be impacted by airport operations are outside Greeley's boundaries and, therefore, fall under the jurisdiction of Weld County. Weld County has zoning regulations that are part of the Weld County Code that are applicable to any proposed development. Zones Defined: The zoning districts are defined in Chapter 18.30 (Zoning and Land Use) in the Greeley Municipal Code: ' • Residential districts • Commercial districts • Industrial districts • Holding Agriculture and Conservation districts • Planned Unit Development districts I 1 2004 2-11 'IMMIX /f Lz v 11 //i 'Ty MASTER PLAN I • The zoning districts are designed to maintain the character of each area in order to conserve the value of the buildings and encourage the most appropriate use of the land within the community. The residential districts tend to be the most restrictive in terms of control of activity and growth and their intrinsic 1 characteristics such as appearance, noise, vibration levels, traffic demands,utility loading,and other environmental impacts. Industrial districts are the most liberal. An Airport Overlay District is defined in Chapter 18.34, Article VI, of the Greeley Municipal Code. The Airport Overlay District provides regulations restricting the height of structures and objects of natural growth and otherwise regulates the use of property in the vicinity of the Greeley-Weld County Airport. The requirements of the Airport Overlay District supplement those imposed on the land by the underlying zoning provisions of the Code. Zoning districts for Weld County are established in Article III (Zone Districts) of the Weld County Code: ' • Agricultural districts • Residential districts • Commercial districts • Industrial districts • Estate districts • Planned Unit Development districts Article V of the Weld County Code also defines an Airport Overlay District for the area surrounding the Greeley-Weld County Airport. Height and use restrictions are the same as those in the Greeley Municipal 1 Code. Height Restrictions: Airports must be located so that the surrounding airspace is free from obstructions ' that could be hazardous to aircraft on takeoff or approach paths. It is also necessary to maintain the surrounding airspace free from obstacles, preventing the development and growth of obstructions to airspace that could cause the airport to become unusable. The regulations for the protection of airspace the vicinity of airports are established by the definition of imaginary or obstacle limitation surfaces, penetration of which represents an obstacle to air navigation. The geometry of the imaginary surfaces is governed by the FAA regulations set out in FAR Part 77. Those surfaces are presented in Figure 2.4. Protected airspace around airports is made up of five principal imaginary surfaces: • Primary Surface: A surface that is longitudinally centered on the runway, extending 200 feet beyond the threshold in each direction in the case of paved runways. ' • Approach Surface: An inclined plane or combination of planes of varying width running from the ends of the primary surface. • Horizontal Surface: A horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation. The plan dimensions of the horizontal surface are set by arcs of specified dimensions from the end of the primary surfaces, which are connected by tangents. ' • Transitional Surface: An inclined plane with a slope of 7:1 extending upward and outward from the primary and approach surfaces, terminating at the horizontal surface where these planes met. I 2004 2-12 MI a r — OM OM MI a M MI 0M r MO O NM a r FAR Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces Extended Precision Approach Surface 40:1 Slope MI= Inner Recision Transitional Surface Approach Surface 7:1 Slope 50:1 Slope Conical Surface 70:1 Slope Horizontal Surface .ry Surface• onto itional Il r 1n Approach Surface 34:1 Slope 9 Ire.ptd dirlension<4.nnaN Ix 10)ro<I,tAy eM/1nn‘Ile tact. vS c 1 Source:. Diagram provided by Barnard Dunkrlberg h Company gfifi WY- 17 1 MASTER PLAN /jhr kW/� 'T " • Conical Surface: An inclined plane at a slope of 20:1 extending upward and outward from the periphery of the horizontal surface for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet. The dimensional standards are determined by the runway classification, such as visual, nonprecision instrument,or precision instrument runways. A visual runway is a facility designed for operation under conditions of visual approach only. A nonprecision instrument runway has limited instrument guidance in ' the form of azimuth or area wide navigation equipment. A precision instrument runway is fully equipped for instrument landing procedures with ILS (Instrument Landing System) or PAR (Precision Approach Radar) equipment. The federal government additionally requires the establishment of Runway Protection Zones (RPZs) at the ends of runways when federal funds are to be expended on new or existing airports. The airport owner ' must have positive control over development within the clear zone by long- term easements or by ownership in fee simple.This gives long-term positive assurance that there will be no encroachment of airspace within the critical portions of the inner approach surface. ' Area Airports: Generally,private-use or restricted airports exert little or no influence on airports such as Greeley-Weld County Airport in terms of competitive facilities or services.They will, however, have an impact on the airport's usable airspace if they are located in within 50 miles of the Greeley-Weld ' County Airport. Those area airports are presented in Figure 2.5. All public-use airports, however, whether publicly or privately owned, will have an influence on the Airport in terms of both competing services and facilities and airspace. Area Airspace 1 The airspace system is extremely important in planning future development at the Greeley-Weld County Airport since any increases in activity levels or patterns must be compatible with all other area airspace uses. This section describes the regional airspace system in order to allow proper consideration to possible airspace impacts of future development plans. The airspace chart is presented in Figure 2.6. Components of this system include: • Area Airports 1 • Uncontrolled Airspace • Controlled Airspace • Special Use Areas 1 • Airspace Limitations • Airspace Obstructions • Enroute Airways ' • Terminal Control Zone • Air Traffic Control • Aircraft Approach and Departure Paths Airspace surrounding the Greeley-Weld County Airport can be separated into three categories:controlled, uncontrolled, and special use. 2004 2-14 im s S m a in m en a — an a an ea to am ow The Colorado Airport System i- — --' 6 x ..1 Satan "ra' IsmS~ '7 - ® 4..o s, Owners. IL.VI 1f aw.l.e.-I.... u..�lO.il lx o "ft a...10..1 • .LY.IV}'I GFn.n LMI i«,^, vna.ay.«. Ort.....a..l •..w.«L1. 1 EiI 0.1.00.11 ^ h.w«LLM l..N.nb OM (AIMi Yw..iyllM) Y.41�wL In ILLIM1 ill.. mei; J.«15 .[. IMI LYtI.• ♦•L.f40"1 LHI.ILOLI •fowl LL I ® • NIYI tam Ana Twn L..wx. WY 1W. • 1�4..IH..LLw.I .Ina) Linn L1 ...4.1.114,1Lx.• �, Oak b«.. Ow IW.Lr«n .-ttovl La.one wn..sal y 4' •1 lIli") Lva vies my., ..l 0111.1•14.00%, 111.1- PHO Tool•1* •a« •TVI apr x6a«.1 •-- .-1 Mal i f: w„ wising-mil C...4 al 4ari ICYC• .:11.1 NS..own WO 0 :mans IWO IIP 1,"" A ti((9� r«n r.• - C COM`1.1 u.,..1 1.ui Dal G....M)N O.w O.v. (fl 1 Man .*.Cr.....V.1 VW* • Monty VOW. 4,11Mionty.94snl ll ,Ai , 1 Yea..YYI • 3/4\L . H•I..M1.... _• 4'•:.L tans 1. eta, M�..1;j'. Vt., w•M.LMxO. ISM •.1wW into Ay nob I.LOb•lo.Ol I./.1 D N Ifo HI a1Major-Commercial Service • Major-General Aviation IM Intermediate • Minor re NI N I 1 MASTER PLAN _ad I I • d 0 it Milt .1I1.aA.11 1 /T M _ I QF ia_ ai, I ` 5 f/et r...:,:::..u.:,,,..,55:..7.,,,,..,..., : a i y i O M i. i t ..\, . _ •...�. "] .r t°'• ' .w,..e l' us ss x,n4 .\as rl ° n; rtm7te ; q pa * °""a° y` ,•..a i _ v4 m� iI`r I ., . m I I@ a _a_'4 nr L u Y. III% I.11 � t - � _ Y '. ' `pOC 4 ! r...l 4rrr wf r ,rf � t ,l d"' f6 4 '+K n ea "' .,�,a a? i s :al:ID 14k - arm 7 06 °r c,< �S8 ' &.; :.� .+..A i K • r4:• a ...0, -�_✓ :gin•&15.1p in r ,� .�89"° r. S p o^ b \ a I ' aY".. T t.IS �y't, ^.i,c I T`5 Kc' ..ro•. " '�t101 -':-' r1P.. r.m . 108E rt l.arr ! !$ : mL: r I pp 1 . �t� I m ry dim I Kr r� 1i n Or �W ! . � r ip } C Pa to v-:;217" � , sq riniTh n ,. Al I ' : JY L'- s Ini `fir 1111.1`8.. . 'i 61 ' • „ _, - "ct .--zi....seQdm.fit..?"., : I ' Figure 2.6 Airepa<c Chart≤ 1 1 r , il = /1{1 g/7/fjf/Ty MASTER PLAN Jf'&Z747T ' Uncontrolled Airspace: Uncontrolled airspace is that airspace that has not been designated as the continental control area,control zone, terminal control area, or transition area and within which Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) Air Traffic Control (ATC) has neither the authority nor the responsibility for exercising control over air traffic. In general, uncontrolled airspace extends from the ground surface up to 14,500 feet above mean sea level (MSL)except in airport traffic areas,control and transition areas, and under federal airways. The study area airspace falls within this category. Controlled Airspace: Since controlled airspace includes those areas within which some or all aircraft may be subject to ATC, the airspace is supported by ground/air communications, navigation aids, and air ' traffic services. Some of the components of controlled airspace include: • Continental Control Areas include those areas at and above 14,500 feet MSL. ' • Control Areas include airspace designated as VOR Federal Airways, Additional Control Areas, and Control Area Extensions, but does not include the Continental Control Area. • Transition Areas extend upward from 700 feet or more above the surface when designated in conjunction with an airport for which an instrument approach procedure has been prescribed,or from 1,200 feet or more above the surface when designated in conjunction with airway route structures or segments.Transition areas terminate at the base of over-lying controlled airspace during portions of the terminal operation and while transitioning between the terminal and enroute environment. 1 • Control Zones extend upward from the surface and terminate at the base of the continental control area. A control zone may include one or more airport and is normally a circular area necessary to ' include instrument approach and departure paths. Special Use Airspace: Special use airspace consists of those areas wherein activities must be confined ' because of their nature, or within which limitations are imposed on aircraft operations that are not a part of those activities,or both. Among the categories of special use airspace are Prohibited Areas,Restricted Areas,Warning Areas, Military Operations Areas (MOAs), Alert Areas, and All-Weather Enroute Low Altitude Training Routes. ' The airspace in the vicinity of the Greeley-Weld County Airport does not contain any of those special use areas. IAirspace Limitations ' Often, airspace overlaps or conflicts will be associated with an airport situated near other airports. Because of safety,navigational aid placement, or runway approach/departure procedures,it may be necessary for an arriving or departing aircraft to intrude into neighboring airspace. This is not the case at the Greeley-Weld County Airport. Through the (FAA) publication, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS), guidelines for airport traffic pattern airspace area requirements during IFR conditions can be determined. Airspace requirements for a given airport are dictated by the performance of the largest aircraft that will regularly use the facility, the direction of instrument approaches and departures, and the nature of procedure turns. 2004 2-17 1 IrTlr7 MASTER PLAN �1RJ0II1Y1 Enroute Airways System Flights within the United States are normally channeled along navigational routes that are as well defined ' as the surface road system.Three route systems are now in use: • VOR Airway System • Jet Route System • Area Navigation (RNAV) System VOR Airway System: VOR (very high frequency omni directional range) airways are a low altitude ' system consisting of airways from 1,200 feet above the surface up to,but not including, 18,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL). ' The VOR system,known as the Victor airways, uses an alphanumeric code with V followed by a number, for example,V21. These airways use only VOR/VORTAC navigational aids. Victor airways are a minimum of eight nautical miles wide. When the distance between VOR stations is greater than 120 miles, the airway width increases to the envelope encompassed by planes at an angle of 4-1/2 degrees about the centerline joining the two ground stations. The Jet Route System: Airways from 18,000 feet above mean sea level (MSL) to 45,000 feet, or flight level (FL) 450,designed for aircraft that customarily operate at these altitudes,compose the jet route system. These routes also operate using VOR ground navigation stations,but the system requires ' significantly fewer stations, since line of sight operation gives the VORs substantially greater range when serving aircraft at high altitudes. The width of the airways of the jet route system is similar to that of the Victor airways. Navigation through the jet route system requires the use of Enroute High Altitude and IFR Charts. ' Airport Facilities ' This section presents,in analytical and subjective terms, a description of existing facilities at the Greeley- Weld County Airport. They provide the basis for the capacity analysis and facility requirements that are presented in subsequent chapters. For reference purposes, the facilities are divided into the following ' major sections and subsections: • Airfield Facilities o Runways ' o Taxiways o Lighting o Navigational Aids ' • Terminal Area o Terminal Building o Terminal Apron ' o Access Facilities • Hangar and FBO Area o Terminal Building 1 o Terminal Apron o Surface Access Facilities o General Aviation Facilities • Existing Utility and Drainage Systems 2004 2-18 I'.7T 7/7 MASTER PLAN FAO- Airfield Facilities Airfield facilities at the Greeley-Weld County Airport include runways, taxiways, airfield lighting, and ' navigational aids. The existing airport layout shown in Figure 2.7 provides an overview of the existing airfield facilities. ' Runways: There are two runways at Greeley-Weld County Airport. Primary Runway 16/34 is 10,000 feet long by 100 feet wide and has a 1,100-foot displaced threshold on Runway 34. It has an asphalt surface in excellent condition capable of supporting the following loads: • 30,000 lbs. Single Wheel • 45,000 lbs. Dual Wheel The runway is equipped with an Instrument Landing System (ILS) and is marked for category I ILS. It is equipped with medium intensity runway lights (MIRL), precision approach path indicators (PAPI), and runway end identifier lights (REIL). Runway 9/27 is 5,800 feet long by 100 feet wide, with a 400-foot paved overrun on the east end. There is no paved overrun or blast pad on the west end.The runway's asphalt surface is in good condition and has 1 sufficient strength to support the following loads: • 18,000 lbs. Single Wheel. • 30,000 lbs. Dual Wheel Runway 9/27 is marked non-precision and is also equipped with medium intensity runway lights (MIRL), precision approach path indicators (PAPI) on Runway 9, visual approach slope indicator(VASI) and runway end identifier lights (REIL) on Runway 27. Runway 9/27 also includes VOR, GPS and NDB approaches. ' Taxiways: The Greeley-Weld County Airport has numerous taxiways for aircraft circulation. These taxiways can be directly associated with the facility that they serve. At the Greeley-Weld County Airport,Taxiway A provides a parallel taxiway for the full length of Runway 9/27 on the south side. This taxiway has several connectors to the runway, the terminal, and hangar areas. Taxiway C is a full-length parallel taxiway for Runway 16/34. This taxiway has several connectors to the runway and connects to Taxiway A for access to the terminal and hangars. Lighting: There is a variety of lighting aids at the Greeley-Weld County Airport that facilitate ' identification, approach, landing, and taxiway operations at night or in adverse weather conditions. • Identification Lighting: The location and presence of a civil airport at night is universally ' indicated by a rotating beacon equipped with an optical system that projects a green and a white beacon of light 180 degrees apart. Greeley-Weld County Airport has a rotating beacon located in the terminal area. • Obstruction Lighting: In the vicinity of an airport, obstructions are marked and or lighted to alert pilots to their presence. At the Greeley-Weld County Airport, there are no obstructions to warrant obstruction lighting. 1 ' 2004 2-19 r to ea S o Ew0'X R.P.2. e p �) (500'x I700''A 1000') a , ,�� GREELEY, COLORADO / COUNTY ROAD 4) I \ S o ��r-2)-7/,-is ae 1 I /. V d __ ExI51,RRL _� "y(- - ' I 54. CL ExisrwG R P z.- C ,—x_--x Ex61.§pp'a81EC!FA E wG% A � w r �J ) I D I I j (soo'x nw'x tmo7 , N—_N " ' ' " — — _I I/ / pm rx�x EXIST.soo'sum uu I _ • . ,/ t— Irr — — B — AUNNAY 1fi]< 100'%10 W0' — V, ARP(f) 8 I I -- /y--� . A 3 EXEC.500'sup,MRE!� —� TI _—' 'Si L ' �'`' 1 �x—x Jj .. , •s -a L_—. sue— —� /, y • ) • CarterllBurgess / sPi •(RrvAVENUE) I /r, ISSUE RECORD '�5 CO �� __� N0. BY GATE DESCRIPTION• / / I I �I it/ IQ I _ (.� / / I �� -1 NP PROJECT NVNRER'. 3-08-0028-t4 fic WARR:1,� r/ r //j DESIGNED: DRAWN: CHECK 0: APPROVED: I I Y PAT P/f JPf d - DRAWING PAM\NNIE./ 1f—,J REFERENCE DRAWING PAN\NAME; � \ J\..\�C10\MN\0)09M\XREE i ([00 41 Rpp X woo')I GRAPHIC SCALE / 600 0 600 1200 ( aIN FEET ) EXISTING AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN - COUNTY ROAD 43 ir CHERRY ROAD FIGURE 2.7 >� J /F ' MASTER PLAN 4i??!7M/ • Approach Lighting: Approach lighting aids in defining the desired glide path in relatively good weather providing a standard 3-degree descent angle. The approach lighting at the Greeley-Weld County Airport includes precision approach path indicators (PAPI) on Runway 16/34 and Runway 9 and Visual Approach Slope Indicators (VASI) on Runway 27. • Runway End/Threshold Lighting: The identification of the runway end,or threshold,is a major factor in pilots' decisions during landing or takeoff. Because of this, the runway end/threshold is given special lighting consideration.The identifying lights make use of a two- color(red/green) lens. The green half of the lens faces the approaching airplane, indicating the ' beginning of usable runway.The red half of the lens faces the airplane on rollout or takeoff, indicating the end of the usable runway. End/threshold lights consist of a minimum of eight fixtures, in two groups of four,and are located at each of the runways. The threshold for Runway ' 34 is displaced 1,100 feet from the end of pavement. The threshold lights are located "out board" from the pavement edge. Runway 16/34 and Runway 27 have runway end identifier lights (REIL) in addition to the runway end/threshold lights.These lights are used for rapid and positive identification of the approach end of the runway. The system consists of two synchronized flashing lights,one on each side of the runway threshold. • Runway Lighting: After crossing the threshold, pilots must complete a touchdown and rollout on the runway.Runway lighting aids for this landing phase are designed to give pilots ' information on alignment, lateral displacement, roll, and distance. Edge lighting is the standard runway lighting system at the Greeley-Weld County Airport. The white edge lights are visible through 360 degrees of azimuth. Runways 9 and 16/34 are equipped with medium intensity runway lights (MIRL) and have amber lights in the last 2000 feet. ' • Taxiway Lighting: Edge lighting along the taxiways is provided to indicate the location and limit of taxiways to assist pilots in maneuvering aircraft on the taxiway system to and from the hangar and terminal areas.The Runway 16/34 taxiway system consists of blue taxiway edge lights. At the end of 2004,the Runway 9/27 taxiway system also will be lit with blue taxiway edge lights. Navigational Aids: Ground-based electronic navigational aids located on or near the Greeley-Weld County Airport may be functionally classified as enroute navigational aids, terminal area navigation aids, and landing aids. • Enroute Navigational Aids: Locational aids operating for the purpose of enroute air navigation permit in-flight aircraft to navigate accurately using only instruments. There is a nondirectional beacon (NDB) located 5.5 miles to the south of the Greeley-Weld County Airport. It provides a general purpose low frequency radio beacon on which an aircraft can determine its bearing relative to the transmitter.The NDB facility is waiting to be commissioned. 2004 2-21 1 llffif)' f/' /'fl/IAf7 MASTER PLAN Aaegil/ I Although subject to noise interference, the beacon can be used at a range of up to 200 miles. Besides being a homing device, the NDB also serves as the compass locator for the outer marker (OM)in the Instrument Landing System (ILS). There is a VHF Ominidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) facility located at Gill, Colorado, approximately 6 miles northeast of the Greeley-Weld County Airport. The GILL VORTAC operates on a frequency of 144.2 MHz on Channel 89.This navigational aid incorporates the VOR and distance measuring equipment(DME) function into a single-channeled VHF/UHF system. Operating in conjunction with the ground station, a properly equipped aircraft ' is able to translate the VORTAC signals into a visual display of both azimuth and distance. Because of the high frequency involved, the VORTAC is constrained to line-of-sight operations. ' • Terminal Area Navigation and Landing Aids: Terminal area navigation and landing aids are those in the immediate vicinity an airport. Those available at the Greeley-Weld County Airport are described below. ' The instrument landing system (ILS) is an approach and landing aid designed to identify the approach path to a runway and its exact alignment. The system provides three functions: guidance, provided vertically by a glide slope (GS) and horizontally by a localizer(LOC); range, furnished by marker beacons (MM, OM, and DME); and visual alignment, supplied by the approach lighting system (ALS) and runway edge lights. The localizer(LOC) antenna emits very high frequency(VHF) signals that tell the pilot whether he is left or right of the runway centerline and to what degree. The ultra high frequency(UHF) glide slope(GS) transmitter provides a signal indicating whether the aircraft is above or below ' the desired glide path. To further assist the ILS approach, the outer marker beacon (OM) furnishes range information to ' indicate how far along the approach path the aircraft has progressed. An ILS approach normally has a 3-degree glide slope that intercepts the outer marker at a distance of about 4.2 nautical miles from and 1,400 feet above the threshold. ' At the Greeley-Weld County Airport Runway 34 has the only ILS approach. The DME is in service and outer marker(OM) has been installed and is awaiting FAA flight check. In addition to the precision instrument approach,Runways 9, 27, and 16 have VOR/VOR-A approaches. Runways 9 and 27 have GPS approaches as well. Terminal Area ' The terminal area includes three basic components: the terminal building,the terminal apron, and the surface access facilities, including automobile parking. Each of the components is described below.The terminal area is illustrated in Figure 2.8. Terminal Building: The terminal facilities at the Greeley-Weld County Airport consist of the main terminal building and various facilities that support fixed base operators (FBOs). The terminal building is a new state-of-the-art, 6,000-square foot general aviation terminal building with a spacious lobby and mezzanine observation area.The terminal building houses a pilot lounge with kitchenette,pilot weather center, courtesy phones,conference room, full-service restaurant, and airport administrative offices. 2004 2-22 I I MASTER PLAN __add y 'I n t-. •, I iTiliTLT1 LTLTlTl 0001, '!`C p •F I` N ma=r k h : \ F i`: I �/ Q ffi Is ° Sr 11 . ^ ti c S CD , .: Fy .42 ;;i N 1r 1°2 �l y ' Rn �` pp c$' \ • -N ,A isoistonit Rieilli ‘, yy �^ 1,• 1 / (? .2 -. r%) tCriI1 I il�b 7,',' bFF � 111 Y 4ny; ';e , • 1 1 � I ."1 �;�, ti 1� j� �-I L ". Figure 2.8 Existing Terminal Area 2004 1 'grft; jpjrggggaTTi MASTER PLAN �IrPLR ' Terminal Apron: The terminal apron is asphalt pavement and has pavement strength of 30,000 lbs. single wheel and 45,000 lbs. dual wheel and is in good condition.The apron measures approximately 18,000 square yards and is marked with 25 small aircraft tie down positions. The existing apron is shown in Figure 2.9. Surface Access Facilities: The terminal area access facilities can be categorized as follows: • Terminal Access Roadways: Users and visitors to the terminal building enter the airport from Airport Road off of SH 263.The airport entrance road provides access to the terminal, hangars ' and FBO facilities. • Vehicle Parking: There are parking facilities for 44 vehicles plus 3 handicap parking spaces. These parking spaces serve employees and users/visitors. ' Hangar and FBO Area General Aviation Facilities: These include: • T-Hangars • Conventional Hangars ' • FBO Hangars • Fueling Facilities and Equipment ' Tenants and Services: Presently there are two fixed base operators (FBOs) at the Greeley-Weld County Airport: • Trajen Flight Support • Harris Jet Center ' These firms collectively provide a full line of FBO and aviation support services, including: • Fuel Sales • Aircraft Sales ' • Conventional and T-Hangar Storage • Aircraft Rental • Ramp/Tie Down Storage ' • Aircraft Charter • Oxygen • Flight Instruction ' • Pilot Lounge • Airframe and Engine Repair • Wholesale Parts (Aircraft/Engine) • Avionics Repair 2004 2-24 I I MASTER PLAN J// I I / LO i ' L / --1- 11147:5-1---Ty __ 1 / le _ / :ISI1 $aQi/ e' 711114.) ...Z. Lt) b a / _` so El r �izi , I o ii / o .. I ,/ o I . I / / , ry ti� ■ ' -Cy UN 12/UdH/Y Fy `' h4 , ... y y D I I C1 II yh y a �Q I / CO CO s V 1I-Cl ■P ti,NN44):__HC5 '�� Q1 ,si/ O= a " �, l / ~~ ■ 1 I ^ �� ^^ ^� n 1 // _� I / / 1 3 '7 io 43 I� ii i ! I i III IFigure 2.9 Existing Apron I 2004 S M MI l MI OM NM M MI OM - MI M MI E MI i■■- M IIIIII 1.3 • A Table 2.5 rri Inventory Data Building Aircraft Parking Construction Number _ Hangar Type Tenant Group Dimension Size(sf) Doors Spaces Photo Key Condition Material Notes_ _ Z Fuel Farm 50'x50' Authority Air National ANG Guard East Low Level HOR Terminal Concrete (100) Yes Excellent Block 101 Large Multi Com, I some II 76'x146' 11,096 S-11'x47'E-16'x65' Yes 1-W,2-N,3-E,4-S Excellent Steel Harris 103 Maint. 104 Maint. 105 Fuel Farm Authority Maintenance 106 Mainl. Authority N/A 35'x71' 2,485 4e S-14'x15' Yes BLD-11,12,13,14 Excellent Steel Facility 107 Mainl.Shed Authority N/A Authority 108 Elec,Vault Airport 13'x30' Excellent Pre-tab Vault 109 Large Multi _ FRO Multi-Small and E-9'x40' Pole Bldg. 111 Medium or Large Private I 32'x69' 2208 W-9'x40' Yes 1-E,2-N,3-W,4-S Good Steel Andersen 112 Large Multi Private 42'x66' 2,772 5-N,6-W,7-S,8-E Excellent Steel Aero-West 25-E,26-S,27-N, Airport 113 Tee-Shade Multi I 32'x122' 3,904 Open 28-W Poor Wood Authority 23-E,22-S,21-W, Blue Sky 114 Small Multi Private I 62'x82' 5,084 N-12'-6"x 50'S-10'x10' Yes 24-N Poor Steel&Wood Flyers 17-S,18-E,19-N, 115 Small Multi Corn. 1 44'x64' 2,816 E-10'6°x50' Yes 20-W Poor Steel Low Level 13-W,14-S,15-E, Demo — 116 Tee-Shade Corn. 1 33'x68' 2,244 9'-6"High—open Yes 16-N Poor Wood Scheduled \ 9-E,10-S,11-W,12- Stucco& 117 Small Single Club Private 1 60'x82' 4,920 N-11'x80' Yes N Fair Wood Sport Aviation N-16'-6'x59' 16-E,18-S,19-W, \'�,� b. 118 Large Multi Corn. I some II 159'x76' 12,084 N-16'-6'x55' Yes 17-N Excellent Steel Alms +� 119 Small Multi Private I 51'x61' 3,111 N-11'x51' 23 E 20-N 21-W, ExcellentC:ZZ �'1-1 12-E,13-S,14-W, Renovation �� 120 Large Multi Corn. I 106'x140' 14,840 N-11'x 40'S-11'x40' Yes 15-N Fair Steel Scheduled ` N 121 Large Multi Corn. II 406'x123' 49,938 W-14'-6"x57'E-18'x99' 0 1-S,2-E,3-N,4-W Good Steel Dull 1, 4"P0 ```I a a a a In a a l a a a a a M a MO — S O O A Building Aircraft Parking Construction y Number Hangar Type Tenant Group Dimension Size(sf) Doors Spaces Photo Key Condition Material Notes ni 5 each side plus office - Airport A7 122 Tee Multi I 29'x282' 8,178 10'x40' 0 9-S,10-W,11-E Good Authority Airport 123 Small Single Com. I 56'x46' 2,576 N-14'x51' 5-N,6-W,7-S,8-E Good Steel Authority 5 each side plus office Airport Z 124 Tee Multi I 29'x292' 8,468 13'-6"x30' 0 5-S,6-W,7-E,B-N Good Steel Authority E-17'6"x66'S-20'x66' 125 Large Multi Corp. I some II 71'x 188' 13,348 S-10'x10' 36 1-S,2-W,3-E,4-N Excellent Steel SWHT 126 Police Storage Police Firing 127 Range Harris Jet 152 Large Multi Corn. I 83'x85' 7,055 S-12'6"x60' Yes 6-S,7-E,8-N,9-W Good Steel Center 10-N,11-W,12-S, 153 Large Multi Private I some II 81'x111' 8,991 W-16'x61' Yes 13-E Excellent Steel Centurion ' Precision Propeller 154 Large Multi Corn. I 33'x60' 1,980 N-16"x66' 5-7 Excellent Steel Service Large Multi Private I some II 50'x61' 3,050 W-16'6"x56' 8-10 Excellent Steel 155 Large Multi Corn. I 77'x85' 6,545 S-15'x56' 11-14 Excellent Steel J.W.Dull 156 Private 158 Large Multi Corn. I 55'x129' 7,095 E-12'6"x40' 15-18 Fair Wood Authonty 5 each side plus office 14-E,15-5,16-W, 161 Tee Mule I 32'x312' 9,984 12'x40' 0 17-N Good Steel Authority 162 Large Multi Corporate I 65'x90' 5,850 N-16'x66' 1-4 Excellent Steel Hensel-Phelps 30-S,31-W,32-N, Low Level 164 Large Multi Corn. I 60'x80' 4,800 S-13'x60' Yes 33-E Poor Steel Dusting Co. 5 each side plus office 18-N,19-W,20-S, 166 Tee Multi I 32'x316' 10,122 12'x40' 0 21-E Good Steel Authority 5 each side plus office 167 Tee Multi I 33'x311' 10,263 11'-6"x40' 0 70-W,71-E,72-N Good Steel Authority 168 Maint, 2 each side plus office 26-S,27-E,28-W, 169 Tee Multi I 51'x108' 5,508 12'x41' 0 29-N Good Steel Authority 7 each side plus office 22-E,23-S,24-W, 170 Tee Multi I 48'x316' 15,168 11'x41' 0 25-N Good Steel Authority 58-N,59-W, 171 Large Multi Corporate I some II 80'x125' 10,000 N-16'x60'E-16'x57' 60-5, Excellent Steel Bell Acti. �,I"�..; } ' 62-E,63-N,64-W, I Phelas- :,�.1":7~-1 172 Large Multi Corporate I some II 65'x70' 4,550 E-17'x65' 65-S Excellent Steel Jointont 66-E,67-S,68-W, �'�, N3 173 Large Multi Private I 56'x60' 3,360 E-14'x60' 69-N Excellent Steel Notfsinger i Ii i i i — i i i i i M i i i i i i a NJ O A V1 y Building Aircraft Parking Construction rn Number i Hangar Type Tenant Group Dimension Size(sf) Doors Spaces Photo Key Condition Material Notes 3 each side plus office 34-N,35-E,36-S, 174 Tee Multi I 51'x150' 7,650 11'x41' 0 37-W Good Steel Authority 7 each side plus office 38-N,39-W,40-S, Z 175 Tee Multi 1 51'x318' 16,218 , 10'6"x41' 0 41-E Good Steel Authority 7-W&6E plus office 46-S,47-E,48-N, Sand Lot 176 Tee Multi I 55'x295' 16,225 11'x42' 0 49-W Good Steel Condo Assoc. 7 each side plus office 42-E,43-S,44-W, 177 Tee Multi I 51'x318' 16,218 10'6"x41' 0 45-N Good Steel Authority 54N,55-E,56-S,57- 178 Large Multi Corporate II 124'x126' 15,624 E-19'6"x80' W Excellent Steel Nissi Acti. 4 each side plus office 50-N,51-E,52-W, 180 Exec.Tee Multi I 48'x223' 10,704 13'6"x53' 0 53-5 Good Steel Authority `--?...,,‘.\%[liiii1/4 CO Z ICAC J//!'f P11,7 �/MASTER PLAN 1 The following commercial aviation businesses are located at the Greeley-Weld County Airport: • AIMS Flight Training Center • AERO Aesthetics • Barnstormer Restaurant • Beegles Aircraft Service • Bell Aircraft • Blue Sky Flyers • C & C Aerial Sprayers • Civil Air Patrol • Experimental Aircraft Association • Greeley Sport Aviation • Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority • Trajen Flight Support • Harris Aviation • Harris Jet Center • High Prairie Aero Services • J.W. Duff Aircraft Company ' • Low Level Dusting Co., Inc. • Meridian Aircraft Company • Northern Colorado Air Charter ' • Precision Propeller Service, Inc. Fueling Facilities: There are three fuel storage facilities supporting the Greeley-Weld County Airport provided by two FBOs and a private user. The airport owns and leases an above-ground fuel storage facility and fueling equipment to the Trajen Right Support. The capacities of this facility are listed in Table 2.. Additionally, Harris Jet Center has fuel storage off the airport site and transports fuel to the ' airport with fueling trucks. Bell Aircraft maintains an underground 12,000-gallon Jet A storage tank at their hangar complex for its own use. ' Table 2.6 Airport Owned Fuel Facility Inventory Type of Fuel Tank Capacity Fueling Equipment ' Jet A 12,000 gal 2,200 gal. in 1 truck t00LL 12,000 gal 1,700 gal. in 1 truck Auto 2,000 gal TOTAL 26,000 gal I Existing Utility and Drainage Systems Sanitary Sewer Collection System The City of Greeley constructed a sanitary sewer line to the Greeley-Weld County Airport in 1985. The sewer line was built along the north side of SH 263 and ended near the old Colorado Air National Guard main gate. This sewer line was a combination of gravity feed and force main. The gravity sewer runs from the airport west approximately 3,300 feet to a lift station. The lift station pumps the wastewater 1 through a force main to the west toward the treatment plant. In 1998, the Airport Authority extended the 2004 2-29 AVililililiSile MASTER PLAN ,41111111 sewer at the airport east to Airport Road and then north to serve the new terminal building. In 2001, a further extension of this line was completed to serve the east hangar area. A temporary lift station was also installed that will be increased in size at a later date. The existing lift station collects wastewater from both the west and east. The wastewater is then pumped through a 6-inch force main to Balsam Avenue where it discharges into an 18-inch gravity sewer line that flows to the west. This line carries the wastewater to US Highway 85 where it empties into a main interceptor and is then delivered to the Greeley Pollution Control Facility. The lift station is equipped with two pumps. The capacity of each pump is estimated at 240 gallons per minute. With both pumps running simultaneously, the capacity is estimated to be 300 gallons per minute. Water Distribution System In 1985, the City of Greeley extended a waterline east to the airport. The 16-inch ductile iron pipe is located on the north side of SH 263 and runs to the northwest corner of Crosier Avenue and SH 263 where it dead ends. In 1998, a 12-inch PVC waterline was installed in Airport Road north to serve the new terminal building. In 2001, the system was extended and looped. Storm Drainage System Sand Creek is a major drainageway on the north and west side of the airport. A 21-foot arch culvert passes the flow south from Sand Creek under Runway 9/27 and Taxiway A through the terminal area and ends on the south side of Skyhawk Drive. At this point the drainage flows into and through a dry drainage retention area on airport property and then under SH 263 into the Cache La Poudre River. Drainage on the Airport site is accommodated through a combination of surface and open channel drainage to under pavement culverts and underground pipe with area inlets. All drainage flows to the south and ultimately discharges into the Cache La Poudre River. I I I 1 I ' 2004 2-30 af111rr- �,JYfIWPG W �� I MASTER PLAN Al/7Ef87 1 3.0 Forecasts of Aviation Demand IIntroduction Factors that influence the demand for aviation activity at an airport include the socioeconomic characteristics of the air service area, the level of service and facilities provided at the airport compared to Icompeting airports in the region, and its location with respect to demand generators for originating or transient users. I Based on the data presented Chapter 2, it may be concluded that the demand for aviation activity at the Greeley-Weld County Airport is being sustained and has the potential for growth. The Airport attracts local aircraft owners to use the facility as a base. The variety of aircraft maintenance services provided at I the Greeley-Weld County Airport draws transient aircraft activity and to addresses the business needs of the community. Historically, Airport management has had a waiting list for the hangars of between 4 and 12 aircraft owners, most of whom use another airport to base their aircraft. IPopulation growth of the air service area, continued diversification of the economy and disposable income levels support the continued reliance on the Greeley-Weld County Airport to provide air I transportation services. This is especially relevant when the economic centers are distant from one another or involve excessive travel times to enable one-day ground transportation trips. General aviation air travel supports this user demand. Longer passenger processing times at scheduled airline service airports in recent times have contributed to the increased awareness and utility of the general aviation I aircraft and airports. The attractiveness of fractional ownership of business aircraft, both in the jet and turboprop families, further supports this trend. Barring an economic scenario that suggests poor economic performance in the dominant area industries, use of the Greeley-Weld County Airport is likely Ito continue and experience increasing frequency. From a facilities perspective, the Greeley-Weld County Airport is well maintained and offers certain Iadvantages over potential competing area airports, as highlighted in Table 3-1. Table 3-1 Comparison with Competing Airports INumber of Paved Instrument Aviation Fuel Fixed Base Operator Airport Runways and Approach Longest Length Capability Availability Services 1 Greeley-Weld County 2 -- 10,000 feet Precision 100 LL,Jet-A Major, Hangar,Tiedown Fort Collins Downtown 1 -- 5,300 feet Circling 100 LL,Jet-A Major, Hangar,Tiedown Fort Collins Loveland 2 -- 8,500 feet Precision 100 LL,Jet-A Major, Hangar,Tiedown I Fort Morgan Municipal 1 -- 5,050 feet None 100 LL,Jet-A Minor, Hangar, Tiedown Longmont-Vance Brand 1 -- 4,800 feet Nonprecision 100 LL, Jet-A Major, Hangar, Tiedown Platte Valley 1 -- 4,500 feet None 100 LL Minor, Hangar,Tiedown I Overall, the prospect for future aviation activity at the Airport is considered positive and at rates comparable to those expected nationally. I The proximity of Denver International Airport,approximately 40 miles and within an hour's drive from Greeley restricts the introduction of scheduled airline or commuter service. I I2004 3-1 ifir ' MASTER PLAN /1"P ? ' The effects of September 11, 2001, combined with a weakening economy have led to reduction in aviation travel. These effects have been considered, but are difficult to quantify. However, the "hassle factor" associated with scheduled airline travel, especially for frequent flyers, has stimulated increased interest in the general aviation industry. Corporate travelers have realized the convenience and improved affordability of using chartered general aviation aircraft or have joined into fractional aircraft ownership programs. These programs,initially involving business jet aircraft, now offer participation in turboprop aircraft such as the Beechcraft King Air. The ability of these aircraft to operate at airports located closer to the passengers' homes and suburban office locations has contributed to the success of the aircraft ownership programs. The limitations that were placed on flight activity immediately after September 11, 2001, into early 2002 and weak economic conditions may temporarily offset the benefits of general aviation airports and ' fractional aircraft ownership programs. As the economy improves, more positive forces are expected to return and stimulate the demand for general aviation activity. There is optimism that as the economy improves, student pilot starts and deliveries of single-engine piston aircraft will rebound. Contributing to this prospect for growth will be the introduction of lightweight, low noise,new technology personal and corporate jet aircraft. An example is the Eclipse 500 twin-engine jet. This aircraft has a maximum gross takeoff weight of 4,700 pounds and can transport 4 passengers and a crew of 2 approximately 1,600 nautical miles nonstop. The aircraft sells for about $1 million and should be operational by early 2004. The twinjet aircraft is specifically designed to operate from general aviation airports with runway lengths of at least 2,600 feet, thus making it attractive for use at most general Iaviation airports. The estimated forecasts presented below were derived from an assessment of survey activities of based aircraft and aircraft operations, ongoing and planned terminal area improvements, and anticipated trends in the general aviation market. These findings are coupled with consideration of causal relationships as reflected in supply(competition) and demand (population, employment and income) factors. Based Aircraft The number of aircraft based at an airport is influenced by the local service area economy, especially ' disposable income levels, and the availability and suitability of airside and terminal area facilities. Current and programmed private investment in hangar facilities for individual and corporate aircraft at the Greeley-Weld County Airport is expected to attract another 25 aircraft in the next five years. The majority of these hangars are being designed to accommodate multi-engine turboprop aircraft; some will serve single-engine piston/turboprop and business jet aircraft. In addition to the growth generated by the capital investments in hangar facilities, the socioeconomic characteristics of the Greeley-Weld County Airport service area and the facilities available suggest a moderate potential for total based aircraft growth at slightly less than 1 percent per year. This is a rate comparable to that expected nationally. The mix of based aircraft will shift slightly to larger aircraft over the forecast horizon, a trend that is also anticipated at the nationally. Business jets are categorized as small, medium and large, based on maximum gross takeoff weight(MGTW). As used in this Master Plan, small business jets are defined as having a MGTW of 25,000 pounds or less. Medium business jets ' have an MGTW of between 25,001 pounds and 60,000 pounds. Large business jets are those with MGTW of more than 60,001 pounds. The forecast of aircraft based at the Greeley-Weld County Airport is presented in Table 3-2. i 2004 3-2 I J�/z �ezt I MASTER PLAN lA77 .11 1 Table 3-2 Based Aircraft Forecast Single- I Multi- Multi- Small Medium Large Engine Rotor- Year Engine Engine Business Business Business craft Total Piston and Piston Turboprop Jet Jet Jet Turboprop 2002 195 12 6 6 1 0 1 221 I 2007 203 16 21 9 2 0 1 252 2012 207 17 22 11 3 1 2 263 2017 211 18 23 13 4 2 2 273 I 2022 214 19 24 16 5 3 3 284 Note: Existing (2002) based aircraft total excludes 2 ultralight aircraft. I General Aviation Aircraft Operations Airport management has estimated that the Greeley-Weld County Airport currently accommodates a demand of 142,000 annual general aviation aircraft operations (takeoffs and landings). This is an I estimate based on implementation of a noise-activated traffic counter and forecasting over a one-year period. This results in a use index of about 643 operations per based aircraft. This index is expected to increase slightly through the 20-year planning horizon to reflect higher aircraft utilization rates. Most I airports tend to serve a wider range of aircraft than those actually based at the facility. This is the case at the Greeley-Weld County Airport. Large business jets utilize the facility on a frequent basis, operating at weights that permit a safe and reasonable mission in terms of nonstop stage length and the pavement I strength of the runway. The forecast of general aviation aircraft operations at the Greeley-Weld County Airport by mix is presented in Table 3-3. Table 3-3 IGeneral Aviation Aircraft Operations Forecast Single- Multi- Multi- Small Medium Large Engine Rotor- i Year Engine Engine Business Business Business craft Total Piston and Piston Turboprop Jet Jet Jet Turboprop 2002 119,410 8,250 5,445 4,600 2,300 575 1,420 142,000 2007 134,901 9,127 7,623 5,665 2,799 800 1,625 162,540 I 2012 140,963 9,265 8,315 6,462 3,159 1,005 1,781 170,950 2017 145,999 9,334 9,184 7,474 3,698 1,259 1,867 178,815 2022 151,384 9,372 10,152 8,622 4,311 1,552 2,047 187,440 1 Other Aircraft Operations I General aviation aircraft operations dominate the use of the Greeley-Weld County Airport. However, there are occasional charter operations conducted by air carrier aircraft such as the BAC-111 and DC-9. The volume of charter air carrier traffic is relatively low, approximately 20 operations annually, and is I conducted with prior permission granted by Airport management to ensure that the aircraft operating weight is acceptable and will not damage the pavement structure. At times, operating permission has been denied,especially during hot weather periods. In the event the pavement strengths of the runway I and supporting taxiways were increased, the Airport could be expected to handle a higher volume of this traffic. In addition, military aircraft activity at the Airport involves small business jets, C-130 transports and helicopters that move personnel between operating centers and transient fighter jet activity. I I2004 3-3 gi1 r> I MASTER PLAN *fig gllUNIF 4W7RZW/ 1 The projection of annual operations conducted by air carrier and military aircraft is shown in Table 3-4. Table 3-4 IAir Carrier and Military Aircraft Operations Year Air Carrier Military 2002 25 3,000 1 2007 50 3,000 2012 100 3,000 2017 150 3,000 I2022 200 3,000 Local and Itinerant Aircraft Operations IAircraft operations are classified as local or itinerant. Local operations are those associated with training activities and flights within a 20-mile radius of an airport. All other aircraft operations are defined as Iitinerant. Both local and itinerant operations are conducted at the Greeley-Weld County Airport. The Greeley-Weld County Airport is an attractive facility for training flights because of the runway lengths and instrument approach procedures available. Accordingly, Airport management has estimated Ithat about 60 percent of the general aviation activity and 33 percent of the military aircraft operations conducted are local. Anticipated higher utilization of aircraft for business travel especially by multi- engine and higher performance jet aircraft is anticipated to be reflected in an increase in the share of I itinerant aircraft operations. The general aviation local operations share is expected to decrease to 54 percent through the 20-year planning horizon. The forecast is presented in Table 3-5. I Table 3-5 Local and Itinerant Aircraft Operations Local Itinerant Grand I Year Air General General Total Carrier Aviation Military Subtotal Air Carrier Aviation Military Subtotal 2002 0 84,500 1,000 85,800 25 57,500 2,000 59,725 145,025 2007 0 95,899 1,000 96,899 50 66,641 2,000 68,691 165,590 I 2012 0 99,151 1,000 100,151 100 71,799 2,000 73,899 174,050 2017 0 100,136 1,000 101,136 150 78,679 2,000 80,829 181,965 2022 0 101,218 1,000 102,218 200 86,222 2,000 88,422 190,640 1 Instrument Operations and Approaches I An instrument operation is any aircraft operation (takeoff or landing)conducted in accordance with an instrument flight rule (IFR) flight plan or an operation where IFR separation is provided by a terminal control facility or air route traffic control center(ARTCC). Instrument operations also include overflights I through terminal airspace and Stage III operations, including flights that transit terminal control areas. Special visual flight rule (VFR) operations are not counted as instrument operations. Instrument operations are reported on the basis of the controlling facility that separates the counts as primary, I secondary or overflights. Primary instrument operations are those that take place at the reporting airport, while secondary instrument operations are those performed at other airports (towered or nontowered) that are controlled by the primary facility. Therefore, all instrument operations at the Greeley-Weld County Airport are reported as secondary. I2004 3-4 I I H/E /1f 1B11112? Y I MASTER PLAN 4''Pj7h'i 1 In contrast to an instrument operation, an instrument approach is an approach made to an airport by an aircraft on an IFR flight plan,when the visibility is less than three miles or the ceiling is at or below the minimum control approach altitude. This definition has three elements: 1) an instrument approach is I specifically limited to those approaches when the aircraft is on an IFR flight plan; 2) weather conditions play an important part in determining if the IFR arrival qualifies as an instrument approach; and 3) instrument approaches are credited to the airport of destination with a published instrument approach I procedure. With regard to establishing the need for instrument approach procedures, the number of instrument approaches is the key element of consideration. I The methodology utilized in the forecasting process takes into consideration the propensity to travel by different types of users (air carrier, air taxi, general aviation and military) and weather conditions as quantified in the report,An Improved Forecast Model for Annual Instrument Approaches prepared for the I FAA. For nontowered airports, the model develops a set of estimating ratios by geographic area that can be used to develop instrument operations from itinerant operations by type user,and another set of estimating ratios to relate instrument operations to instrument approaches by type user. I For the Greeley-Weld County Airport, the estimating ratios for general aviation users were applied for the geographic area covered by the Denver ARTCC. These ratios indicate that about 15 percent of all itinerant operations generate the instrument operations demand. The occurrence of IFR conditions I reduces the demand for instrument approaches to about 10 percent of the instrument operations levels, a ratio value that is slightly less than that for the continental United States. The demand for general aviation instrument operations was adjusted to account for a slightly increasing percentage of itinerant Iaircraft activity as more pilots obtain instrument ratings in future years. Application of this forecast methodology resulted in the projections of instrument operations and I approaches presented in Table 3-6. Table 3-6 Aircraft Instrument Operations and Approaches Year Annual Instrument Operations Approaches 2002 11,491 993 I 2007 13,713 1,219 2012 15,562 1,405 2017 17,962 1,647 1 2022 20,802 1,934 I Peak-Hour Aircraft Operations There are no records available at the Greeley-Weld County Airport to identify aircraft activity during the peak hour. Estimates of peak-hour activity during VFR and IFR operating conditions were derived from I the annual activity levels for total aircraft operations and instrument operations respectively. VFR peak- hour activity was estimated to be between 8:00 am and 11:00am with touch-and-go traffic. VFR peak- hour activity levels were estimated to account for 15 percent of the average day of their respective peak- I month volumes, the peak-month representing a level that is 10 percent greater than the average month. Under IFR conditions, the peak-hour flows are more concentrated during the day and account for a higher percentage of the average day, peak-month activity. Additionally, the analysis incorporates the condition I I2004 3-5 gliffig P Till P11O17.1 I MASTER PLAN 417'/ll'f 1 that as annual activity levels increase, the percentage of activity that occurs during the peak-hour decreases as peak operating periods spread during the day. Table 3-7 presents the forecasts. I Table 3-7 Peak-Hour Aircraft Operations I Year Peak-Hour Aircraft Operations VFR IFR 2002 66 14 2007 75 15 I 2012 77 16 2017 79 18 2022 60 19 1 Airport Reference Code I Airport design criteria and dimensional standards for airport facilities are determined by the airport reference code (ARC). The ARC is a coding system used to relate airport design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics of the critical design airplane intended to operate at an airport. I The ARC is comprised of two components: aircraft approach category depicted by a capital letter, and airplane design group that relates to the airplane wingspan and is depicted by a Roman numeral. In general, runway standards are related to aircraft approach speed, airplane wingspan, approach visibility I minimum and airplane gross takeoff weight. Taxiway and taxilane standards are related to airplane design group. The visibility minimum associated with an instrument approach also influences the identification of the airport design standards. Approach visibility minimums are classified as either"not lower than 3/4-mile" or"lower than 3/a-mile". The ARC components are defined in Table 3-8. ITable 3-8 ARC Components I Approach Category Aircraft Approach Speed Airplane Design Group Wingspan(feet) A <91 knots I <49 B >91 knots, < 121 knots II >49, <79 ' C > 121 knots, < 141 knots III >79, < 118 D ≥ 141 knots, < 166 knots IV ≥ 118, < 171 E > 166 knots V > 171, <214 VI >214, <262 1 Aircraft are also classified by the FAA as small or large. Small aircraft are defined as having a gross takeoff weight of less than 12,500 pounds; all other aircraft are defined as large. The Greeley-Weld 1 County Airport serves a mix of small and large aircraft on a regular basis. Runway 16/34 is classified as precision instrument runway with visibility minimums of 3/4-statute mile depending on the approach speed of the aircraft. Runway 9/27 is a nonprecision instrument runway with visibility minimums of at least 3/4- 1 statute mile. I I I 2004 3-6 I A1717ffilic SSIFZE7MASTER PLAN IRepresentative aircraft using the Greeley-Weld County Airport are presented in Table 3-9. Table 3-9 IRepresentative Aircraft Using Airport by Airport Reference Code(ARC) Airport Reference Code Representative Aircraft Small Large I A-I Cessna 150 NA Beech Baron A-II Cessna 208 Caravan NA I B-I Beech 18 Beech Baron Cessna Citation I Piper Navajo Cessna 421 I B-II Beech King Air C90 Cessna Citation II Cessna 441 Conquest Cessna Citation III Dassault Falcon 200 Dassault Falcon 900 I C-I NA Learjet 31 Learjet 50 Series HS 125 Series C-II NA Grumman Gulfstream III ' C-III NA Rockwell Sabre 80 BAC-111 DC-9 series I D-I NA Learjet 35A D-II NA Grumman Gulfstream IV D-II Hawker B00 XP I In defining the"critical" or"design"aircraft for an airport, frequency of use is a key factor. Accepted industry practice is to select that ARC category that generates or is expected to generate at least 500 annual aircraft operations. Occasional use by aircraft larger in size or faster in approach speed does not Ioverly influence the design of an airport. It would be appropriate to designate two separate ARCs for the Greeley-Weld County Airport, each I associated with the existing runways given their length and instrument approach capability. An ARC D-II would be appropriate for each runway at current activity levels.This ARC accounts for all of the piston and turboprop aircraft and a majority of the business jet activity at the Greeley-Weld County Airport,the total of which exceeds 500 annual operations. Early during the 20-year planning horizon, large business I jet traffic is expected to account for a sufficiently higher percentage of the aircraft operations at the Airport to justify an ARC D-II requirement for Runway 16/34. The visibility minimums associated with future instrument approach procedures to Runway 16/34 and Runway 9/27 will then further establish the applicable facility design standards for these design groups. These instrument approach requirements and potential minimums will be determined in Chapter 4 of this report. IComparison with Other Forecasts The recommended forecasts of aviation demand presented in the preceding sections were compared to I those available and identified in the FM Terminal Area Forecast(TAF), December 2001 and the Colorado Statewide Airport Inventory and Implementation Plan Study (GSAIIPS), October 2000.These forecasts are summarized in Table 3-10 and reflect FAA policy to address a 15-year period. Because the forecasts were not developed at the same time,the values were interpolated or extrapolated as necessary I2004 3-7 I 17/111k1407 l " I MASTER PLAN kilfiri T to permit a more direct comparison. The TAF was prepared before the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and is currently under revision by the FAA. I Table 3-10 Comparison with Other Forecasts Based Aircraft IYear Recommended FAA TAF(2001) CSAIIPS(2000) 2002 221 208 a 208 I 2007 252 208 208d 2012 263 208 208° 2017 273 208b 208 Average Annual Growth Rate(percent) I 2002-2007 2.66 0.00 0.00 2007-2072 1.76 0.00 0.00 2012- 2017 1.42 0.00 0.00 I Total Aircraft Operations 2002 145,020 135,000 a 135,848 e 2007 165,590 135,000 145,628h I 2012 174,050 135,000 156,111 2017 181,965 135,000[ 167,349' Average Annual Growth Rate(percent) I 2002-2007 2.69 0.00 1.40 2007-2012 1.84 0.00 1.40 2012-2017 1.52 0.00 1.40 Total Operations per Based Aircraft' I2002 656 649 653 2007 658 649 700 2012 663 649 751 I2017 668 649 805 a FY 2001 value b Extrapolated value;208 in 2010 and 208 in 2015 Interpolated value;208 in 1998 and 208 in 2003 d Interpolated value;208 in 2003 and 208 in 2008 c Interpolated value;208 in 2008 and 138 in 2018 t Interpolated value; 135,000 in 2010 and 135,000 in 2015 B Interpolated value;128,500 in 1998 and 137,750 in 2003 h Interpolated value;137,750 in 2003 and 147,667 in 2008 I I Interpolated value;147,667 in 2008 and 169,692 in 2018 1 From data in preceding table sections I The estimated forecasts of based aircraft demonstrate slight growth over the 15-year period, while those indicated in the FAA (TAF) and Colorado(CSAII?) plans indicate no growth. The basis for the no- growth scenarios does not appear reasonable or appropriate given the socioeconomic characteristics of the I Greeley-Weld County Airport's service area and the increased use of general aviation, especially for business flight purposes, as evidenced by the extent of ongoing and planned investments in hangar facilities. 1 2004 3-8 MASTER PLAN The recommended total (general aviation, air carrier and military)aircraft operations forecast show slight growth and compare most favorably with that presented in the CSAIISP. The CSAIISP forecasts demonstrate more moderate average annual growth rates applied to an initially lower base year level of activity. Earlier discussions between Airport management and the Colorado Division of Aeronautics after the CSAIISP was prepared had reached an agreement that the 145,000 annual aircraft operations level was appropriate. Application of the same average annual growth rates would result in a CSAIISP projection of 178,623 aircraft operations in 2017, a level that is nearly equivalent to that suggested in the recommended forecast. The FAA TAF projections indicate no change in the activity level of the Greeley-Weld County Airport. This result does not appear representative of the conditions supporting aviation activity in the Airport's service area and should be revised to match the recommended forecasts. The ratios of total aircraft operations per based aircraft generated from the three sets of projections indicate generally comparable values, especially those used in the FAA TAF. The CSAIISP ratios appear slightly high, especially in the latter years of the 20-year planning horizon, when compared to the typical expected range nationally (between 600 and 800). The use of these ratios also accounts for the slightly higher annual aircraft operations projections. ' In conclusion, the recommended forecasts are adequately supported by the planning rationale utilized and the independent projections presented by the FAA and Colorado Division of Aeronautics. These ' recommended forecasts should form the basis for assessing future facility requirements and the alternative layouts of the Greeley-Weld County Airport to be addressed in Chapters 4 and 5. 1 I 1 2004 3-9 MASTER PLAN �J 712114/ 1 4.0 Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirements ' In this chapter, the capacity of Greeley-Weld County Airport is examined. The analytical techniques, input data, and results of these examinations are described first. Following the capacity analyses, the facility requirements that necessary to accommodate the forecast level of demand are identified. Capacity Analysis Overview From the capacity analysis, the capability of the system to serve forecast levels of demand can be ' determined. The capacity analysis for Greeley-Weld County Airport is composed of two distinct elements: • The ability of airport facilities to accommodate existing and projected aircraft operations (airfield capacity). The capacity of an airfield is primarily a function of the major aircraft traffic surfaces (runways and taxiways) that compose the facility and the configuration of those surfaces. ' However,it is also related to, and considered in conjunction with, wind coverage, airspace utilization, and the availability and type of navigational aids. • The ability of airport facilities to accommodate existing and projected ground vehicle operations (airport access capacity). Airport access capacity is a function of the existing and/or future vehicular roadways located in the vicinity of the airport and their interface with the various ' airport-specific access roads. By analyzing the relationship between demand and capacity, deficiencies in the system can be identified and steps toward alleviating them can be studied. The two capacity elements can be analyzed through four major components of the system: • Airfield • Terminal Area • Automobile Access ' Airfield Capacity Methodology The capacity of the airfield is a measure of the maximum number of aircraft operations that can be accommodated on the airport or its components over a specified period of time. Several techniques have been developed for determining this airfield capacity. At this point in time, the most valued and widely accepted technique is described in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay. The analyses employed for this Master Plan are based upon this publication. 1 Utilizing this methodology produces statements of airfield capacity in three major terms: 1 • Hourly Capacity of Runways: The number of aircraft operations that can take place on the runway system in one hour. • Hourly Capacity of Taxiways: The maximum number of aircraft that can be accommodated by the taxiways in one hour. • Annual Service Volume (ASV): A reasonable estimate of an airport's annual capacity. The 1 ASV accounts for differences in runway use, aircraft mix, weather conditions, and other limiting 1 2004 4-1 1,27g BONI/ ' MASTER PLAN 1,4IAPLWJ 1 factors that can occur over a year's time. This is measured in the level of annual aircraft operations that will result in an average annual aircraft delay of approximately one to four minutes. 1 The capacity of a runway system is determined by several factors. Among these are: ' • Airfield layout • Meteorological conditions ' • Characteristics of demand, such as runway use, aircraft mix, percent of operations that are arrivals, percent touch-and-go operations, and exit taxiway locations Each of these elements and its impact on the runway capacity of Greeley-Weld County Airport is discussed in the following paragraphs. Airfield Layout The layout of the airfield identifies the arrangement of the airfield components, such as the runway system, taxiways,and ramps,The Greeley-Weld Airport airfield layout is illustrated in Figure 4.1. The Airport has two runways. Runway 9/27 has a full-length parallel taxiway along the south side with six connector taxiways. The main runway is Runway 16/34 with a full parallel taxiway on the west side and seven connector taxiways. The runways form an inverted tee viewing from south to north. Runway 16/34 is located at approximately the midpoint of Runway 9/27. The runways are physically separated— Runway 34 is displaced 1,100 feet to avoid conflict with Runway 9/27. All of the Greeley-Weld Airport's existing landside facilities are located on the south side of Runway 9/27. They are the terminal building, FBO facilities, private hangars, various storage hangars, a fuel farm, and an airport maintenance facility. ' Meteorological Conditions The prevailing wind and visibility conditions determine the direction in which takeoffs and landings may be conducted, as well as the frequency of use for each available operating configuration. At Greeley- Weld County Airport, the decision to use a particular runway is made by the wind direction and the runway use. Since the various operational configurations have different capacities, it is necessary to identify each configuration,its capacity, and the percentage of time that it is likely to be used. Meteorological conditions are the prime factor determining which configuration will be used at any given time. As would be expected, higher annual airfield capacities will result if the prevailing weather favors the use of higher capacity operating configurations. Meteorological data obtained for the Greeley-Weld County Airport from the National Climatic Data Center are categorized in the following terms: Ceiling and Visibility: The terms visual flight rules (VFR) and instrument flight rules (IFR) are used as measures of ceiling and visibility. VFR conditions occur when the ceiling is equal to or greater than 1,000 feet above ground level and visibility is equal to or greater than three statute miles. During these conditions, pilots fly on a see-and-be-seen basis. IFR conditions occur when the ceiling is less than 1,000 feet but equal to or greater than 200 feet and/or visibility less than 3 statute miles but equal to or greater than ''/ statute mile. In IFR weather, the air traffic control (ATC) system assumes sole responsibility for maintaining the safe separation between aircraft. ' 2004 4-2 /r re 'fT JAL t> >ri st/, o o Z (5001 X fl.0t a a i \ EXIST x noo'x loon) .. .:••• GREELEY, COLORADO / COUNTY ROAD 49 Ir...--741" \ I 2 ' \/ I / ' /� I e , " ---. 1'-..7.6C-- —I i§ Z - � I ' I x [---BRA a ETImRO P RZ - - - RI—x -I o ' (SW'X 1IW'x 1010') x�_x x�—% x��x x x FxL5i.EXIST-100P OBJECT fA[E APFA -- I / R I ti I1 y5r, Lu �x�M EXIST.SDY$ APFA • • V cc yPYy�— B RUNWAY 16/J4 ION M 10 BW' _ _ I ',!i , � ••_�/--_ ��.-�R.< ,�. wry AGP(E) IL__ - / • ■ ' / 1 b E fn5i.5Bo_S+mv AREA \` WPM'C ° is I 1 a La-‘11`i ' ---- /cl f • / a o� - / / _ m.. . ' Carter:Burgess CWN"z;5 r x o / Yo. g • • -- (TERN , iiiaFl ISSUE RECORD I- i�@� ____ N0. BY DATE DESCRIPTION g tr. Iry, 1 i / / µ, g 1 ice, Jf 1 t if I'LJ / / I L-x NP PROJECT RIMER: 3-08-0028-14 CAB PROJELT NUYBER: DATE: / / 1' 070944-100 03/18/04 1 / / I DESIGNED: DRAWN CHECKtO: RPPROAED: 1 I , P1f PU /PT ,l5 DRASING PATANNAIIE: / J:\...\.\O7OS44\00444-EAJP01.DWG PETEPwcE NIAWING PAIHNNANE: -Z� T/ I J\..\DEN_CA\'MWD\0]0946\NREE liMIZil XIO 711 1 EXISTING fl P Z. GRAPHIC SCALE / 600 0 600 1200 ( IN FEET ) ' o- EXISTING AIRPORT s COUNTY ROAD a LAYOUT PLAN -' CHERRY ROAD FIGURE 4.1 88/12:11- MASTER PLAN J/ 1):1 r J � Wind Coverage: Surface wind conditions generally determine the desired alignment and configuration of the runway system. Wind conditions are of prime importance in determining runway use and orientation. Where prevailing winds are consistently from one direction, runways are oriented in that direction. Runways that are not oriented to take advantage of prevailing winds will restrict the capacity of the airport. Wind conditions affect all airplanes in varying degrees; however, the ability to land and take off in crosswind conditions varies according to pilot proficiency and aircraft type. Generally,the smaller the aircraft, the more it is affected by the crosswind component. In most airport areas, however, consistency of wind direction is not found. In such instances a multiple runway system may be required. The FAA has established that an airport runway system should provide 95 percent usability for the following crosswind components: • 10.5-knot(ARCs A-I and B-I) • 13-knot (ARCs A-II and B-II) • 16-knot (ARCs A-IIl, B-III and C-I through D-III) • 20-knot (ARCs A-IV through D-VI) ' A detailed meteorological analysis was prepared as part of this Master Plan. The method of analyzing meteorological conditions related to ceiling, visibility, and runway orientation involves use of a wind rose. Wind data for all-weather and IFR conditions are represented on the wind roses in terms of the percentage of time winds of different velocities blow from various directions. Data necessary for conducting weather and wind analyses were available from the National Climatic Data Center(NCDC) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), in Asheville,North Carolina. NOAA maintains a network of weather stations that record meteorological conditions. One such station (Number 72467) is located at the Greeley-Weld County Airport. Analysis of the wind data for the Airport included the ten-year period from 1993 to 2002. During this period, there were approximately 82,203 observations available for the all-weather conditions and approximately 81,113 observations available for the IFR weather conditions. ' The allowable crosswind component is dependent upon the Airport Reference Code (ARC)for the type of aircraft that utilize the airport on a regular basis. According to the existing Airport Layout Plan, the ' current ARC for Runway 9/27 is C-II and Runway 16/34 is D-II. The standards listed above specify that the 16-knot crosswind component be utilized for analysis. In addition, it is known that the Greeley-Weld County Airport will continue to serve small single and twin-engine aircraft for which the 10.5-knot crosswind component is considered maximum. Therefore, the 16-knot and 10.5-knot crosswind components should be analyzed for the Greeley-Weld County Airport. The desirable wind coverage for an airport's runway system is 95 percent.This means that the runway ' orientation and configuration should be developed so that the maximum crosswind component is not exceeded more than 5 percent of the time annually. Table 4-1 quantifies the wind coverage offered by the Greeley-Weld County Airport's existing runway system, including the coverage for each runway end. Based on the all weather wind analysis for Greeley-Weld County Airport, utilizing the FAA Airport Design Software supplied with AC 150/5300-13, the existing combined runway configuration provides 99.82 percent wind coverage for the 16-knot crosswind component and 98.23 percent wind coverage for the 10.5-knot crosswind component. Therefore, no additional runways are required from a wind coverage standpoint. For comparison purposes, the 13-knot and 20-knot crosswind components were also included in the table. 2004 4-4 111111114V/Y I MASTER PLAN I 1 RPM/ The Greeley-Weld County Airport is served both by ILS and VOR/VOR-A approaches. In an effort to evaluate the effectiveness of these approaches and analyze the potential benefits of implementing a future instrument approach and lower approach visibility minimums, an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)wind rose was constructed. Table 4-1 tabulates the weather categories and wind coverage for both individual runway end and the I combined runways in consideration of potential lower precision approach minimums (ceiling less than 1,000 feet and/or visibility less than 3-statute mile,but ceiling equal to or greater than 200 feet and visibility equal to or greater than '/-statute mile). The wind roses used in preparing this tabulation are Ipresented Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.3. Table 4-1 Wind Coverage of Existing Runways I Wind Coverage Weather Groups Runway Ends Bi-directional Runway Combined Runways I 09 27 I 16 34 09/27 16/34 09/27/16/34 All Weather: 10.5 knots 82.93% 75.60% 76.89% 83.95% 90.87% 94.98% 98.23% 13 knots 84.98% 77.68% 78.10% 85.80% 93.75% 97.38% 99.40% ' 16 knots 87.04% 79.99% 79.18% 87.29% 96.63% 99.17% 99.82% 20 knots 88.19% 81.50% 79.46% 87.79% 98.46% 99.75% 99.95° Instrument Flight Rules: IFR ' 10.5 knots 92.46% 59.23% 80.20% 81.77% 94.32% 91.69% 98.46% 13 knots 94.10% 60.22% 83.30% 84.20% 96.13% 95.66% 99.42% 16 knots 95.54% 61.47% 86.09% 86.75% 97.82% 99.05% 99.71% 20 knots 96.23% l 62.31% 86.58% 87.26% 98.83% 99.80% 99.92% IFrom this IFR wind coverage summary, it can be determined that Runway 9 and Runway 34 provide better wind coverage for each crosswind component. The information provided by this analysis will be I incorporated into the formulation of various future airside development alternatives and the ultimate development recommendations for the Greeley-Weld County Airport. ICharacteristics of Demand Characteristics of demand can impact the capacity of an airfield. These characteristics include aircraft ' operational fleet mix, percent arrivals, touch-and-go operations, runway use,and exit taxiways. Aircraft Operational Fleet Mix: The capacity analysis requires that total annual operations be I converted to annual operations by aircraft classification category. Forecasts of annual operations demand were developed for each planning period and presented in Chapter 3. Further, the business and general aviation aircraft fleet mixes were determined. I The next step requires that the fleet information be translated into a classification system compatible with the analysis of airfield capacity. The capacity and delay model used for the analysis defines the aircraft fleet mix in terms of four classes of aircraft, as presented in Table 4-2 and defined in FAA AC 150/5060- ' 5. Using the fleet mix forecasts from Chapter 3 with the data from Table 4-2, the annual operations forecast by aircraft classification in Table 4-3 was prepared. I 1 2004 4-5 I 1 MASTER PLAN --a // I I I w z - tNE1LJ4 . 5�/1 06 00! 'S3 ° O pA °`�� 1_� 444 o I �� KNOTS 2 2 , o� H I o O ■� 3 1 1 2 , U� z m J 5 .3 w� 57.9% •o rt I I vim N M to •' I -z -9�-el 3 9�1P��, - -� y3 I ♦- ■ ,o 0 I 4, rS�r � ° "NMM o9Z OLZ� .0 2 W WS L �9 7/ I - -v I ALL WEATHER WIND ROSE PERCENT CROSSWIND COWRAGF Bll BY 1O.5Kf5 1,]63 16K1$ 70K15 9/27 90.27% 93.75% 96.63% 95.46% 16/34 94,96% 97.38% 99.17% 99.75% I 9/27 & 16/34 98.23% 99.40% 99.82% 99.95% SOURCE: NATIONAL CUMATIC DATA CENTER(NOM NAIICNAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINI5TRA➢ON (NOM) STATION: j72467 GREELEY, CO PERIOD 1993-2002 (20-25 06S/DAY) IFR CEILING < 1000 FT ANC/OR V616MY< 3 MILES IBUT CEILING > 200 FT AND VISIBILITY > 1/2 NILE I IFigure 4,2 All Weather Wind Rose p2004 I I MASTER PLAN I I TT- , it-- Ito c_ 8� 1 06 OOl 3 0 0([ 60 0 e I 2CtP �o . 7 ..,A O a� o� zeg h0 .,to 2 1'O �, I 6 ©- 0 5I To O 3 3 KNOTS 5 ��. I 7 8 3 o 5 Q- z n. 5 1.1 7 1 85.2Z ===•o '...t KI o O3 in o 41 �7 0 y 9iaii# *' 41•Aµ 02 0 Zt* 60W FR WIND ROSE" I PERCENT CRORRWINO COVFRAGF BVNYIPY 10.5NT< 111615 MS 0.(15 9/27 94.32% 96.13% 97.82% 98.83% 16/34 91.69% 95.66% 99.05% 9980% 9/27 & 16/34 98.46% 99.42% 99.71% 99.92% SOURCE: NATONAL CUMATIC DATA CENTER (NCOC) NATIONAL OCEANIC AND A1M05CHERIC ADNNISTRATION (NOAA) STA➢ON: 172467 GREELEY. CO PERIOD: 1993-2002 (20-25 085/DAY) FR CEILING < 1000 Fi AND/OR NSIBIUTY < 3 MILES ' BUT CEILING > 200 FT AND NSIBIUTY > 1/2 LIRE I ' Figure 4.3 IFR Weather Wind Rose I2004 I5.r17y- MASTER PLAN t7Pf 47 lY711 I Table 4-2 Operational Fleet Mix Aircraft Classification System ' Class A: Small single-engine, gross weight 12,500 pounds or less Examples: Cessna 150 Cessna 208 Class B: Small twin-engine, gross weight 12,500 pounds or less I Examples: Piper Navajo Beech 18 Cessna Citation I Beech Baron Cessna 421 Beech King Air C90 Cessna 441 Conquest Class C: Large aircraft, gross weight 12,500 pounds to 300,000 pounds I Examples: Lear 35/55 Rockwell Sabre 80 Dassault Falcon 900 Learjet 50 Series BAC-111 Cessna Citation II HS 125 Series DC-9 Series Cessna Citation III Gulfstream III Dassault Falcon 200 Class D: Large aircraft, gross weight more than 300,000 pounds—N/A Table 4-3 IOperational Fleet Mix Year Class Charter GA Military Total % I 2002 A 0 119,410 0 119,410 83.15% B 0 18,295 2,400 20,695 14.41% C 25 2,875 600 3,500 2.44% D 0 0 0 0 0.00% I Total 25 140,580 3,000 143,605 100.00% 2008 A 0 134,901 0 134,901 82.27% B 0 22,415 2,400 24,815 15.13% ' C 50 3,599 600 4,249 2.59% D 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total 50 160,915 3,000 163,965 100.00% 2013 A 0 140,963 0 140,963 81.83% I B 0 24,042 2,400 26,442 15.35% C 100 4,164 600 4,864 2.82% D 0 0 0 0 0.00% I Total 100 169,169 3,000 172,269 100.00% 2016 A 0 145,999 0 145,999 81.07% B 0 25,992 2,400 28,392 15.76% C 150 4,957 600 5,707 3.17% D 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total 150 176,948 3,000 180,098 100.00% 2023 A 0 151,384 0 151,384 80.27% I B C 200 0 26,146 2,400 30,546 16.20% 5,863 600 6,663 3.53% D 0 0 0 0 0.00% Total 200 185,393 3,000 188,593 100.00% I Percent Arrivals: The percentage of aircraft operations that is arrivals influences runway capacities. A runway used exclusively for departures will have a different capacity than one used solely for arrivals. I Because aircraft on final approach are typically given absolute priority over departures, higher percentages of arrivals during peak periods of operations reduce the Annual Service Volume(ASV). At Greeley-Weld County Airport, however, this is not the case. All runways are used both for arriving and I I2004 4-8 ' gntfffy MASTER PLAN �/ f/S'P l � 7� departing aircraft. It is assumed that arrivals and departures each constitute 50 percent of total annual and peak-period operations. ' Touch-and-Go Operations: A touch-and-go operation refers to an aircraft landing and then making an immediate takeoff without coming to a full stop. These operations are normally associated with training and are contributors to overall airport operational activity. Touch-and-go operations are estimated to represent only 35 percent of the total annual operations being conducted at the Greeley-Weld County Airport. It is anticipated that the level of flight training will increase slightly through the 20-year planning horizon,but is not expected to exceed 40 percent. ' Runway Use: The use configuration of the runway system is defined by the number,location, and orientation of the active runway(s) and relates to the distribution and frequency of aircraft operations to ' those runways. Both the prevailing winds in the region and the existing runway configuration at Greeley- Weld County Airport combine to dictate the utilization of the existing runway system. According to the all-weather wind coverage data and Airport management observations, Runway 34 is the primary use ' runway. Runway 9 primarily is used for touch-and-go operations by smaller aircraft, and Runway 34 is used for larger corporate aircraft. Exit Taxiways: The most notable runway characteristics considered in the airside capacity analysis are ' the number and types of taxiways available to exit the runway. The location of exit taxiways affects the occupancy time of the runway. The longer a plane remains on the runway, the lower the capacity of that runway. Likewise, the type of exit also affects capacity. For instance, high-speed turnoffs allow arriving aircraft to depart the active runway more quickly,thereby making the runway available sooner for the next arrival or departure. The existing facilities plan in Chapter 2 shows the location of exit taxiways at Greeley-Weld County Airport. ' Airfield Capacity Analysis The determination of capacity figures for Greeley-Weld County Airport utilized the throughput method of calculation,described in the FAA Advisory Circular 150/5060-5,Airport Capacity and Delay. These formulae,applying information generated from the preceding analysis, illustrate capacity and demand in terms of the following results: • Hourly Capacity of Runways • Hourly Capacity of Crossing Taxiways • Annual Service Volume (ASV) The following capacity computations assist in evaluating the ability of the existing Greeley-Weld County 1 Airport facilities,both airside and landside, to accommodate forecast demand. Hourly Capacity of the Runway System This analysis determined the hourly capacity of each runway configuration. Additionally, a weighted hourly capacity of the runway system was determined. The weighted hourly capacity of the runway system is defined as a reasonable estimate of the number of operations that can be accommodated in an average hour's time, given the winds, runways,ceiling and visibility, and other factors as presented. Table 4-4 presents the results of the analysis. ' 2004 4-9 ' // ff/fI A1W/ilil /'iTF ' MASTER PLAN JllfllflfliT Table 4-4 Hourly Capacity of the Runway Configurations Configuration Hourly Capacity Hourly Demand VFR 133 Operations 80 Operations IFR 62 Operations 19 Operations ' With the proposed future control tower, the restrictions on the runways due to the proximity of the end of Runway 34 to Runway 9/27 would be eliminated. In this case,capacity would increase because both runways could be used simultaneously. ' Taxiway Capacity Determining the capacity of the taxiway system begins with the assumption that the primary constraint on taxi movement is experienced where aircraft must cross an active runway. For this reason, the capacity of the taxiway system is equal to that portion of the system that has the least ability to accommodate aircraft crossing active runways. This "weak link" approach assumes that where no crossing of active runways is required, the taxiway system's capacity is equal to that of the runway it serves. To determine the capacity of a taxiway, the following information is required: • Distance of taxiway to the start of takeoff roll • The demand level on the runway being crossed ' • The mix index on the runway being crossed Since Greeley-Weld County Airport has two active runways, each of which has its own characteristics,it is necessary to determine the crossing taxiways of each using these criteria. Table 4-5 shows the crossing ' taxiways that were analyzed and presents the hourly capacity of each. Table 4-5 ' Hourly Capacity of Crossing Taxiways Hourly(Operations) Taxiway Capacity Runway Crossed Distance From Takeoff Roll VFR IFR ' C (one way traffic 09 3670 95 170 north) D (one way traffic 27 2525 100 165 ' south) ' Annual Service Volume The annual service volume (ASV) of the Greeley-Weld County Airport is a reasonable estimate of its annual capacity, accounting for differences in weather conditions, wind direction, and other factors that ' prevent it from operating under optimal conditions through the full year. Calculating the ASV involved the use of the equation: ASV =CwxDxH Where Cw=the weighted hourly capacity of the runways; D = the daily demand ratio; and 1-1 =the hourly demand ratio. ' 2004 4-10 /#21DL?!l 1 Ii' ' MASTER PLAN �Jr� BJ The process of determining these and the data used to calculate the ASV are presented below. Weighted Hourly Capacity. The weighted hourly capacity of the runways (Cw) was previously ' determined under the runway capacity discussion. This factor represents a theoretical determination of the airport's hourly operational capability adjusted for differences in operating conditions that occur over the course of time. At Greeley-Weld County Airport, the Cw is equal to 80 operations per hour. Daily Demand Ratio. The daily demand ratio (D) is determined by calculating the ratio of annual demand to average daily demand during the peak month. As was indicated in Chapter 3, there are no ' records available at the Greeley-Weld County Airport to identify aircraft activity during the peak hour. Estimates of peak-hour activity during VFR and IFR operating conditions were derived from the annual activity levels for total aircraft operations. VRF peak-hour activity levels were estimated to account for 1 15 percent of the average day of their respective peak-month volumes; the peak-month representing a level that is 10 percent greater than the average month. This resulted in an average daily demand of 533 operations.The daily demand ratio (D) then is calculated by dividing the number annual operations (190,640)by the average daily demand (533) for a D value of 358. Hourly Demand Ratio. The hourly demand ratio (H) is the ratio of average daily demand to average peak-hour demand during the peak month. The value of H can be determined by dividing the average demand (533)by the average per hour demand (80)for an H value of 7. Annual Service Volume. Entering the preceding values into the formula ASV =Cw x D x H,results in ' an annual service volume capacity for the Greeley-Weld County Airport of 200,480 operations. The annual service volume capacity was computed using the forecast annual operations demand (190,640)in 2023, the end of the 20-year planning period. The annual service volume capacity is larger than the ' demand forecast, thus giving it excess capacity for the 20-year planning horizon. Terminal Area Capacity Analysis Components of the terminal area complex include the terminal building, terminal aircraft apron,air cargo, aircraft rescue and fire fighting (ARFF) facilities, and the automobile access system and parking. The terminal area layout is shown in Figure 4.4. The capacity of these facilities is set forth in the following ' pages. Terminal Building ' The Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority recently constructed a new terminal building.This facility is adequate to serve the current needs of the Airport Authority. However, it is anticipated that after the addition of staff to accommodate the Airport's anticipated growth and development, the terminal building ' may not be adequate to accommodate larger Authority staff. 1 ' 2004 4-11 I I MASTER PLAN I \ I , \ I ��. I \ TTTTTL �t I 1 ^ 8g 8 --\ i • I r 1 . I 1.j I ‘jtIt-Ti1/4 • �' 1 - E.' ^ b q i� 11 ' _J �.� b ' n i I , „___,77,,,,,:/_,_ _ „,, ,,,_- /2, ______ ..„_72„i,i,i,,,_ rr /74 ,, , I 'Ta gg`7 1 }, I n 1 ,.a 3h I-' Yr; CS r',/,' \\ t I Figure 4.4 Terminal Area Layout ' 2004 MU/if S/ ✓ BlliuiWY ' MASTER PLAN IWPIINd Terminal Aircraft Apron The terminal aircraft apron at Greeley-Weld County Airport covers approximately 4 acres. This provides sufficient paved area to accommodate most current itinerant business and small general aviation uses. In addition,this apron allows for taxi lanes, aircraft servicing,and circulation. While this apron area accommodates most uses,it is over capacity during special functions in the area. The apron is striped for small general aviation aircraft. When there are larger business aircraft that require two to three of the parking positions for their aircraft, the apron is over capacity. The pavement strength capacities for the various landing gear configurations are: • Single Wheel: 30,000 lbs. • Dual Wheel: 45,000 lbs. The apron's pavement will accommodate the most of the existing traffic but will not accommodate the ' larger Group II aircraft and Group III aircraft that would like to use the Greeley-Weld County Airport's 10,000-foot runway. Air Cargo Capacity Greeley-Weld County Airport does not currently have a dedicated air cargo facility. Air cargo carriers utilize the terminal or FBO aprons as needed. Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) Facilities Capacity Greeley-Weld County Airport does not have a dedicated ARFF facility. There is limited ARFF capability through vehicle-mounted aircraft fire fighting equipment operated by the airport staff and located near the terminal building. Regulations and guidelines that control ARFF facilities include the following: • FAA Advisory Circular AC 150/5210-12 • Federal Aviation Regulations(FAR)Part 139 These documents establish a level-of-service index for ARFF equipment based upon the type, size, and frequency of aircraft serving an airport. Current equipment at the Greeley-Weld County Airport meets this requirement. Automobile Access and Parking Capacity The capacity of the terminal's automobile access system was evaluated for the following system components: • Airport access roadways • Terminal automobile parking areas • Facility parking The capacity analysis is of an analysis of the inventory contained in Chapter 2. A discussion related to the capacity of each component follows. 2004 4-13 if f 111% /1' MASTER PLAN Ill/I T ' Airport Access Roadways: The capacity of the airport access and terminal area roadways is defined as the roadway's capability to accommodate a stream of moving vehicles. The service rate or capacity of a facility is affected by a number of factors,including: • Roadway characteristics • Vehicle performance t • Driver characteristics Since the objective of any transportation facility is to accommodate a quantity of demand at an acceptable ' level of service, the first step in determining capacity must be to select the level of service desired. The level of service that would be acceptable for the Greeley-Weld County Airport is a road access system that maintains the traffic flow without undue delays. The current airport access system provides this ' service very adequately. Terminal Automobile Parking: The terminal area vehicle parking capacity is easily determined through physical counts, as set forth in Chapter 2. Parking spaces are classified as public,employee,or other. Table 4-6 lists the total available parking spaces at Greeley-Weld County Airport. Table 4-6 ' Terminal Building Vehicle Parking Capacity Description Number of Spaces Public 34 ' Employee 10 Handicap 3 Total 47 As this table indicates,47 automobile parking spaces are available in the terminal area. Of these, 37 are usable by the traveling public, and 10 are for airport employees. ' Facility Parking: Facility parking is located outside the area defined as the terminal area and will be discussed separately. ' Facility Requirements This section identifies the airfield and terminal area facilities that are necessary to accommodate the ' forecast levels of demand and to minimize capacity deficiencies. In general,these requirements were determined by comparing forecast demands to the existing capacity of the facilities. The facility requirements are developed with one key assumption: existing facilities will continue to be ' used for the 20-year planning horizon. Should any existing facility require replacement,relocation, or major rehabilitation, this need would have to be addressed separately from what is determined in this Master Plan. Facility requirements were developed for various airport functional areas included within the airfield and terminal areas as follows: 1 ' 2004 4-14 ! ./�f./ y MASTER PLAN / Put ' Airfield • Runways and Taxiways • Airfield Instrumentation and Lighting ' • Air Traffic Control Tower • Through-the-Fence Development ' Terminal Area • Based Aircraft Tiedown and Hangar Space • Based Aircraft Tiedown and Hangar Space ' • Terminal Area and Airport Support Facilities • Vehicular Access and Parking • Fuel Storage ' • Air Cargo • Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting • Security ' Airfield Requirements The preceding section described the major factors that affect the capacity of the airfield at Greeley-Weld ' County Airport. Airfield facility requirements in response to the demand/capacity relationship, are presented in the following major development categories: ' • Runways and Taxiways • Airfield Instrumentation and Lighting • Air Traffic Control Tower. ' Runways and Taxiways: The requirements for runways and taxiways may be described in a number of terms. In this chapter,the following are used: ' • Runway Orientation • Runway Capacity ' • Runway Length • Runway Design Standards • Taxiway Systems ' • Taxiway Design Standards • Pavement Strengths. ' Each of these requirement categories is discussed below. • Runway Orientation: The orientation of runways for takeoff and landing operations is primarily a function of wind velocity and direction, together with the ability of aircraft to operate under ' adverse conditions. As a general rule, the primary runway at an airport is oriented as closely as practical in the direction of the prevailing winds. The most desirable runway configuration will provide the highest level of wind coverage for a given maximum crosswind component. The ' crosswind component is the vector of wind velocity and direction that acts at a right angle to the runway. Further, runway wind coverage is that percentage of time in which operations can safely occur with acceptable crosswind components. The FAA has established that an airport runway 1 ' 2004 4-15 ' { y' MASTER PLAN ' system should provide 95 percent usability for the following crosswind components: 10.5-knot (Airport Reference Codes A-I and B-I), 13-knot(Airport Reference Codes A-II and B-II), 16- knot(Airport Reference Codes A-III, B-III and C-I through D-III) and 20-knot(Airport Reference Codes A-IV through D-VI). The allowable crosswind component is dependent upon the Airport Reference Code(ARC) for ' the type of aircraft that utilize the airport on a regular basis. According to the existing Airport Layout Plan,the current ARC for Runway 9/27 is C-II and Runway 16/34 is D-II. The standards listed in the previous paragraph specify that the 16-knot crosswind component be utilized for ' analysis. In addition,it is known that the Greeley-Weld County Airport will continue to also serve small single-and twin-engine aircraft for which the 10.5-knot crosswind component is considered maximum. Therefore, the 16-knot and 10.5-knot crosswind components should be ' analyzed for the airport. The existing layout of the airfield at Greeley-Weld County Airport provides 99.82 percent wind coverage under all weather conditions for the 16-knot crosswind component and 98.23 percent ' wind coverage under all weather conditions for the 10.5-knot crosswind component. Based on this, no new runways are required to increase wind compatibility. ' • Runway Capacity: From the previous analysis, the existing runway system has the capacity to meet the forecast demand over the 20-year planning horizon. The following discussion will focus on improving the runway facilities to better accommodate the existing demand and to provide the ' capability to accommodate demand from larger aircraft that frequently request access to the airfield. The existing runway and taxiway layout at Greeley-Weld County Airport is far from ideal.The ' two-runway layout provides adequate wind coverage,but does not provide for optimum operational procedures. Also, while Runway 16/34 has 10,000 feet of pavement, Runway 34 has a reduced usable length of 8,900 feet(for landing aircraft only) and is constructed for light general ' aviation aircraft under 45,000 pounds for dual wheels. On a case-by-case basis, the airport is currently accommodating aircraft with takeoff weights greater than 45,000 pounds. One course of action that would increase the"published"capacity for a larger range of aircraft is to increase the ' pavement strength. Another option would be to increase the landing length of Runway 34 to the full 10,000 feet, which would constructing a control tower at the Greeley-Weld County Airport. ' As indicated in the capacity analysis section, the available capacity of the existing airfield will accommodate the forecast demand through the 20-year planning horizon. Therefore, the runway improvements are related to NAVAIDs, operational improvements through the addition of a control tower and taxiways, and increased pavement strength to accommodate larger aircraft that routinely request access to the airport. Details of the proposed runway and taxiway improvements in terms of location, design standards ' and timing are discussed in the following pages. • Runway Length: An analysis of the active and future aircraft mix composition and an ' evaluation of the anticipated markets to be served from Greeley-Weld County Airport indicate a required runway length of 10,000 feet for the primary runway. This length calculation is based 2004 4-16 1 I I 1 frr r 111/1/N)I' MASTER PLAN i4rYPLO J I upon two aircraft: the Gulfstream IV,representing the active fleet mix, and the Boeing Business Jet,representing the future fleet mix and manufacturer's information. I Runway 9/27 is 5,800 feet long; Runway 16/34 is 10,000 feet long. The length of Runway 16/34 is sufficient to accommodate all existing traffic and many heavier aircraft that have requested access to the runway.Therefore, no runway length extensions will be necessary. I • Runway Design Standards: All runways at Greeley-Weld County Airport that will serve Group II aircraft must meet the geometric design standards as specified by the FAA. These standards are Ishown in Table 4-7. Table 4-7 IGeometric Runway Design Standards Design Criteria Existin•_(feet) C & D-II C& D-III R/W 9/27 R/W 16/34 (feet) (feet) ' Runway centerline to parallel runway centerline for VFR operations: N/A N/A 700 700 Runway centerline to parallel runway N/A N/A 5000 5,000 centerline for IFR operations: IRunway pavement width: 100 100 100 100 Primary surface width: 500 1,000 1,000 1,000 Safety area width: 500 500 500 500 Runway centerline to airplane parking 400 500 area: Runway centerline to building restriction 470 750 750 750 line: I Runway centerline to airport property line: 1,000 750 1 750 1 750 1 Safety overrun area: 1,000 ,000 ,000 1,000 At the present time Runways 9/27 and 16/34 meet all of the standards for Group II runways. Therefore, I no geometric changes will be required. Any new facilities should be developed to Group III runway standards where practical. I • Taxiways Runway 16/34 Taxiway System: This taxiway system is in very good condition. Runway 16/34 was constructed in 2000, and the parallel Taxiway C was completed in 2002. In addition, the I connector and high-speed exits were newly constructed from 2000 to 2003. No additional taxiways are required for the Taxiway C system to serve the west side of Runway 16/34. I Runway 9/27 Taxiway System: This taxiway system is also in very good condition. The Runway 9/27 parallel Taxiway A was reconstructed and/or overlaid in 2002. In addition, the connector,crossing, and high-speed exits will be newly rehabilitated in 2004. No additional Itaxiways are required for the Taxiway A system to serve the south side of Runway 9/27. Future Taxiways to Serve Future Development: The growth of the Greeley-Weld County I Airport will depend on the development of on-airport property and off-airport development utilizing through-the-fence agreements. The proposed development areas are discussed later in this chapter; however, the primary areas are east of Runway 16/34 and north of Runway 9/27. To Iserve this development, an additional parallel taxiway with entrance and exit connectors will be 2004 4-17 ff/f,- � 114//I I MASTER PLAN AlAF// J I required at these locations. The following taxiways are planned for development in phases as the terminal area facility development continues: I • An east parallel taxiway and appropriate exits on Runway 16/34 • Additional parallel and exit taxiways as runway development dictates • Appropriate access taxiways to new landside facilities I • Taxiway Design Standards: All taxiways serving Group II runways or that can be used by Group II aircraft should be built or upgraded to meet the dimensional criteria set forth by the ' FAA in AC 150/5300-13 and as detailed in Table 4-8. Table 4-8 I Geometric Taxiway Design Standards Design Criteria Existin• (feet) Group II Group III R/W 9/27 R/W 16/34 (feet) (feet) I Taxiway pavement width: 35 35 35 50 Taxiway shoulder width: 10 10 10 20 Taxiway safety area width: 79 79 79 118 Terminal taxi lane obstacle free area width: 500 1,000 115 162 ' Runway centerline to taxiway centerline: 400 400 300 400 Access taxiways should be developed to meet the requirements of the most critical aircraft expected to Iuse the facility. No standards are set forth because decisions must be made on an individual basis. • Pavement Strength Runways: The runways at Greeley-Weld County Airport are capable of ' handling the following existing weights: Single Wheel Dual Wheel Runway 16/34 35,000 lbs. 45,000 lbs. I Runway 9/27 18,000 lbs. 30,000 lbs. These pavement strengths are adequate to accommodate the light general aviation aircraft and I occasional larger aircraft. The growth of the Greeley-Weld County Airport is dependent on the capability to allow larger aircraft to utilize the airport. Currently the pavement strength for Runway 16/34 does not match the requirements that would allow larger aircraft to utilize the I runway. There are many Group III aircraft operating at Greeley-Weld County Airport, such as the DC 9, which exceed these load factors when operated with maximum payloads.The Greeley- Weld County Airport is frequently contacted by pilots utilizing the Airports/Facility Directory for I approval to operate aircraft heavier than what is published. It is unknown how many potential travelers simply do not call for clarification. The Greeley-Weld County Airport could attract new development and larger aircraft because of I the new 10,000 foot Runway16/34. Runway 16/34 was planned,designed and constructed with the thought of increasing the runway strength with in the future with pavement thickness. The Greeley-Weld County Airport recently has started documenting the request for additional I pavement strength. It is the desire of Airport management to evaluate the data in the coming years to determine the time frame in which a strength increase would be determined. I 2004 4-18 I I giliiiii � 1 'I41/ Y I MASTER PLAN AIWJ°L// I Table 4-9 represents the requirements to increase runway pavement strength for varying aircraft types. I Table 4-9 Pavement Strength Matrix Additional Pavement Thickness Dual Wheel Load I (additive) 3 inch 70,000 3.5 inch 100,000 4 inch 150,000 I • Pavement Strength Taxiways: The pavement strength of the taxiway system has the same values as the runway pavement the taxiway is serving. Therefore, as the runway strengths are I increased, the taxiway system will also require strengthening. The strength requirements will apply as indicated in Table 4-9. I Airfield Instrumentation and Lighting: The Greeley-Weld County Airport has published instrument approach procedures for Runways 9,27 and 34. Depending on the procedure selected, approach minimums for Categories A and B aircraft are at 294-3/4. Approach minimums for Categories C and D I aircraft are in the process of being adjusted to 250-3/4 and will thus afford a relatively high level of service to users during conditions of low ceiling and visibility. Under such conditions and when the winds favor Runway 16,aircraft fly an instrument approach procedure and then circle to land on that ' runway end. It would be beneficial to evaluate the potential of providing a straight-in instrument approach procedure I to Runway 16,thereby enhancing the use of that runway during poor weather conditions. Accordingly, the potential to establish RNAV (GPS)approaches to Runway 16 was evaluated. The evaluation was conducted for LNAV (lateral navigation) and LNAVNNAV (lateral/vertical navigation)based on FAA I TERPS (terminal instrument procedures) criteria. For the purposes of this evaluation, a LNAVNNAV capability requires the installation of an appropriate approach lighting system. In this case,an ODALS (omnidirectional approach lighting system) was assumed to be installed. The RNAV analysis was conducted based on the requirements of approach Category A, B, C and D aircraft, which include the fleet Iof general aviation aircraft including business jets and air carrier aircraft. • Runway 16 RNAV: The TERPS surfaces associated with a RNAV (GPS) procedure to Runway I 16 are clear of obstacles and can achieve the approach minimums presented in Table 4-10. The glide path qualification surface associated with the use of LNAVNNAV minimums is also clear of obstacles. The potential procedures are further authorized for night operations because the Ivisual portion of the final approach segment is clear of obstacles. Table 4-10 IRNAV (GPS) Approach Procedure Minimums to Runway 16 RNAV(GPS)16 with Minimums Approach Minimums for Approach Category A, B, C and D Aircraft I LNAV 263-1 LNAV/VNAV 263-'/4 ', I2004 4-19 r I ilifiwr WIM HOMY ' MASTER PLAN iP1 I The results are encouraging for the potential establishment of an RNAV (GPS) procedure to Runway 16. In order to achieve this procedure, the runway must also meet design standards applicable to the potential approach minimums. These standards are met by the current physical I layout of the runway for LNAV minimums. To achieve LNAVNNAV minimums,it would be desirable to install an ODALS on the Runway 16 end. The installation should meet establishment criteria as determined by a benefit/cost analysis that considers the incremental gain in instrument Iapproach capability over a 20-year period afforded by the lower minimums. Benefits consider reduced aircraft diversions and improved safety as defined by the FAA. These benefit values can be compared to the 20-year life-cycle cost of improving the airport to meet I design standards applicable to the potential approach minimums, including the installation, operation and maintenance of the ODALS. When the resultant benefit/cost ratio is 1.0 or greater, the establishment of the procedure may be considered cost-beneficial and should be implemented. I The present value operational benefit associated with the potential reduction in approach minimums is as follows in Table 4-11: I Table 4-11 Instrument Approach Operational Benefit Values—Runway 16 Type Minimums Minimums Present Value Benefit($) I LNAV 263- 1 129,000 LNAV/VNAV 263- '/< 53,000 I There is no cost associated with improving the Greeley-Weld County Airport to meet LNAV minimums;therefore,a benefit/cost ratio is not applicable. In the case of LNAVNNAV minimums that require the installation of an ODALS,the 20-year life-cycle cost of installing, operating and maintaining this approach lighting system is approximately$163,000. When I compared to the present value benefit of these lower minimums (as compared to those achievable with LNAV minimums), the benefit/cost ratio is 0.91,a result that suggests that the installation of the ODALS to achieve a'/4-mile reduction in the visibility minimum is not cost-beneficial. I Therefore,publication of an RNAV (GPS) approach to Runway 16 with at least LNAV minimums should be requested from the FAA. I • Runway 34: Runway 34 is served with a Category I instrument landing system (ILS)but is not equipped with an approach lighting system consistent with this level of instrumentation, i.e., the medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights (MALSR). I The current approach minimums for this procedure are(294-1) for all categories of aircraft. The cause of these higher than expected approach minimums,based on the absence of controlling obstacles in the TERPS evaluation surfaces, is due to the impact of Taxiway C not being I completed with the opening of Runway 16/34 in 2000. With the completion of Taxiway C, approach minimums could be reduced to 250-'/4 in this instance. Absent any change based on the closure of Runway 17-35,the installation of an MALSR could reduce these minimums to 250 '1. I The operational present value benefit associated with this reduction in approach minimums is about$250,000, which is less than the 20-year life-cycle cost ($415,000)for the installation, operation and maintenance of a MALSR. This cost excludes any additional expenditure to install I a portion of the system in the overrun pavement preceding the Runway 34 threshold. The resulting benefit/cost ratio is about 0.60 and may be considered as an inappropriate expenditure. The benefit/cost ratio would be reduced to 0.41 if the approach minimums were lowered from I250-3/4 to 200-'/2. 2004 4-20 it . 11/7 MASTER PLAN �' uh / ' Notwithstanding these results,it would be more prudent to invest any funds in an approach lighting system on Runway 34 rather than Runway 16. During periods of inclement weather, winds favor Runway 34 and the ability to accept arrivals when visibility conditions are as low as ' /-mile,coupled with the availability of an ILS,is a more practical choice of investment options. In the event that the approach minimums associated with the ILS and MALSR may be reduced from 300-1 to the lowest authorized for this type of procedure (200 '/2), the benefit/cost ratio ' increases to 0.89, a value that is similar to that for the installation of an ODALS on Runway 16. Air Traffic Control Tower: The Greeley-Weld County Airport does not currently have a control tower. ' The two-runway system would have additional capacity with a control tower. The benefits would include reclaiming the displaced threshold on runway 34 and the capability to utilize both runways with favorable wind. A benefit/cost analysis was prepared for this master plan and is included below. ' • Benefit/Cost Analysis Increasing levels of aircraft activity involving a mix of low and high performance aircraft types ' and the availability of two runways at the Greeley-Weld County Airport prompt the need to establish more positive control of the terminal area airspace. In the face of increasing demand for air traffic and decreasing federal budgets, the airport and aviation industry, in concert with the FAA, has implemented a contract tower program. This is a cost-sharing program that enables air traffic control towers (ATCT) to be staffed by FAA-certified controllers. The airport sponsor is responsible for establishing and maintaining the ATCT and the FAA shares in the cost of staffing (operating) the facility. Establishment of the ATCT is eligible under the Airport Improvement ' Program where it would compete with other eligible projects for funding based on its priority value. The FAA share of the staffing cost is dependent on the results of a benefit/cost analysis as described below. ' Three FAA documents were used to evaluate the benefit/cost ratio for the proposed ATCT at the Greeley-Weld County Airport. These include: ' 1. Establishment and Discontinuance Criteria for Airport Traffic Control Towers,FAA-APO- 90-7. ' 2. Economic Analysis of Investment and Regulatory Decisions -Revised Guide,FAA-APO-98- 4. 3. Economic Values for Evaluation of Federal Aviation Administration Investment and Regulatory Programs, FAA-APO-98-8. These documents provide the basis for conducting a present value,life-cycle benefit/cost analysis ' to determine the economic justification of an ATCT. Benefits focus on those involving safety and flight efficiency. Safety benefits consider reducing the potential for collisions between aircraft in the air and on the ground and the availability of air traffic controllers to advise of ' potential adverse operating conditions. Efficiency benefits are achieved primarily from reducing flying times. The analytical process requires the use of a 7 percent discount factor to determine the present value of future benefit and cost streams. The evaluation addresses benefits and costs over a 15-year period and reflects the forecasts of aviation activity previously presented in this ' Master Plan. ' 2004 4-21 I EI Y 1 MASTER PLAN AI//RW?11J I The analysis is particularly sensitive to the specific aircraft types that are selected to represent the user classifications that the Greeley-Weld County Airport serves. The aircraft used in the analysis reflect predominant types currently operating at the Airport. Key data inputs to the Ibenefit/cost model are presented in Table 4-12. Table 4-12 Aircraft Benefit/Cost Model Data Inputs I Representative Number Load Substantially Type Aircraft of Seats Factor Destroyed Value Damaged Value I User Classification (%) 1997$ 2002$ 1997$ 2002$ Single-engine piston and Cessna 172 4 75 25,000 27,663 12,500 13,831 turboprop I Multi-engine piston Cessna 421 6 75 335,000 370,678 167,500 185,339 Multi-engine turboprop Beech King Air 8 60 1,775,000 1,964,038 887,500 982,019 6200 Small business jet' (≤25,000#) Hawker 700a 8 60 3,100,000 3,430,150 1,550,000 1,715,075 Medium business jet Falcon 50 9 60 9,550,000 10,567,075 4,775,000 5,283,538 (25,001#-60,000#) Large business jet I Gulfstream IV 14 60 21,000,000 23,236,500 10,500,000 11,618,250 (>60,000#) Rotorcraft Bell 206b 2 75 405,000 448,133 202,500 224,066 Nonscheduled air carrier DC-9-30 115 90 3,460,000 3,828,490 1,730,000 1,914,245 IMilitary C-21 6 60 5,600,000 6,196,400 2,800,000 3,098,200 Note 1. 1997 values adjusted to 2002 by Producer Price Index for Aircraft and Parts for use in B/C analysis. I Note 2. 1990 human life values of$1,500,000 for fatality; $640,000 for serious injury; and $2,300 for minor injury adjusted by Gross Domestic Product Chain-Type Price Index for 2002 for use in the B/C analysis. Resulting values are$1,960,950, $836,672 and$3,007, respectively. IIn summary,the 15-year present value benefit of an ATCT operating 12 hours daily was determined to be about$4,900,000. The 15-year life-cycle cost to establish and operate the I ATCT is approximately$3,630,000,based on an establishment cost of$1,222,222 and annual operating costs of$300,000. These values result in a benefit/cost ratio of 1.35. Because this result is greater than 1.00, it suggests that under the contract tower program the FAA would fully participate in staffing the facility once it is constructed and equipped by the Greeley-Weld County I Airport. Based on current legislation,costs associated with a tower would be eligible. Additionally under the ALP program, construction of the ATCT would also be eligible. I A conservative approach to evaluating the benefit/cost of establishing the ATCT under the contract tower program would be to maintain the current level of aircraft operations activity through the 15-year period. This yields a present value benefit/cost ratio of 1.05, which also I suggests that the staffing costs of the ATCT would be paid in their entirety by the federal government. I Through-the-Fence Development: The Greeley-Weld County Airport has the opportunity to provide adjacent property to become developable for through the fence operation. Although this is allowable by the FAA, it is closely regulated and there are requirements and constraints placed on the through the fence I 2004 4-22 ' I [rifY 14 /407 MASTER PLANfiht ' development. These requirements include meeting the minimum standards established by the airport sponsor. They also include regulating the development such that it is not directly competing with on airport tenants. The FAA guidelines for through the fence operators include the discussion provided ' below. • Policy: The sponsor of a federally obligated airport agrees to make the opportunity to engage in ' commercial aeronautical activities available to any person,firm, or corporation that meets reasonable minimum standards established by the airport sponsor. In exchange for this opportunity, a business operator agrees to comply with minimum standards developed by the ' airport sponsor.The minimum standards, then,by virtue of the business operator's agreement, become mandatory.The FAA suggests that airport sponsors establish reasonable minimum standards that are relevant to the proposed aeronautical activity with the goal of protecting the level and quality of services offered to the public. Once the airport sponsor has established ' minimum standards,it should apply them objectively and uniformly to all similarly situated on- airport aeronautical activities and services.The failure to do so may result in a violation of the prohibition against exclusive rights agreements and/or a finding of unjust economic ' discrimination. • Through-the-Fence Operator: The owner of an airport may, at times, enter into an agreement ' that permits access to the public landing area by independent operators offering an aeronautical activity, or by aircraft based on land adjacent to, but not a part of,the airport property. ' The obligation to make an airport available for the use and benefit of the public does not impose any requirement to permit access by aircraft from adjacent property.The existence of such an arrangement could place an encumbrance upon the airport property unless the airport owner retains the legal right to, and,in fact, does require the off-site property owner or operator to conform in all respects to the requirements of any existing or proposed grant agreement. As a general principal,the FAA will recommend that airport owners refrain from entering into any agreement that grants access to the public landing area by aircraft normally stored and serviced ' on adjacent property. Exceptions can be granted on a case-by-case basis where operating restrictions ensure safety and equitable compensation for use of the airport. ' The existence of arrangements granting access to a public landing area from off-site locations complicates the control of vehicular and aircraft traffic. Special safety operational requirements may need to be incorporated into any agreement. The existence of arrangements granting access ' to a public landing area from off-site locations contrary to FAA's guidance are to be reported to Regional Airports Offices with a full statement of the circumstances. If the regional Airports Office determines that the existence of such an agreement circumvents the attainment of the public benefit for which the airport was developed, the owner of the airport will be notified that the airport may be in violation of its grant agreements with the government. Terminal Area Facilities Requirements ' Terminal area facility requirements include those for based aircraft tiedown and hangar spaces, transient aircraft tiedown and hangar spaces, terminal area and airport support facilities, vehicular access and parking, fuel storage, air cargo, aircraft rescue and fire fighting, and security. The existing terminal area facilities at the Greeley-Weld County Airport are concentrated in an area south of Runway 9/27 and near the midpoint of the runway. The general aviation terminal is the focal point, 2004 4-23 I P. rfr'f = I MASTER PLAN Y4WPlllf I flanked to the east, south and west by a range of hangars used for aircraft storage, maintenance and other aviation-related purposes. The transient aircraft apron is adjacent to the north side of the terminal building. The primary tiedown apron for based aircraft is located at the eastern edge of the terminal area proximate to the taxiway system. The terminal area facilities are operating at or near their capacities during typical activity days. In the I next sections,references are made to "Existing" and "Required" unit or area values for the present level of activity. "Existing" values are those currently available, whereas "Required"indicates those needed to meet the current demand level. When the "Existing" value exceeds the "Required" value,it implies a I current excess capacity. Alternatively,when the"Existing"" value is less than that "Required," an unsatisfied demand at the current level of activity is demonstrated. Based Aircraft Tiedown and Hangar Space: Of the 221 aircraft based at the Greeley-Weld County I Airport,204 are stored in hangar facilities. These may be individual T-hangar units or conventional hangars that accommodate one or more aircraft,depending on their size and type wing configuration and the dimensions of the hangar. Six aircraft are stored in hangars without doors. The majority of the I hangars used for based aircraft storage are in good to excellent condition, although 6 hangars currently accommodating a total of 20 aircraft are considered in poor condition. Over time, these and all hangars will need to be replaced as they reach the end of their useful lives. Their replacement may be at the I current location or at another site,in accordance with the terminal area plan prepared as part of the Greeley-Weld County Airport Master Plan. I The ratio of hangared to based aircraft is expected to increased through the forecast horizon as the value of the aircraft increase, and for protection from the elements and security purposes. Table 4-13 presents the projected need for hangar spaces by primary aircraft type. The projections indicate an unsatisfied demand of 66 hangar spaces by the year 2022. These spaces may be provided by a mix of T-hangar units, Icorporate and conventional hangars. Table 4-13 IBased Aircraft Hangar Space Requirements Year Based Hangar Spaces Aircraft Single-Engine Multi-Engine Business Jet Rotor Total I 2002 Existing 221 182 14 7 1 204 2002 Required 221 182 14 7 1 204 2007 252 185 35 11 1 232 2012 263 191 37 15 2 245 I 2017 273 197 39 19 2 257 2022 284 202 41 24 3 I 270 I All based aircraft not stored in hangars will require tiedown spaces shown in Table 4-14. The number of spaces required for based aircraft tiedown is expected to decrease as more of these aircraft are expected to use hangar storage. An area allowance of 300 square yards per based aircraft is recommended by the I FAA to include the tiedown position and taxi maneuvering area. The projections suggest that the existing based aircraft apron is of sufficient size to meet the demand levels in each year. However, depending on the future layout of the terminal area and the number of full-service fixed base operators at the Greeley- Weld County Airport, it may be necessary to provide separate areas for based aircraft tiedown. The ' cumulative total of these areas may exceed the overall requirement that would provide effective delivery of general aviation services to users. I I2004 4-24 ifiNti MASTER PLAN r ' / I Table 4-14 Based Aircraft Tiedown Spaces and Area Requirements Year Based Aircraft Tiedown Spaces Area(sy) I 2002 Existing 221 17 6,800 2002 Required 221 17 5,100 2007 252 20 6,000 2012 263 18 5,400 I 2017 273 16 4,800 2022 284 14 4,200 I Transient Aircraft Tiedown and Hangar Spaces: Transient aircraft tiedown space requirements are based on the level of itinerant aircraft arrivals during a typical peak day, which is defined as 10 percent more active than the average daily traffic. These determinations consider that some transient aircraft are I taxied to one of the airport operators providing maintenance and other services where appropriate tiedown or hangar space is available on the leasehold. Additionally, transient aircraft requiring tiedown space may not remain at an airport for the entire day. Therefore, appropriate tiedown space turnover rates are incorporated into the analysis. IAt the Greeley-Weld County Airport, it was estimated that tiedown spaces for all aircraft other than business jets turn over 1.67 times a day on average, or about once every 7 hours during a I2-hour day. I Business jets are expected to remain for slightly longer periods of time, approximately 9 hours during a 12-hour day, resulting in an average tiedown space turnover rate of 1.33 times a day. Area requirements for transient aircraft tiedown are larger(360 square yards) than those applied to based aircraft. This I allows for more flexibility in the use of the available apron area. Further, unit area requirements for the relatively larger business jets (600 square yards) are incorporated into the determination of the transient aircraft apron size. ITable 4-15 presents the number of transient tiedown spaces by type of aircraft and the overall area requirements for each forecast year. The projections suggest that the existing transient apron has the I capacity to accommodate normal operations but may experience an overflow situation during heavy demand peak periods. As activity levels at the Greeley-Weld County Airport increase,the number of spaces and area requirements for transient aircraft parking will also increase. Higher frequency of use by business jets results in the overall area requirement increasing at a rate faster than total itinerant aircraft Ioperations. As in the case for based aircraft tiedown spaces and area, the cumulative total requirement for transient I aircraft tiedowns may differ from the values in Table 4.15, depending on the layout and utilization of the overall Greeley-Weld County Airport general aviation terminal complex. I Table 4-15 Transient Aircraft Tiedown Space Requirements Tiedown Spaces and Area I Year Single-Engine and Business Jet Total Spaces Area(sy) Multi-Engine 2002 Existing 12 4 41 15,000 2002 Required 32 6 38 15,120 I 2007 37 7 44 17,520 2012 39 8 47 18,840 2017 42 10 52 21,120 I2022 46 12 58 23,760 2004 4-25 ' '- nfr ' MASTER PLAN 1Y/Jill ' The use of the Greeley-Weld County Airport by business jets and other high value aircraft has generated a current demand for overnight hangar storage. To better accommodate this expressed need,it is recommended that a transient aircraft hangar be constructed. The facility may be provided by the Airport ' Authority or one or more of the fixed base operators. A hangar sized to accommodate a mix of three multi-engine turboprop aircraft and one business jet is an appropriate response. Land area should be reserved for additional transient aircraft hangars depending on the layout of the overall terminal area and ' the location of full-service fixed base operators. Terminal Area and Airport Support Facilities: In many respects, an airport is similar to a municipal enterprise contained within a specified area. Facilities for airport administration, storage and maintenance of equipment,fuel storage and aircraft rescue and fire fighting may be desirable or required for airport certification purposes. Specific unit or space requirements have not been defined for these facilities at the Airport. Rather, these facilities should be incorporated into the overall layout of the general aviation terminal area. The Airport Authority operates an administrative center in the general aviation terminal building and has ' equipment storage and maintenance facilities at several locations on the Airport. The consolidation of these facilities into a common area that does not occupy prime space may be a desirable feature in the recommended terminal area plan and should be considered as an option. Prime space may be defined as ' that having direct access to the airfield taxiway and runway system. Although the Greeley-Weld County Airport is not required to maintain an aircraft rescue and fire fighting operation,it has limited facilities and equipment for such a response and has been active in saving lives and property. These vehicles are currently in storage and maintenance facilities and this practice should continue. As compatible land development in the vicinity of the Greeley-Weld County Airport increases, the need for additional community fire fighting services will be evident. There may be merit in locating ' such facilities at a site on the Airport property with good access to the community and the airfield operating area. ' Vehicular Access and Parking: The internal circulation roadways at the Greeley-Weld County Airport should provide for direct access to principal terminal areas and minimize the potential for interaction with aircraft taxi routes. In locations where both vehicles and aircraft operate, such as in the T-hangar area,it ' would be desirable to restrict vehicular access by means of gate card controllers. This also would serve as a security measure wherein only those users with a need for access may gain entry. The terminal area plan should also provide areas for vehicular parking adjacent to and adequately sized for the specific tactivity center served. General aviation encompasses an important portion of the activity at Greeley-Weld County Airport and ' forecasts show that this will continue. Therefore, it is important to determine the vehicular access and parking facilities required to accommodate general aviation users. Fuel Storage: There is a need to expand the aviation fuel farm. The relative small storage tanks have not ' been adequate, especially during busy activity days. Fuel delivery to aircraft is anticipated to continue the practice of using trucks and a self-serve fuel pump. The terminal area plan should provide for an expanded fuel farm in a suitable location within the terminal area. A near quadrupling of the fuel farm ' capacity with the addition of two, 30,000-gallon capacity aboveground tanks (one each for Avgas and Jet- A) would be adequate to meet storage capacity requirements for the next 10 to 15 years. The fuel farm area should be sized to permit future expansion of the storage facilities and to accommodate the secured 1 2004 4-26 1 1 / 11ff/. ' MASTER PLAN AIPhJ ' entry and exit of fuel delivery trucks. It is anticipated that any new FBOs will install fuel storage facilities,further increasing total storage capability. ' Air Cargo: Greeley-Weld County Airport does not currently have a dedicated air cargo facility. Currently, air cargo carriers utilize the terminal or FBO aprons as needed. There are no plans for the airport to develop a cargo facility. However, as the plans indicate,there is developable space on airport property for a cargo facility. Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF): Based on its current certification,the Greeley-Weld ' County Airport is not required to have an ARFF facility. It will be required once the Airport holds an FAA Part 139 certification. Nevertheless, the Greeley-Weld County Airport already has invested in aircraft rescue and fire fighting equipment. The equipment includes a pick-up truck mounted CO2- charged foam and dry chemical firefighting system and access to a 1,000-gallon fire fighting truck with foam and dry chemical. This equipment is adequate to serve the needs of the Airport for the short term. In the mid-long term (7 to 10 years), the Greeley-Weld County Airport is anticipating the need for an ARFF facility at the airport. This coincides with forecast of the city of Greeley requiring an"east side" ' fire station. With these needs in mind, the Airport and the city have discussed a future joint-use facility. This joint facility would be a local fire department to serve the needs of the eastern part of Greeley for structural fires and would be at a location that would meet the FAA requirements for an ARFF facility at ' the Airport. Security ' Since the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, security in the aviation industry has received considerable attention. Many procedures have been implemented and a new Transportation Security Agency was created. The primary focus of the new agency has been for the safety of the ' traveling public. In this regard,the air carrier airports with FAA Part 139 certification have received most of the attention. At this point,there has been no definitive directive for security procedures for general aviation airports like the Greeley-Weld County Airport. Most of the general aviation procedures have ' been directed at the aircraft owners and FBO operators. At the time of this report, the U.S. Congress is reviewing alternatives for providing voluntary guidelines for general aviation airports to follow. I I I 2004 4-27 lArsiphytr ftjfg�fj' MASTER PLAN 5.0 Development Alternatives The airport facilities required to satisfy forecasted aviation demand levels at the Greeley-Weld County ' Airport throughout the 20-year planning horizon were identified in Chapter 4 in the Terminal Area Facility Requirements section. The development of alternatives to meet the demand used a three-step process: ' • Identify alternative concepts • Evaluate and compare the alternative concepts ' • Choose the alternative that maximizes the return on investment within the context of community/airport objectives ' The primary objective of this process was to provide a balanced airside and landside complex that has the ability to accommodate forecast aviation demand levels.Three major areas are delineated for this analysis. ' • Airfield Alternatives o Runways and Taxiways • Facility Development Alternatives ' o Terminal Building o Terminal Apron o Ground Access ' o Terminal Upgrade o On-airport Facilities Development Alternatives o Through-the-Fence Development Areas ' o Other Development Options • Roadway Access Alternatives Selection of a preferred development alternative in any one of these categories or sub-elements must ultimately be compatible with the preferred alternative in all other categories and sub-elements. For this reason,all analyses,although developed independently for each element, must fit with all others.This tprocess results in a total development plan to satisfy the overall airport facility requirements. Airfield Alternatives ' The following discussion identifies those development options that can be implemented at Greeley-Weld County Airport to provide facilities to meet the forecast demand over the 20-year planning horizon.The objectives and constraints considered during the airfield development alternative identification process ' are presented first, and the alternatives follow. Objectives ' The primary reference point in the identification of the objectives for reasonable airfield alternatives is the study goals and objectives. Specifically,these objectives include: ' • Providing the facilities required to create a high level of safety during aircraft operations. • Maximizing the use of existing facilities. • Providing for the most efficient airfield layout possible. 2004 5-1 1 ATT WL/ II MASTER PLAN A/ JY NFL/ ) 1 • Enhancing airfield capacity to the maximum extent feasible, thereby minimizing aircraft delay and its corresponding costs to airport users. • Developing all facilities to conform to the geometric design criteria. • Providing facilities that allow for equal use opportunities among all segments of users. • Ensuring that facility development on the airfield remains compatible,with development on other sections of the airport, the surrounding area,and the community at large. 1 Constraints The following list sets forth the constraining factors considered during the process of identifying airfield development alternatives as they relate to developing off the ends of the runways. • Runway 16/34 is not constrained to the north other than airport property limits. • Runway 16/34 is constrained to the south by Runway 9/27 and SH 263. • • Runway 9/27 is not constrained to the west other than airport property limits and development to the west. • Runway 9/27 is constrained to the east by SH 263 and topography. Alternatives Five alternative airfield development actions were selected for evaluation. • Airfield Alternative 1 -Do-Nothing:This alternative assumes that the existing runway layout ' will remain as it stands today with the only changes being taxiway construction designed to improve the efficiency of the airfield and provide access to new aviation facility development areas. ' • Airfield Alternative 2—Remove Runway 16/34 Displaced Threshold: This alternative provides for the removal of the displaced threshold on Runway 34.The removal of the runway ' threshold displacement does not directly enhance the operation of the airfield. However,because conditions have changed at the Greeley-Weld County Airport since the implementation of the displaced threshold, the Master Plan should consider if the requirement to maintain the threshold displacement remains. Additionally,there are development advantages to relocating the glide slope antenna that should be coordinated with the potential of removing the displaced threshold. ' • Airfield Alternative 3—Relocate Runway 9/27:Runway 9/27 would be shortened on the 27 end and lengthened on the 9 end to remove any possible conflict with Runway 16/34 and to open an additional area for development. Appropriate taxiway improvements are also included with this alternative. ' • Airfield Alternative 4—Parallel Taxiway North of Runway 9/27: As aviation facility development is explored on the north side of Runway 9/27, the development of a parallel or apron ' edge taxiway/taxilane with connectors to Runway 9/27 will be evaluated both on the east and west sides of Runway 16/34. ' • Parallel Taxiway North of Runway 9/27: The evaluation for this taxiway included a review of the geometrics to provide a parallel taxiway on the north side of Runway 9/27. This included a layout of the taxiway to determine if there would be sufficient on-airport property to provide for a ' 400-foot runway centerline to taxiway centerline for Group II criteria. The alternative also 2004 5-2 1A"HUT MASTER PLAN / A ARM! 1 evaluated the remaining property available to provide an apron edge taxilane as well as developable space within the airport property line. Another consideration for this taxiway location is the drainage from Sand Creek that is located between the runway and taxiway. The ' drainage channel could remain open or alternatively be placed underground through a large culvert. The downstream flow crosses the airport to the south in a 21-foot elliptical drainage pipe. The development of the On-airport Facilities Development Alternative C located north of Runway 9/27 and west of Runway 16/34(see page 5-10), is dependent on the ability to develop a ' parallel taxiway on the north side of Runway 9/27. • Airfield Alternative 5—Parallel Taxiway East of Runway 16/34: As aviation facility development is explored on the east side of Runway 16/34, the development of a parallel or apron edge taxiway/taxilane with connectors to Runway 16/34 will be evaluated. Facility Development Alternatives The following discussion explores the alternative methods available to complete development or redevelopment of the existing terminal complex and other potential development sites at the Greeley- Weld County Airport. As previously stated, this analysis will be divided into distinct sub-elements:the terminal building,the terminal apron, ground access and parking, FBO facilities, hangar storage facilities, air cargo facilities, and industrial development sites. As with the examination of airfield alternatives, the ' first step in the facility development alternative identification process is to examine the objectives and constraints to be considered. Objectives tThe objectives of this portion of the alternative identification process are again tied to the overall study goals and objectives. Specific objectives for facility development are listed below: • Provide adequate surface access facilities to all points in the terminal complex and other facility development sites. • Make the surface access system as free from confusion and easy to navigate as possible. ' • Maintain or create a high level of aesthetic appeal at the primary public access points,thus creating an attractive front door to the city for visitors arriving by air. • Provide a terminal apron sufficient to accommodate all aircraft activity at the terminal building. ' • Provide automobile parking facilities in a manner that is fair and equitable to all who wish to use them. • Create terminal and facility development areas that are free from visual clutter. ' • Ensure compatibility with other airport elements. • Provide an acceptable array of terminal service facilities including: employee parking, vendor services,and all other areas having specific access or vicinity requirements. ' • Comply with on-going or planned development, where such compliance is feasible. • Develop available property for FBO facilities, aircraft storage, aircraft maintenance, and industrial facilities. ' • Provide facilities and services for all users in a manner that maximizes safety,efficiency, and opportunity for use. 1 ' 2004 5-3 1HRH, 4,WJ ''. NfJ MASTER PLAN � 1 • Enhance the opportunity for local economic development by providing essential aviation services to businesses and individuals requiring them. • Provide an appropriate mix of aircraft storage facilities in order to accommodate the needs of the 1 airport users. • Provide facilities in a manner that does not interfere with the development or expansion of other airport facilities. 1 • Program flexibility in development plans to allow for variances that may arise in the future. • Plan facilities in a manner that does not prove to be incompatible with surrounding land uses or cause disruption of existing community development patterns. 1 Constraints A number of natural or physical constraints on Greeley-Weld County Airport property must be considered 1 when identifying alternative development scenarios. Some of these constraints are listed below: • Two FBO tenants are located in and near the existing terminal.These compete for available land. 1 • SH 263 creates a development boundary to the south of the existing development around the terminal complex. • The runway system and its dimensional requirements prohibit development of the existing 1 terminal complex area to the north on the south side of Runway 9/27. • There is no developable on-airport property within the airport boundary along the west side of Runway 16/34 where the existing Runway 16/34 parallel taxiway exists. 1 • There is no taxiway access to the east side of Runway 16/34. • There is no taxiway access to the north side of Runway 9/27. • Existing runway and taxiway pavement will not accommodate proposed heavier aircraft for cargo 1 and maintenance development. • Development is constrained south of Runway 9/27 east of the existing terminal complex from Runway 16/34 runway protection zone(RPZ). • Development north of Runway 9/27 and west of Runway 16/34 is available but limited by airport 1 property and is impacted by an open drainage channel in approximate location and parallel to a potential parallel taxiway. • Development along the east side of Runway 16/34 is constrained by property limits for 1 approximately 50% of its length. • Airport property boundaries. • Existing airport property should be developed in its entirety prior to considering land acquisition. 1 • Existing facilities should be maintained where possible. • Existing general aviation development density patterns represent a minimum standard for future areas. 1 Alternatives 1 Each of the previously identified sub-elements of the facility developments must be examined separately from one another with their correlating impacts examined during the evaluation process. The alternatives to be studied are identified in the following pages. ' Terminal Building: The Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority recently constructed a new terminal building. This facility is adequate to serve the current needs of the Airport Authority. However, it is anticipated that after the addition of staff to accommodate the Airport's anticipated growth and 1 ' 2004 5-4 gffill ' MASTER PLAN figilililiffi AiW.Z9/ ' development, the terminal building may not be adequate to accommodate larger Authority staff. To accommodate this eventuality,the expansion of the terminal building and/or the proposed relocation of the Authority staff into a new facility were evaluated.Terminal sites are presented in Figure 5.1. The alternatives evaluated include co-locating administrative offices with proposed ARFF and/or control tower facilities at various alternative sites on airport property.These sites are: • Near the existing terminal facility on the south side of Runway 9/27. • Potential development site east of Runway 16/34 and north of Runway 9/27 • Potential development site north of Runway 9/27 and west of Runway 16/34. Terminal Apron: The existing terminal apron has been determined to be adequate during normal ' operations,but is short on capacity during peak periods of use. Expanding the apron to the west will meet the demand over the 20-year planning horizon and can be accommodated with some impact to other facilities.The impact to other facilities will be the result of removing an existing hangar.The apron improvements will allow for efficient use of the terminal building.The apron expansion is presented in ' Figure 5.2. Additionally, there is a need to have an apron area capable of accommodating larger aircraft. The ' expanded apron could be developed to higher strength criteria to accommodate larger aircraft. However, the location is not ideal in the relationship to Runway 16/34 resulting in the strengthening of substantial taxiway systems. ' Ground Access: The ground access system at the Greeley-Weld County Airport is currently meeting the traffic capacity requirements for access to the Airport. There are, however,improvements to the access ' highway that are considered as part of the development options. These options include addressing the need to provide a more upscale appearance for the access highway and airport entrance itself. Additionally, as development options for the airport are considered for locations away from the current ' terminal complex, it becomes apparent for the need to evaluate other airport access locations to provide direct access to potential development areas. A number of possible improvements to portions of the system were identified,as follows. • Upgrades to SH 263 to Enhance Airport Access Routes: SH 263 provides regional east and west surface transportation access to the Greeley-Weld County Airport from Greeley and ' Highway 85. The Greeley Comprehensive Transportation Plan calls for SH 263 to be upgraded to a 4-lane facility for its planning horizon through 2020. In addition to capacity improvements,upgrades to the highway could enhance the attractiveness of the route between Greeley and the Greeley-Weld County Airport. The upgrades to the highway would enhance the appeal to potential development at or near the Greeley-Weld County ' Airport. Upgrades could include landscaping along the highway and screening of the adjacent property. Funding for this effort would not be available through airport federal funding,rather from state and regional grants and local funding sources. ' The Greeley Comprehensive Transportation Plan supports consideration of enhancements to SH 263 as one of the Entryway Corridors to Greeley. Entryway Corridors would represent a physical introduction of the city to its visitors,residents,and travelers. 2004 5-5 I I MASTER PLAN 1 0 I - l / , K RUNWAY 9/T) al \ r --' 1 Yila ' „ 'ewC:- -- c;�',, - rrr rrrrrr p ' J! .i,i.ii i, Qx 755.3—CA ru �'�•t' �,Q.{. ILl �J iririririrliri rl CI IQT .IT3 N '4.- 6 - '4't'-:-'3/4-‘-:1' ‘-;i EX4-!MG)EFMRNC 1616)) III art 115 0- 65 II 116 ��1r'6Sa �n1 1� * J I _ I, 117 T 1 ns Existing Site I JIJI / / -----; ' Ll✓6IMW]Y I Er _�_ _ I - a O a I. ros}.-` `-II zrs�.;' --`2Ic wr. ; ;srs ,;` 1,7 as,` lots +rs:':: ,'cis aPE: :::.»s f...e r-.; _._, • rosy.`• -.�tos us��., `=asm sag �. ?asr act:-; ;:�1rn srr;:` ;;as mi-. '� Lrs rsr.'- _?yss' I zos:,\- 7_7os' ars�.,•s `:ym ers'� Inc': Tn'•`Z �i� Ksi:,a ;'.ars m�•:- .m, �'.;_ :-?7,,,c, IGr:`-: .1765' 607V: :;-arts ns ::..,,.. cx,:.,i ,...,,egg tY5` -, tK�:; !.:a_ py5�'{ It __ __ __ __ __ __ __� IINorth of R/W 9/27 &West of R/W 16/34 a a i / / ii lJ • • . / 7/ / - - - - j. - - f-��i - i 22E , Lk�qa R iq' .. . . °° / i! f:,;:#:' "Kit, #Rc ;,4 ¢;- ,!,•t d'5': '- ; %nmM"m"mmnimiamn"m^�J 7 ¢ 6.•,✓' ;; 1,,,,,h1; m �'>%% "1 t $f it ' ll _~ AA _ ,.P___ Zir:21 2'4 2 :,:,:i47 J i_ r € ;i�' off, : -;� �i•'' ;; / / �"� ); I mo; -___ )I I North of R/W 9/27 &East of R/W 16/34 Figure 5.1 Terminal Sites I2004 I A I MASTER PLAN ___,A; - I MN illi A.; / Q , Ks.1„, u( ti 7 a h h / N lb / ` o I IV / �� -,, h 0 f 0 , ( / ! I �Q O ca r---1 �� J ' e( �N 1 1 / I 1 I MI 1 " O / % / ,/ �y UY 12/Ud�//d ; / / by ,\ i / / y ' h h C'epCy • �~ _ ry I ii t'�'I if % N. j I-2- 4-1 �Q F I / r`; (.5 I / s1 I / i / l�i�.iit. I-- O N. N. I ^a Nr Iv , te r r-r- , N. i r 23�J F, 'L ,'T N li C _e O r 0 0 / ,`, , , ', , , , , I rr- ; I I ' ' 1 rel IFigure 5.2 Apron Expansion I2004 ' nr' '17 11.047)1 MASTER PLAN J/ AWagL4R7/77 ' • Traffic Flow and the On-Airport Access Roadway System: The approach to the analysis of the on-airport roadway system included an inventory of the existing roads and an evaluation of their condition. 1 The airport entrance road (Airport Road) provides direct access to the terminal and FBO facilities. Airport Road recently was rehabilitated from SH 263 to the terminal parking lot. ' Skyhawk Drive provides access from Airport Road to the east terminal development. It also was recently upgraded with an overlay. These on-airport roads now meet Weld County standards for commerciallindustrial use, which include two 12-foot lanes. ' The general criteria for general aviation road system are identified in Table 5-1. Based on general assumptions for highway capacity, Airport Road will accommodate approximately 10,000 ' to 12,000 vehicles per day. The following table illustrates that projected traffic demand for Airport Road is not expected to exceed the available capacity. Therefore, the capacity of Airport Road to accommodate airport ground transportation needs through the 20-year planning horizon is adequate. 1 Table 5-1 Roadway System Demand ' Year Based Aircraft Operations Employment Vehicles per day Demand 2003 221 145,025 150 1000 to 2000 2023 284 190,640 200 2000 to 3000 • Alternate Airport Access: The evaluation of the alternate airport access roads included the review of County Road 47 as a route from SH 263 to a location where a new entrance to the Greeley-Weld County Airport will support the development of a new FBO complex. The factors considered for the entrance are the following: 1) adequate turning capacity from SH 263 onto the County Road 47, 2) adequate sight distance on SH 263 for the increased level of turning movements onto County Road 47, and 3) turning capacity and site distance from the county road onto the Airport property. It is anticipated that there will be 50 based aircraft for the Capital ' Improvement Program Phase I full development of the property east of Runway 16/34, as described in Chapter 8 of this report. In addition, there will be approximately 50 full-time employees in the Phase I development. • Automobile Parking: Public and employee parking in the terminal complex and other development areas were evaluated. Each of these types has specific criteria and locational needs. ' Public Parking: In keeping with the terminal building plan previously discussed, surface parking is currently provided at the main entrance to the terminal and meets the demand level for the 20- year planning horizon. However, this Master Plan addresses alternative uses for the terminal and its associated parking systems, which could change the parking requirements.There are also public parking facilities located with the various on airport tenants and FBO facilities. These ' parking facilities were evaluated for compatibility with the long-range plan and for changes in the airport security program. 1 2004 5-8 I 11,97rlf)-- ' MASTER PLAN fkig7771 ' Employee Parking: Employee parking needs do not place a large demand on the parking facilities. There are, however, requirements for these parking facilities with the modifications required by the current security requirements. Parking for employees is evaluated within the ' various development options. Terminal Upgrade: The terminal building is new state-of-the-art facility with a restaurant,lobby,and I facilities for the Airport Authority staff and a board room. The terminal was designed to accommodate an expansion to the east,duplicating the central high ceiling section of the terminal. The terminal supports the current space requirements of the Airport Authority, but it could become undersized as the airport I authority staff increases. The financial plan includes a potential staffing plan to match proposed development for the airport plan, indicating a need to add 6 employees in the following years. To determine the space demand and capacity requirements for the terminal, the staffing functions and Itheir staff requirements were evaluated. A summary of the analysis is presented in Table 5-2. Table 5-2 ITerminal Building Capacity and Demand Function Demand Capacity Restaurant FBO Authority I Year Number of Employees 2003 4 4 6 14 18 2023 6 8 12 26 18 IAccording to this analysis, the terminal building facility will not meet the space needs by 2023. There are a couple of solutions to this issue. First there is the possibility to lease the existing terminal to an FBO I and provide a new facility for the Airport Authority staff. Another possibility is to keep management staff in the terminal and relocate operations and maintenance staff to other facilities. On-Airport Facilities Development Alternatives: Three on-airport sites were identified for airport I facility development, as described below. In the Alternatives Development Alternatives Evaluation, they are referred to as Alternatives A, B, and C. I • Site A (Alternative A)—West of the Existing Terminal Area: There are areas available for development within the existing terminal complex (see Figure 5.3). The western side is expanded to the property line with a mix of business hangars and aircraft storage hangars. A new I access is provided from this area to Taxiway A. There are topography considerations at this site that will impact the cost of this development. • Site B (Alternative B)—North of Runway 9/27 and East of Runway 16/34: This site would allow for an approximately 1,000-foot-long cargo facility with aircraft access on the south and truck access on the north. Access would be provided from the east airport access road utilizing I County Road 47. Employee and visitor parking would be provided at the facility. This site is closest to the existing terminal complex for utility extensions.This site also can accommodate large aircraft storage and maintenance facilities. An FBO complex, ARFF, and control tower are also alternatives for this site. See Figure 5.4. I I2004 5-9 I 1 MASTER PLAN I 1 _ T I I 600,660 604,6,0 607 6p_ 3 6 \ 1.- L`. ,`y` c`NIN „cc, l y y ,I 11 Ill Ill1I�111111_91IIII1N ihi Ct(Ir _'11 �II/,I1tall F `,I ,� 1 ��lt � uju— � ` ' I�uR �l ��i� 71� N I` `i‘.,,I,;, I . `y i ` I ` 1, ` I l` ` I . 1 1..\ ‘j ti i c' �_N_.I_�21`,_•J L•__._xl N>i L\ IC •J'_,_‘1 I `\1 I . 1 I • jI 620 62462 627 629 (,,`d I '\ t \ IN, y , I I ` `L NI' ,J l'• `1‘ ‘'• \`, I I`\`1 y 11117�et 1611111 IiIIII:� IrInI IIIil_In�1 iI n)Illl I,,`+ 1 Sl �n1�1 i111I1��r �lli �nlll uL1f �q1 nnni�ul(6h�Rl� rv`N ` Y..` y,_,J�� L�`I��y._,J d) INaiNl�. `L`J I I` `I I ; II_ 6gO,6g3 6446 64'7 6.44 1?9 716,N,JI lltll�l l� II�f I111111n_1I (11F1i�''SSSiin111_,I 'ill lllul 1 �1111JI_OIJ_I011110 �u L"II1�ifitIl,ll'�1(llll r)&'Rih�,� I `\ , I \`\ I ` \ ♦ I, ,V r ,I ` , I ft.1 I 14- III 6,6,0 6.6,7 6.6,2 66j 6.6,4 I `,I I I I �\ ` I l ` I 780 777 IN‘`,NI , i I , l I , l I. " Ni\ I I , 1 I NI �IIhHI�I mil*jrniiirrJIllu11r IIIlulnS 665 „1„.1:9I , r 1 \� I , -,_l_- I I 4N6 - 1 I � 11 1 Figure 5.3 Site A 1 2004 I I MASTER PLAN I l l , `, I 11 II 1!II 1,1 ‘ 11 f -- - -_� I Ti:i rou+n mHo ea 1 1 L I ,y}4/ JQJ Jr9✓y Jri I •Jr✓Jir J4 JS/Jt?:el!j 1 1mmlm> TMML.J ' I Iwr--) :.` ---------------: i 1 0 I11W`• ,ynWnl'r1 1 1.Cy-bs✓y J(r✓4 (.tll I I At. At,J;7 J}y ate Ja�1 I ,::,I,7:::37: ;;\Cc••••C•:: F1,].• mammL J I >.1 . _t. JJi'J r IFigure 5.4 Site B I 2004 BviiI9fill/1r F' MASTER PLAN ,41il ilRl ' • Site C (Alternative C)—North of Runway 9/27 and West of Runway 16/34:There are two potential development sites in this location with access to the airfield.The first site is on airport property. It has approximately 50 acres that could be developed from 3-acre sites to 6-acre sites ' and larger. Airfield access to this site would come from the west end of Runway 9/27 or from Taxiway C to the east. It is anticipated that development would begin at the closest airfield access point to minimize development cost. As part of the development, an apron edge taxilane would be ' provided that would ultimately connect the development at both ends. Landside access would be provided from the west airport access road utilizing County Roads 43 and 62 and then an on- airport access road development to the site. Utilities would need to be developed for the site. ' The second site west of Runway 6-34 is currently private land and includes approximately 60 acres.This site would access the airfield from Taxiway C with a through-the-fence development ' agreement with the Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority. Landside access and utilities are the same as for the first site. See Figure 5.5. I 1 2004 5-12 I I MASTER PLAN I _______rd -- -- %i/ r--._ );;'/ / _1 / ,,,,/ ii / r h y h • / ciY / h ' /r `,�e , ;.,t py / / /ll " j'7 A l ,/ / ./, -r w;w'% 'ii / / N / / 'sµ Ili l / r , U r r , / L0 / / y- // ;„ / d / c g f ; 7 '//' / L_s. c I11/�' � )// / / 1 // I r r l / / I / / I lr / i IFigure 5.5 Site C ' 2004 /I14PL7/7J MASTER PLAN ' Through-the-Fence Development Areas (see Figure 5.6) • East of Runway 16/34—North End: This site is private property and could have many uses, ' including the development of an air cargo facility. Landside access is available from County Roads 64 and 641/2. This site is remote from the existing terminal complex, thus requiring extensive utility systems to support the development. This site could accommodate large-scale ' development with through-the-fence access to the airfield. • West of Runway 16/34:These sites are geometrically very similar and are discussed as a group. A cargo facility could potentially be developed at any one of these sites.There is good access to the airfield from the existing parallel taxiway on the west side of Runway 16/34. These sites are on private land. It is anticipated they would be developed by a private developer under a through- the-fence agreement with the Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority. Landside access would be from the west airport access road utilizing County roads 43, 62 and 45. Utilities would be needed to support this development. These sites are large and could accommodate large development for ' large aircraft or a major manufacturing or industrial facilities. • West of the Existing Terminal Area and South of Runway 9/27:There are two potential development sites in this location with access to the airfield. The first site is on airport property. ' It has approximately 50 acres that could be developed from 3-acre sites to 6-acre sites and larger. Airfield access to this site would come from the west end of Runway 9/27 or from Taxiway C to the east. It is anticipated that development would begin at the closest airfield access point to ' minimize development cost. As part of the development, an apron edge taxilane would be provided that would ultimately connect the development at both ends. Landside access would be provided from the west airport access road utilizing County Roads 43 and 62 and then an on- airport access road development to the site. Utilities would need to be developed for the site. The second site west of Runway 6-34 is currently private land and includes approximately 60 ' acres. This site would access the airfield from Taxiway C with a through-the-fence development agreement with the Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority. Landside access and utilities are the same as for the first site. ' Other Development Options • East of Runway 16/34—Center: This site could have many uses. It can accommodate an air cargo facility, as well as large aircraft storage and maintenance facilities.This location may require a roadway to be developed utilizing County Roads 62 or 64. ' • South of Runway 9/27 and East of Runway 16/34:This site has the potential to accommodate T-hangars or small box hangars. This site is also considered for a new fueling facility, maintenance facility, and ARFF facility (subject to travel times to runway ends). ' • Industrial Aviation Alternatives: hi addition to the traditional types of general aviation facilities such as FBO facilities, aircraft hangars, and tie down areas, there has been a need identified for industrial aviation facilities at Greeley-Weld County Airport. These facilities require access to both the runway and taxiway system and the surface access system. 2004 5-14 C N v . /,1 \,. / n I ' w Qv i) ..,I, 44 i r , a �� I,, l ''.‘..-- ,*----1--;"---;""---, es" -- ... rx,�r nel I / - II ` [xis neo ___ v__�erF _ _ ' --- - - _EEO .,on 'Wilt AREA C I • \ : l _.._ IiExlsr_ oon °RINI FREE Art/ _- - . _ _ - Si — - L 1 1) ) r in LLIIII �� ..m.."1:11 I I I 1 -{ 1 . ;441.4 4s - - - I �I I I 1 I f-�TIn-I I II- 64 ,r Ae l I- 1 I I - --"- I I I I� 11 III I HL_IL�Ll i ' �v0 n f� � -- - �; �x r ,-. I �6 Ii.. _I II I -_ I " - I II ��T` II I I Y° i.�1 i if T III I mow{> �'Ty ;� — II-MOOCH-THE-FENCE L I .' / — — — I I II I I DEVELOPMENT ,.. .I I_ Ii; I `�,, F / /�Il; `II ;II , Li ` Hit II' Ill II ,II , I , C 0 0 N a a mamma a a a a a ' MASTER PLAN fla ' In determining those areas to be considered for industrial aviation use, those sites meeting the following criteria will evaluated only after all the needs for other development has been accommodated: o Parcel size exceeding 10 acres o Access or potential for access to the airfield o Access to the area roadways o Reasonable topographic conditions ' • Terminal Complex: There are areas available for development within the existing terminal complex. The western side is expanded to the property line with a mix of business hangars and aircraft storage hangars. A new access is provided from this area to Taxiway A. There are ttopography considerations in this area that will impact the cost of this development. The central portion of the terminal complex is where the terminal building is located.The terminal is shown with some expansion and a potential site for a control tower west of the ' terminal. The terminal apron is expanded to the west. Miscellaneous sites that are vacant will be considered for hangar development. The eastern edge of the terminal complex will be evaluated for redevelopment, eliminating some of the older facilities and replacing them with business box hangars. Airport Development Alternatives Evaluation Previous sections of this Master Plan identified alternative for the development of the Greeley-Weld County Airport airfield and terminal areas and the overall land resources available for development. Interaction with the various Airport stakeholders and the general public established a consensus that suggests an improvement program for the Greeley-Weld County Airport be based on the following guidelines: Guideline 1. The two-runway system be maintained with action to: • Eliminate the displaced threshold on Runway 34 ' • Implement a nonprecision instrument approach to Runway 16 • Install a MALSR on Runway 34 • Provide full length parallel taxiways on the east and west sides of Runway 16/34 ' Guideline 2. Examine three potential sites for long-term terminal area development: • The existing terminal area ' • A site in the northeast quadrant bordered by the Runway 27 and Runway 34 thresholds • A site in the northwest quadrant adjacent to Runway 9/27 Guideline 3. Provision of private development opportunity areas for aviation-and non-aviation purposes. Guideline 4. Establish an air traffic control tower. ' The evaluation process primarily addresses Guideline 2 while incorporating the principles outlined in Guidelines 1, 3 and 4. In this section, the three alternatives for long-term terminal area development sites are further detailed with a discussion of additional activities that need to be addressed to accommodate ' 2004 5-16 t/NIT MASTER PLAN /i4WHH'T long-term development. For purposes of clarity sections of this master plan update report, the terminal area development sites are called Alternatives A, B, and C.They include an aircraft wash rack, an aircraft deicing pad,a fuel truck parking containment area, a fuel storage area, and the potential for a joint community/Airport fire station. It should be noted that the development described for each alternative reflects a potential build-out of the site. The facilities illustrated in each alternative are in excess of the facility requirements identified through the 20-year planning horizon in order to better assess the suitability of the site. A phased development program for the preferred alternative is outlined in Chapter 7. Evaluation Criteria Several criteria were established to evaluate the alternatives and select the preferred long-term terminal ' area development alternative. These criteria were used in a weighted matrix analysis to permits a quantifiable evaluation process. ' A weighted matrix analysis is based on the identification of evaluation criteria that have relevance in making a choice among options or alternatives. The criteria are weighted to reflect their relative importance and assigned a percentage value. For example, if one evaluation criterion is assigned a weighting factor that is twice that of another, it implies that the considerations associated with that ' criterion are twice as important in the selection of the preferred alternative. The sum of these evaluation criteria weighting factors must equal 100 percent. Each alternative is then scored on a scale of usually 1 through 10 with respect to how best it satisfies the factors associated with each evaluation criterion. The ' higher the score, the better the alternative meets the associated objectives and measures. Some evaluation criteria lend themselves to direct quantification, i.e., construction cost. Others are more subjective assessments and it is useful to recall that the assigned score reflects a measure of satisfaction and is ' relative to the scores assigned to all the alternatives considered for that evaluation criterion. Once each alternative is scored, a mathematical computation multiplies the weighting factor with the associated score, and these totals are summed for each alternative. The alternative receiving the highest calculated ' weighted total is considered to be the preferred alternative; the remaining are ranked accordingly as second best, third best and so on. The results of the weighted matrix analysis may also be subjected to sensitivity tests. These tests provide for changes to the weighting factors (percentages) assigned to each evaluation criterion in order to assess how the weighted total and ranking for each alternative might change based on a reconsideration of the relative weight or importance of one or more evaluation criteria. The scores assigned to each alternative ' are not changed in the sensitivity test. Several sensitivity tests may be conducted depending on the number of evaluation criteria and/or the issues associated in the overall evaluation process. The alternative that continues to receive the highest weighted total is judged to best meet the defined needs. It ' may be possible to combine the relatively better features of two or more alternatives to generate a hybrid option that would achieve the highest weighted total if rescored. For the Greeley-Weld County Airport alternatives evaluation, seven evaluation criteria were defined that would evaluate the three alternatives for the long-term terminal area development program: ' 1. Expansion/flexibility/function, which considers the ability of the alternative to accommodate post 20-year planning horizon development needs; the ability to respond to unanticipated events that might alter the timing, extent and character of the development program; and the ability to integrate the various activities that occur in the terminal area, such as aircraft servicing for fuel and deicing. 2004 5-17 All 1 . 1/F 11WJ11/// lF ' MASTER PLAN III1F 2. Environmental impacts that may be generated and mitigated as part of the development alternative. Primary impact categories are expected to be water quality, relationship to planned land uses in the vicinity of the Greeley-Weld County Airport, and aesthetics. 3. Vehicular access considers the ability of each site to have direct access from established community roadway systems and the impact that development will have on those community roads. ' There will be consideration for the travel volume and patterns for additional development and how well the particular alternatives accommodate the internal circulation of vehicular traffic, including parking, truck access, deliveries, and ease of location.The relative cost comparison for each site ' will be evaluated in other evaluation factors looking at construction cost. Right-of-way considerations and the ability to obtain access from established county and state road systems will also be evaluated. ' 4. Construction cost for site improvements, facilities and removal of structures. These costs will vary with respect to their total, federal and state grant funding participation, Greeley-Weld County Airport share and private investment. This evaluation criterion will consider the cost implications ' for each source. Additionally, this includes an assessment of constructability issues associated with a phased development program. 5. Operational flow of aircraft within the terminal area site as well as access to and from the airside facilities. Efficient taxi routes with clear lines of sight and minimal crossing potentials are desirable features at airports serving relatively high levels of activity conducted by aircraft differing in size and means of propulsion. 6. Utility infrastructure assesses the extent of existing utility systems and their expansion capability to support the potential long-term development at the site. 7. Security considerations that reflect the ability of the site and development to accommodate necessary access controls and monitoring. The assigned weighting factors for these evaluation criteria emphasized those that address the function and operation of an airport facility. Thus,higher relative weights were assigned to the ' expansion/flexibility/function and operational flow criteria. Next in relative importance were considerations addressing vehicular access and construction cost. Ease of vehicular access to the development site from the primary road network is an important service feature. Construction cost, regardless of source, provides an indication of those development programs that have the better chance for financing and implementation. The remaining evaluation criteria had equal relative weights. ' Alternatives Evaluation Each of the On-Airport Facilities Development Alternatives that were described previously (see page 5-9) were evaluated against each of the above criteria. The results of the evaluation process follow. Expansion/Flexibility/Function Alternative A provides more than adequate area to meet the requirements of the terminal facilities ' development program for the 20-year planning horizon and beyond. New facilities may be provided in the western portion of the site and there is space to accommodate associated service functions. The site contemplated in Alternative A is hampered by the extent of existing terminal area development, in 2004 5-18 barb- ili MASTER PLAN Aggif ' varying degrees of condition,which serves to limit the most appropriate overall layout of the facilities. The continued development of this site provides limited opportunities to reduce the nonuniform character reflected in the portions of the existing site. Alternative A provides for the co-location of most Airport ' management functional areas, permitting the staff to transition to differing operational functions more easily and in less time. The exception is the maintenance facility located on the opposite side of SH 263. However, it could be relocated within the site envisioned for Alternative A. Alternative B similarly provides ample land area to position the range of required terminal area facilities. As a "green field" site,it offers the benefit of assigning space based on the user type and the associated ' anticipated aircraft. This allows this site to be responsive to new users and in a way that does not interfere with activities conducted in the existing terminal area. Over time, elements of the existing terminal area will be converted to specific uses to allow the Greeley-Weld County Airport to present two ' distinct full-service fixed base operator lease areas. The features associated with Alternative B provide opportunity to integrate all Airport management functions in a common area including the maintenance facility. An outcome of the relocation of Airport administrative functions from the existing terminal building to a new site is that it opens the existing prime building space for revenue production. The suitability of Alternative B as a site for a joint Airport/community fire station requires further investigation and is a long-term prospect. However, should Weld County opt for a different community fire station site, the Greeley-Weld County Airport can continue to house its aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicles and equipment convenient to a new or common administration facility. Alternative C offers the same advantages with respect to expansion, flexibility and function as Alternative B. The primary difference is the location of the site, whose characteristics are evaluated more appropriately using other criteria. ' Environmental Impacts Alternative A is not expected to generate any significant long-term impacts to the natural and human environments with continued expansion and development of terminal area facilities. Impacts associated ' with construction activities are short term and can be mitigated through the design and use of best practice techniques. Alternative A represents an expansion of a site that has been in similar use since the early days of the Greeley-Weld County Airport. Adjacent land users are compatible with the character of the 1 site. From an aesthetics perspective, the nonuniform character of a segment of the existing terminal area facilities and their eventual replacement over a long period of time renders this alternative less than ideal. Alternative B introduces development of a new site and construction activities whose impacts the environment can be mitigated. Development in Alternative B will impact on the natural drainage of the land area and could generate storm water runoff volumes in excess of existing on-airport detention capacities. The expansion of these storm water management facilities represents an additional ' environmental burden, but one that can be engineered to meet best practices management guidelines. Adjacent land uses are characterized as agricultural with limited residential development. Over time, these land areas may need to be rezoned to uses that take advantage of the transportation services available at the Greeley-Weld County Airport. However, in the short term,there may be visual impacts to dwelling units located along County Road 47 from the industrial/commercial (aircraft hangar) facilities ' included in Alternative B. Aesthetically, the development program at Alternative B can follow design and architectural standards that convey a consistent and pleasing visual theme. ' 2004 5-19 1 / gffif7 1/1/47771 MASTER PLAN t /'°i7h> ' Alternative C has essentially the same setting and associated advantages as Alternative B. A primary difference is that development of the land area in Alternative C will require modification to Sand Creek that runs through the site. Sand Creek provides a drainage course for land areas north of the Greeley- Weld County Airport. Its treatment and ability to continue to serve this purpose requires further evaluation during the design process. ' Vehicular Access Alternative A is the development of the existing terminal area and most specifically the full build-out west to the property line. Currently, access to this site is from the Airport Road off SH 263. The Airport ' access road (Airport Road) extends from SH 263 to the new terminal building in what may be referred to as the central portion of the site. Access is provided from Airport Road to the east by way of Skyhawk Drive and Ed Beegles Lane. Access is provided to the west by way of Buss Avenue. Vehicular access for Alternative A was reviewed separately in terms of the east, central and west development areas. • East Development: Access to the east development area is accommodated by two separate access roads. The first is from the west via Airport Road (main entrance road) and Skyhawk Drive onto Ed Beegles Lane. The second separate access is from SH 263 east of the main airport entrance road by way of Crosier Avenue. Crosier Avenue also connects to Ed Beegles Lane and then extends into the east side of the east development area and, more specifically, to the Swift ' Beef Company hangar complex. There currently are 34 vehicular parking spaces located at the Swift Beef Company, recently constructed. There are additional parking locations along Ed Beegles Lane. ' Currently, access to the hangar storage, corporate facilities, and businesses operating in hangar spaces is mixed with aircraft traffic. The access to these facilities does not have positive control but is signed for no access without authorization. For new facilities in this area, vehicular traffic will need to be separated from aircraft traffic with positive security controlled access. The remaining large hangar facility and some smaller units will have vehicle access by way of aircraft maneuvering pavement. ' Vehicular access to the site is very good from recently improved airport internal circulation roads. • Central Development: The central terminal area development includes the terminal building, FBO facilities and other hangar storage and business hangars. Access to the terminal is very direct and has recently been upgraded with pavement widening and overlay. This access is Airport Road, connecting directly with SH 263. The FBO hangar development in the vicinity of the terminal bounded by Airport Road, Skyhawk Drive, and Ed Beegles Lane has good vehicular access and parking that is, or can be, separated from aircraft traffic. Access into the facilities adjacent to and west of Airport Road is good from Airport Road. Leaving Airport Road to the west to access the facilities to the west there is no separation of vehicles and aircraft. There is no real remedy for this; any development in this area will continue the joint use of pavement. However, this area can be secured with relative ease where tenants of the facilities would access through a controlled access gate. 2004 5-20 1 %;ltt t/- MASTER PLAN AUR 'GIr�T • West Development: The proposed development to the west of the existing terminal area currently would need to be accessed from Airport Road (main entrance) through the hangar development area.This has the potential of adding more vehicular traffic to the taxilanes, thus impacting security and safety. To accommodate new development in this area, a new access road through private land will be ' provided from the west into this development.The new access road will serve as an inner perimeter road around the west end of Runway 9/27. It will connect to SH 263 west of the main Greeley-Weld County Airport entrance, thus providing direct access into the west side development.This access/perimeter road could also connect to County Road 62 (Bliss Road) on the north side of Runway 9/27. ' This west side development could be configured to provide for separation of aircraft and vehicular traffic for the portion that is future development. Alternative B is located north of Runway 9/27 and east of Runway 16/34 on the east side of the Greeley- Weld County Airport. This site occupies the area from the recently decommissioned Runway 17-35. It will be a new green field development to support a potential new FBO and corporate hangars. ' The access to the Alternative B site will be from SH 263 to County Road 47 and then a new access off County Road 47 onto the Greeley-Weld County Airport site. The site access can be looped to connect to County Road 62 at the north side of this particular site with access to County Road 47 from County Road 62. The configuration of the potential development on this site will lend the development to have direct landside access to the backside of each hangar and with parking at each hangar location for the tenant. The access roadway system for this site and potential development will all be new roads, to support the new green field development potential of this site. Alternative C includes the development of on-airport property on the north side of Runway 9/27 and west of Runway 16/34. The site is long and narrow accommodating multiple rows of corporate hangars. It will be a new green field development with new access roads. Access for this site can be from SH 263 to County Road 43 (Cherry Road) to County Road 62 (Bliss ' Road)then to a new access onto the airport property onto the site from County Road 62 (Bliss Road). This access road could lead directly into the north side of the proposed hangar row with landside access and parking for each hangar.The access road into this site could connect into the on airport perimeter ' road that extends around the west side of the Greeley-Weld County Airport around Runway 9/27 connecting to the new access off of SH 263. As currently shown in the layout, the access road has a dead end at the eastern side of the development. The dead end meets city and county standards, however, it is not desirable. Alternate configurations may be needed to avoid the long, dead-end road. The location of this site and the county roads that have to be used to arrive at the entrance to the site makes this site less desirable for upscale facilities requiring public access. 1 ' 2004 5-21 &f,.=f1 I I �P%fifg Wi VY 1 MASTER PLAN AWPD#1 IConstruction Cost Alternative A construction costs are better evaluated with respect to the new development area to the Iwest, as compared to the other sites. The western development area will include the full build-out from the existing facilities to the west I property line. This location will require the addition of access roads, more extensive utility extensions, aircraft pavement, and substantial earth moving. This renders Alternative A's construction cost more than in the other terminal area alternatives. I Alternative B construction costs include an access road, apron pavement and substantial grading associated with old Runway 17/35. There will be substantial utility extensions required to support the development of this site.This site is a new green field site with no constraints to construction. IAlternative C construction costs include an access road, apron pavement and substantial grading to divert an existing drainage ditch. There will be substantial utility extensions required to support the development Iof this site.This site also is a new green field site with no impediments to construction. Operational Flow I Alternative A operational flow has observed deficiencies. There are relatively narrow taxiways between structures that restrict ground taxi routing during peak periods of activity. In addition,there are taxiway routes from hangar areas that are circuitous and infringe on aircraft tiedown areas, incorporating I intersections that are at other than right angles. With the exception of the transient and based aircraft tiedown aprons, access to the airfield taxiway system is at an oblique angle. The placement of terminal area facilities in Alternative A is convenient to Runway 9/27, which can serve the majority of Greeley- I Weld County Airport users. Access to Runway 34 for departures requires crossing Runway 9/27, a procedure that mandates a high level of vigilance by the pilot at an uncontrolled airport. The same situation occurs for landings on Runway 16. I Alternative B has an internal terminal area taxiway system that enhances ground traffic movements. An outer taxilane runs the length of the apron for aircraft tiedown. The site developed in Alternative B offers direct access to each runway and introduces one crossing movement for aircraft departing Runway 9 or I arriving on Runway 27. Aircraft using the existing terminal area and requiring access to Runway 16/34 will generate crossing movements on Runway 9/27. The site layout emphasizes right-angle turns and affords clear lines of sight. IAlternative C provides similar benefits to aircraft taxiway flows as Alternative B. In particular,it provides direct access to each runway without generating crossing requirements provided that a full I parallel taxiway is constructed on the north side of Runway 9/27. As in Alternative B, aircraft positioned in the existing terminal area will need to cross Runway 9/27 in order to gain access to Runway 16/34. I Utility Infrastructure Alternative A includes the development or redevelopment of the existing terminal area. Because this area is adjacent to or in the existing development, there will be minimal utility infrastructure to develop for the I site. Alternative B will be a completely new development and will require the extension of the entire utility Iinfrastructure. I2004 5-22 I MTh(f1 I MASTER PLAN Au7JIIr7T ' Alternative C will be a completely new development and will require the extension of the entire utility infrastructure. ISecurity Considerations The Transportation Security Administration has focused its attention in the airport and aviation sector on those airports providing scheduled passenger service. Security requirements for general aviation airports ' are in varying stages of assessment. However, these standards are likely to involve perimeter fencing, access control gates, and reliance on airport personnel to maintain observation of events, people, vehicles and aircraft on the ground and report suspicious or questionable activities. IThe installation of security fencing at each of the alternatives is relatively straightforward. Alternative A has some of the fencing in place. Controlling access to the airfield operating area is easier to accomplish I at sites where the layout of the terminal facilities has yet to be defined and the number of entry points minimized. Therefore, Alternative B and Alternative C have an advantage over Alternative A in this regard. ' Sensitivity Analysis • Tables 5.3,5.4,5.5 and 5.6 represent the evaluation factors and rankings for each of the alternative sites. ITable 5-3 Sensitivity Matrix—Basic Weighting Factors I Criterion Weight Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Score Total Score Total Score Total Expansion/Flexibility/Function 20% 6 1.2 9 1.80 9 1.80 Environmental Impacts 10% 8 0.80 7 0.70 7 0.70 I Vehicular Access 15% 7 1.05 9 12.35 8 1.20 Construction Cost 15% 0 1.35 7 1.05 6 0.90 Operational Flow 20% 6 1.20 7 1.40 7 1.40 I Utility Infrastructure 10% 9 0.90 6 0.60 6 0.60 Security Considerations 10% 7 0.70 8 0.80 8 0.80 Total 100% 7.20 7.70 7.40 Rank 3 1 2 ITable 5-4 Sensitivity Matrix—Equal Weighting Factors I Criterion Weight Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Score Total Score Total Score Total Expansion/Flexibility/Function 14% 6 0.86 9 1.29 9 1.29 Environmental Impacts 14% 8 1.14 7 1.00 7 1.00 I Vehicular Access 14% 7 1.00 9 1.29 8 1.14 Construction Cost 14% 9 1.29 7 1.00 6 0.86 Operational Flow 14% 6 0.86 7 1.00 7 1.00 I Utility Infrastructure 14% 9 1.29 6 0.86 6 0.86 Security Considerations 14% 7 1.00 8 1.14 8 1.14 Total 100% 7.43 7.57 7.29 Rank 2 1 3 1 I ' 2004 5-23 I MASTER PLAN A!VP Table 5-5 I Sensitivity Matrix—Emphasize Cost and Utility Infrastructure Wei ht Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C ' Criterion 9 Score Total Score Total Score Total Expansion/Flexibility/Function 14% 6 0.86 9 1.29 9 1.29 Environmental Impacts 11% 8 0.88 7 0.77 7 0.77 I Vehicular Access 5% 7 0.35 9 0.45 8 0.40 Construction Cost 25% 9 2.25 7 1.75 6 1.50 Operational Flow 14% 6 0.86 7 1.00 7 1.00 Utility Infrastructure 25% 9 2.25 6 1.50 6 1.50 I Security Considerations 5% 7 0.35 8 0.40 8 0.40 Total 100% 7.79 7.16 6.86 Rank 1 2 3 I Table 5-6 Sensitivity Matrix—Emphasize Environmental Considerations Wei ht Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C I Criterion 9 Score Total Score Total Score Total Expansion/Flexibility/Function 10% 6 0.60 9 0.90 9 0.90 Environmental Impacts 25% 8 2.00 7 1.75 7 1.75 I Vehicular Access 25% 7 1.75 9 2.25 8 2.00 Construction Cost 10% 9 0.90 7 0.70 6 0.60 Operational Flow 10% 6 0.60 7 0.70 7 0.70 Utility Infrastructure 10% 9 0.90 6 0.60 6 0.60 I Security Considerations 10% 7 0.70 8 0.80 8 0.80 Total 7.45 7.70 7.35 Rank 2 1 3 ' Recommended Alternatives I Selection of the recommended airfield alternative is based upon both the quantitative factors presented above and judgmental skills. I One of the most highly weighted criterion used to determine the preferred alternative was be airfield flexibility. I Development Alternatives Recommendations and Summary The general requirements for airport operations listed below were evaluated using the seven evaluation factors in the sensitivity matrix. I1. Accommodation of future growth not only through the planning period but beyond 2. Adequate surface access facilities ' 3. Aesthetic appeal 4. Sufficient terminal apron 5. Auto parking 6. Compatibility with other airport elements I 7. Enhancement of economic development 8. Mix of facilities 9. Compatible with surrounding land uses I I2004 5-24 /1 fiftI'1P17gJD11NJY MASTER PLAN In addition, these development alternatives were presented to the Airport Advisory Committee,the Greeley-Weld County Airport board, and the city council and county commissioners in joint meetings. ' Alternative B scored the highest in the evaluation matrix and it received positive consideration from the various groups listed above. Therefore, Alternative B is considered to be the preferred primary development area for the future. Development Program The development program for Alternative B that was described in Chapter 7 is presented in Chapter 8 in ' three phases: Phase I from 0 to 6 years; Phase II from 7 to 10 years; and Phase III from 11 to 20 years. As a beginning point,the current Capital Improvement Program is incorporated into the development program. The Capital Improvement Program includes projects that have been programmed with the FAA and Colorado Department of Aeronautics for the next 6 years. 1 1 1 2004 5-25 ofill 1� I 'i ' MASTER PLAN �j�7ptr 6.0 Environmental Review This chapter presents an inventory and analysis of the potentially significant environmental issues that may be of concern with the proposed development contained in this Greeley-Weld County Airport Master Plan. The impacts are generalized in a non-quantified fashion, and the likely environmental processing is identified. ' Alternatives for the future configuration of the Greeley-Weld County Airport were described in Chapter 5. The major changes in the Airport layout are all within the existing airport boundary. The ' modifications include airfield and terminal area improvements on Airport property on previously undeveloped land. Generally, these improvements include the following: ' • Expanding the existing terminal area to the west. • Filling in open spaces within the existing terminal area. • Redeveloping the existing terminal area where older facilities may be candidates for modernizing ' or demolition and reconstruction. • Developing a terminal area on the east side of the Airport. • Developing a terminal area on the north and west side of the Airport. Soils There are cretaceous sedimentary primary soil types in the airport area associated with water deposition. ' These soils are very clayey in nature and present slight to moderate limitations on development. Endangered Species ' While Weld County is the historical range of many types of wildlife, no endangered species are found in the area surrounding the Greeley-Weld County Airport. ' Noise Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound and,as such, the determination of acceptable levels is subjective. The day-night sound level (DNL) methodology is used to determine both the noise levels resulting from existing conditions and the potential noise levels that could be expected to occur with a proposed project. The basic unit in the computation of DNL is the Sound Exposure Level (SEL). An SEL ' is computed by adding the"A"-weighted decibel level [dB(A)] for each second of a noise event above a certain threshold"A"-weighted refers to the sound scale pertaining to the human ear). For example, a noise monitor located in a quiet residential area [40 dB(A)] receives the sound impulses of an ' approaching aircraft and records the highest dB(A) reading for each second of the event as the aircraft approaches and departs the site. Each of these one-second readings is then added logarithmically to compute the SEL. Table 6-1 depicts the typical dB(A) values of noise commonly experienced by people. This illustrates the relative impact of single event noise in the"A"-weighted level. 2004 6-1 I z ffjf ' ,,,147/1,5L7L7L I MASTER PLAN 41. /Z'Y1 I Table 6-1 Comparative Noise Levels Activity Levels dB(A)Levels I Rustling Leaves 20 Room in Quiet Dwelling at Midnight 32 Soft Whisper at 5 Feet 34 I Men's Clothing Department of Large Store 53 Window Air Conditioner 55 Conversational Speech 60 Household Department of Large Store 62 I Busy Restaurant 65 Typing Pool 65 Vacuum Cleaner in House(at 10 feet) 69 Ringing Alarm Clock (at 2 feet) 80 I Loudly Reproduced Orchestral Music in Large Room 82 Printing Press Plant (medium size automatic) 86 Heavy City Traffic 92 Heavy Diesel-Propelled Vehicle (at 25 feet) 92 I Air Grinder 95 Cut-off Saw 97 Home Lawn Mower 98 I Turbine Condenser 98 150 Cubic Foot Air Conditioner 100 Banging of Steel Plate 104 Air Hammer 107 I Jet Airliner (500 feet overhead) 115 Note: Prolonged levels over 85 dB(A) represent beginning of hearing damage. Adapted from Impact of Noise on People, Federal Aviation Administration. IDNL levels usually are depicted as grid cells or noise contours. Grid cells are squares of land of a specific size that are entirely characterized by a noise level. Noise contours are interpolations of noise levels based on the center of a grid cell and drawn to connect all points of similar level. Noise contours appear similar to topographical contours and form concentric "footprints" about a noise source. These footprints of DNL noise contours drawn around an airport are used to predict community response to the noise from aircraft I using that airport. The main advantage of DNL is that it provides a common measure for a variety of differing noise environments.The same DNL level can describe both an area with very few high level noise events and I an area with many low level events. DNL is thus constructed because it has been found that the total noise energy in an area predicts community response. It must be remembered that the DNL noise contours do not delineate areas that are either free from excessive noise or areas that will be subjected to excessive I noise. In other words, it cannot be expected that a person living on one side of a DNL noise contour will have a markedly different reaction than a person living nearby, but on the other side of the noise contour. What can be expected is that the general aggregate community response to noise within the 65 DNL noise I contour, for example,will be less than the public response from the 70 DNL noise contour, and even less still than the response from within the 75 DNL noise contour. I I I2004 6-2 4Y//4/7 MASTER PLAN A� l 1 rn�r'7T ' Computer Modeling. The DNL noise contours were generated using the Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 6.06,a computer program developed by the FAA specifically for modeling the noise environment at airports. Noise contours are presented in Figure 6.1. The INM program requires the input of the ' physical and operational characteristics of the airport. Physical characteristics include runway end coordinates,displaced thresholds, airport altitude, and temperature. Operational characteristics include aircraft mix and flight tracks. Optional data that can be incorporated in the model includes approach and ' departure profiles, approach and departure procedures, and aircraft noise curves. Compatible Land Use Establishing land use compatibility within airport environs is the responsibility of local authorities,but should be based on a recognized standard.The Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)Part 150 guidelines are the acknowledged standards by the federal government regarding aircraft-generated noise at airports. ' The guidelines indicate those land uses that are compatible within certain DNL noise contours. It identifies land uses as being compatible, incompatible, or compatible if sound attenuated. As can be seen, these guidelines indicate that the 65 DNL noise contour is the threshold noise level for defining incompatible land uses. I 2004 6-3 I I MASTER PLAN J// 1 1 - 1 71:‘,"°!..:it..44 kr a. 1 1 +r]\Il 4. i � s.;ma. 3. 1 I I� ' I:ti I II ' II ft , _ i Si i___:• ¼hii? . 1 I 1 C' Ill 1 . � rllC; I - ;, , .. IFigure 6.1 Noise Con ours I lOf.# MASTER PLAN tIS'l ' 7.0 Airport Plans ' The plan for the future development of Greeley-Weld County Airport has evolved from an analysis of many considerations. Among these are: aviation demand forecasts; facility requirements; aircraft operational characteristics; environmental considerations; and the general direction of future development, as expressed by the Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority. Because previous chapters have established and quantified the future development needs of the Greeley- Weld County Airport, the various elements of the preferred plan are categorically reviewed here in an outline and graphic format. A brief written description of the individual elements is provided in this chapter. Graphic representations presented in the form of the Airport Layout Plan, the Airspace Plans, the Approach Profiles, and Terminal Area Development Plans are provided as exhibits in Chapter 9. It is recognized that future demand for facilities cannot be totally predicted, particularly during the latter stages of the 20-year planning horizon. Therefore, particular emphasis is placed on the first six years of ' the development plan. Within this time frame, the projections are more definable and the magnitude of program accomplishment is more pronounced. Furthermore, carefully guided development within the initial years of the planning period is essential to the future expansion of this facility and the continued ' enhancement of aviation development. Airport Layout Plan ' The Airport Layout Plan(ALP), Figure 7.1 and Exhibit I, illustrates both existing and ultimate airside and landside facilities that will be required to enable the airport to properly accommodate the forecast future demand. In addition, the ALP provides detailed information on both airport and runway design ' criteria that necessary to define relationships with applicable standards. The following paragraphs describe the major components of the Airport Development Plan. Runway System The existing runway system layout has been determined to accommodate the proposed traffic identified in the 20-year planning horizon. There will, however, be a need to upgrade the pavement strength to ' accommodate proposed development that may bring larger aircraft to the Greeley-Weld County Airport. Runway 9/27 The existing 100-foot-wide and 5,800-foot-long Runway 9/27 and the ARC C-II design standards are to be maintained. Runway 9/27 is scheduled for reconstruction during the construction season of 2004. The pavement is to be maintained at an existing gross weight bearing capacity of 18,000 pounds single-wheel ' and 30,000 pounds dual-wheel gear configuration. The existing medium intensity runway lights (MIRLs) will be upgraded to high-intensity runway lights (HIRL) under future development projects. Runway 16/34 The existing-foot-wide and 10, 000-foot-long Runway 16/34 and the future ARC D-III design standards are to be realized. This will be accomplished by increasing the runway pavement strength from the ' existing gross weight bearing capacity of 30,000 pounds single-wheel and 45,000 pounds dual-wheel gear configuration to 150,000 pounds dual-wheel gear configuration. ' 2004 7-1 • 3 9F 4, i III • • t1 di g g mil' ^ Q Ni 9' p .- 1' 1 i 9 sii gi NI ; -s ea , e i gli! nll ! t I S :0 Fri 1 i 11;;! I li 1 ! -,.... II � I , 'a e ,:e. 'CilI Iit,�.•ii., I I I I `�lf1 }$ � III I, i - ' 1 �' 'R I III- . iI ii 11 � , I .,Ii II IYiI i § -�_• I: ■rItf• hil JUL N Ht CI .\III it ; 0 a• J U L .°I� , I , I{ I-� $g^; ' it 1 N; " d off, , r—,r.1_ IqB I' I'I 1. lk . . �I @ 8iI v: p.-1�) A� -7C_`_l- I� Is I I :Y�I I II ,I I . _ ==`"= _� j ! Ill , II .. I I , , II � ". �:. --Ir -• m*c ttr- -, .o 11 '�I� FI1 � I 'VIIII IrI it C �, -r1 L-- - r I 1 • R ,!, : - -7,__ 7----::::--;.t.„H,': t Et—...... 7. r. ..),.._ 014.4m24 sae 'ma.--•- --•_ ° `� y3. '4'-@-'wa ••1 J,i'l ,,aD 'f• \,V • I- r. s ,---1 . _I it. Ng,art ■ i1i ! t II I AIRPORT MASTER PLAN gqiffil ' MASTER PLAN /JJWP/7J7J WY ITaxiway System IIRunway 9/27 Taxiway System The eastern two-thirds of the existing parallel taxiway system for Runway 9/27 was recently relocated I and reconstructed. The remaining parallel taxiway will be overlaid during the 2004 construction season. Connector and cross taxiways between the runway and parallel taxiway have or will be reconstructed and overlaid by the end of 2004. A connector taxiway is proposed from the east end of Runway 9/27 to the north to connect to a proposed general aviation development with Alternative B. ' Runway 16/34 Taxiway System Runway 16/34 was newly constructed in 2000. A parallel taxiway system on the west side was I completed in 2002. The parallel taxiway system includes holding/run-up pads,high-speed exits, and 90- degree connector taxiways. ' The taxiway pavement strength is to be increased from the existing gross weight bearing capacity of 30,000 pounds single-wheel and 45,000 pounds dual-wheel gear configuration to 150,000 pounds dual- wheel gear configuration. I Proposed development for the Runway 16/34 taxiway system includes taxiway connectors from the south end of Runway 16/34 to the east to provide runway access to a proposed future FBO development in Alternative B east of Runway 16/34 and north of Runway 9/27. IInstrument Approach Criteria I Runway 34 has the only ILS approach at the Greeley-Weld County Airport. In addition to the precision instrument approach,Runways 9,27, and 16 have VOR/VOR-A approaches. The approach lighting facilities provided at Greeley-Weld County Airport include precision approach ' path indicators (PAPI) on Runways 16,34, and 9, and Visual Approach Slope Indicators (VASI) on Runway 27. These aid in defining the desired glide path in relatively good weather providing a standard three-degree descent angle. These units are usable by all aircraft that can operate at Greeley-Weld County I Airport. • Runways 9, 27, and 16 currently have a non-precision approach.The size of the RPZ are to be maintained I at 500' x 1,010' x 1,700' to comply with the specified RPZ design standards for the non-precision approach and/or 3 - mile approach visibility minimums. ' Runway 34 has ILS capability and currently has a precision approach. The size of the RPZ is to be maintained at 1,000 feet x 2,500 feet x 1750 feet to comply with the specified RPZ design standards for the precision approach and/or greater than 1/2-mile approach visibility minimums. Property/Easement Acquisition Currently, the Greeley-Weld County Airport has sufficient property and/or avigation easements for the ' proposed development. There are no runway extensions planned or other airfield modifications that will 2004 7-3 I 1 vi ft- SWHMI& MASTER PLAN require the acquisition of additional property or avigation easements. Existing avigation easements on Runway 16 RPZ exit and future acquisition of these areas are listed in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Landside Development ' The ALP also allocates various development areas for landside facilities. It is recognized that the development of these areas will be demand driven; therefore, where appropriate, options have been provided for the type of facilities that are likely to develop within a certain area. Illustrations and ' accompanying discussion of the proposed landside development are detailed in the Building Area Layout Plans included in Chapter 9. ' Airspace Plan The Airspace Plan for the airport,Exhibit IV, is based upon Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. Criteria contained in the FAR Part 77 document provide guidance ' in controlling the height of objects in the vicinity of an airport to protect the airport's airspace and approaches from hazards that could affect the safe and efficient operation of aircraft. FAR Part 77 criteria specify a set of imaginary surfaces which, when penetrated, designate an object as being an obstruction. The Airspace Plan provides plan and profile views that depict these criteria as they specifically relate to the Greeley-Weld County Airport. The plan is based on the ultimate planned runway lengths, along with ' the ultimate planned approaches to each runway end. Therefore, it is based on a precision instrument approach to Runway 34 and a non-precision approach to Runways 9,27, and 16. Inner Portion of the Approach Surface Plans ' Exhibit IV illustrates the inner portions of the Part 77 imaginary approach surfaces and the Runway Protection Zones (RPZs). An RPZ is trapezoidal in shape,centered about the extended runway centerline, and typically begins 200 feet beyond the end of the runway. The RPZs are safety areas within which it is desirable to clear all objects (although some uses are normally acceptable). The size of the RPZ is contingent upon the approach category of the design aircraft and the visibility minimums associated with the type of approach(visual and not lower than one mile, not lower than three-quarters of a mile, and ' lower than three-quarters of a mile). Based on the proposed visual and instrument approach visibility minimums to each runway end, the dimensions of the existing approach RPZs will be maintained. ' Generally speaking, the airport sponsor, as either fee simple acquisition or as an easement, should control the RPZs. If an easement is purchased, it is a purchase of the air rights over the actual ground. Currently, the Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority either has ownership or avigation easements for all of the ' RPZs with the exception of a portion of the relocated RPZ for east end of Runway 27. It is recognized that the Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority will acquire the aviation easements for the entire portion of the Runway 27 RPZ. ' Exhibits V and VI provide large-scale drawings with both plan and profile delineations for Runway 9/27. They are intended to facilitate identification of the roadways,utility lines, railroads, structures, and ' other possible obstructions that may lie within the confines of the inner approach surface area associated with each runway end.The illustrations also depict the approach clearance requirements specified by threshold siting criteria. As with the Airspace Plan, the exhibits are based on the ultimate planned runway length, along with the ultimate planned approach to each runway. 2004 7-4 SAW 117 MASTER PLAN /War T Terminal Area Facilities Terminal Building The Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority recently constructed a new terminal building.This facility is adequate to serve the current needs of the Airport Authority. However, it is anticipated that after the ' addition of staff to accommodate the Airport's anticipated growth and development, the terminal building may not be adequate to accommodate larger Authority staff. To accommodate this eventuality, the development plan incorporates the following options for expansion requirements: ' • Expansion of the existing terminal • Relocation of staff to alternate locations These facilities are depicted in Exhibits IIIA and IIIB. Terminal Apron ' The existing terminal apron has been determined to be adequate during normal operations but is short on capacity during peak periods of use. Expanding the apron to the west will meet the demand over the 20- year planning horizon and can be accommodated without impact to other facilities. The apron improvements will allow for efficient use of the terminal building. Additionally, there is a need to have an apron area that is capable of accommodating larger aircraft. The ' expanded apron could be developed to higher strength criteria to accommodate larger aircraft. The apron expansion will add 11,000 square yards of pavement for 18 additional parking spaces. Ground Access The ground access system currently meets the traffic capacity requirements for access to the Greeley- Weld County Airport. There are,however, improvements to SH 263 that are considered as part of the ' development options for the airport. These options address the need to provide a more upscale appearance to the state highway and airport entrance. Additionally, as development is considered for locations away from the current terminal complex, it becomes apparent for the need to evaluate other Airport access locations to provide direct access to potential development areas. Proposed improvements to portions of the system are identified and included in the development plan, such as: • Upgrades to SH 263 to attract development and growth at or near the airport • Signage and way finding • Airport access roadways to provide access into future developments,including: o Access development on the east side of Runway 16/34 and north side of Runway 9/27 ' o Access into development south of Runway 9/27 and east of Runway 16/34 o Access to the west side of the existing and expanded terminal area 1 Automobile Parking Space is reserved for automobile parking in each of the proposed development areas. Three separate types of automobile parking: public, employee, and rental car, are identified for the terminal complex and ' other development areas. Each of these types has specific criteria and locational needs. 2004 7-5 1 I 11 'tf/f.' I MASTER PLAN 4111/ R/ YLY I • Public Parking:In keeping with the terminal building plan, the existing surface parking at the main entrance to the terminal meets the demand level for the 20-year planning horizon; however, I over-sized vehicle parking spaces should be added in the future.The parking system was considered under each of the alternative use plans for the terminal.There are public parking facilities located with the various on airport tenants and FBO facilities.These and additional I parking facilities are provided for long-range plan and to accommodate changes in the airport security program. I • Employee Parking: Employee parking does not place a large demand on the parking facilities at the airport. There are, however, requirements for these parking facilities and the modifications required by the current security requirements.Parking for employees is provided with each of the Ivarious development phases. • Rental Car Parking: There currently is no rental car company based at the airport. Car rental is I provided off airport.The FBO providers provide this capability to their customers on a case-by- case basis. I Facility Development The three facilities development alternatives for the 20-year planning horizon are planned to be implemented in three phases as outlined below: IPhase I (0 — 6 years) Phase I development is considered to be the existing terminal area and the first phase of development on ' the east side of Runway 16/34 and north of Runway 17-35. The existing terminal area is planned for the Phase I because the infrastructure is in place to support the development. Operations can be maintained in this area while the infrastructure is developed to support the new landside development in the area east Iof Runway 16/34 and north of Runway 9/27. Existing Terminal Area: There are areas available for development within the existing terminal I complex.The western side is expanded to the property line with a mix of business hangars and aircraft storage hangars. A new access is provided from this area to Taxiway A. There are topography considerations in this area that will impact the cost of this development. IThe central portion of the terminal complex is where the terminal building is located.The terminal is shown with some expansion and a potential site for a control tower west of the terminal. The terminal apron is expanded to the west. Miscellaneous sites that are vacant will be considered for hangar I development. The eastern edge of the terminal complex will be evaluated for redevelopment to eliminate some of the 1 older facilities and replace them with business box hangars. North of Runway 9/27 and East of Runway 16/34: Development of this site will begin during Phase I I and will continue into Phase II. Access is provided from the east airport access road utilizing County Road 47. Employee and visitor parking are provided at the facility. This site is closest to the existing terminal complex for utility extensions.This site also can accommodate large aircraft storage and ' maintenance facilities. An FBO complex, ARFF, and control tower are alternatives for this site. 2004 7-6 fir / = ' ccociy MASTER PLAN AJRFL ' Phase II (7 - 10 years) North of Runway 9/27 and East of Runway 16/34: Development of this site will begin in Phase I and ' will continue into Phase II and III. Access is provided from the east airport access road utilizing County Road 47. Employee and visitor parking are provided at the facility. This site is closest to the existing terminal complex for utility extensions.This site also can accommodate large aircraft storage and maintenance facilities. An FBO complex, ARFF, and control tower are alternatives for this site. ' South of Runway 9/27 and East of Runway 16/34:This site is identified as having the potential to accommodate T-hangars or small box hangars. This site is also considered for a new fueling facility, ' maintenance facility, and ARFF facility (subject to travel times to runway ends). Phase III (11 - 20 years) ' North of Runway 9/27 and East of Runway 16/34: Development of this site will begin in Phase I and will continue into Phase II and III. Access is provided from the east airport access road utilizing County Road 47. Employee and visitor parking are provided at the facility. This site is closest to the existing terminal complex for utility extensions. This site also can accommodate large aircraft storage and maintenance facilities. An FBO complex, ARFF, and control tower are alternatives for this site. South of Runway 9/27 and East of Runway 16/34:This site is identified as having the potential to accommodate T-hangars or small box hangars. This site is also considered for a new fueling facility, maintenance facility, and ARFF facility (subject to travel times to runway ends). ' Other Development Potential East of Runway 16/34—Center: There is one additional large area on the airport property that has been ' designated for the long-term expansion of aviation-related facilities at the airport. The approximately 142- acre site is located on the east side of Runway 16/34, positioned in about the middle of the runway. The site can be developed with excellent landside access to both County Road 47 and then SH 263. The site will require an extension of the utility lines. This site could have many uses,including development of an air cargo facility, large aircraft storage, and maintenance facilities. East of Runway 16/34—North End: This site is private property and could have many uses,including the development of an air cargo facility. Landside access is available from County Roads 64 and 641/2. This site is remote from the existing terminal complex, thus requiring extensive utility systems to support ' the development.This site could accommodate large-scale development with through-the-fence access to the airfield. ' West of Runway 16/34—North End,Middle North,and Middle South:These sites are geometrically very similar and are discussed as a group. A cargo facility could potentially be developed at any one of these sites.There is good access to the airfield from the existing parallel taxiway on the west side of ' Runway 16/34.These sites are on private land. It is anticipated they would be developed by a private developer under a through-the-fence agreement with the Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority. Landside access would be from the west airport access road utilizing County roads 43, 62 and 45. Utilities 1 would be needed to support this development. These sites are large and could accommodate large development for large aircraft or a major manufacturing or industrial facilities. 2004 7-7 I MASTER PLAN ,] PICT ' North of Runway 9/27 and West of Runway 16/34:There are two potential development sites in this location with access to the airfield.The first site is on airport property. It has approximately 50 acres that could be developed from 3-acre sites to 6-acre sites and larger. Airfield access to this site would come ' from the west end of Runway 9/27 or from Taxiway C to the east. It is anticipated that development would begin at the closest airfield access point to minimize development cost. As part of the development, an apron edge taxilane would be provided that would ultimately connect the development at both ends. Landside access would be provided from the west airport access road utilizing County Roads 43 and 62 and then an on-airport access road development to the site. Utilities would need to be developed for the site. ' The second site west of Runway 6-34 is currently private land and includes approximately 60 acres.This site would access the airfield from Taxiway C with a through-the-fence development agreement with the ' Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority. Landside access and utilities are the same as for the first site. Industrial Aviation Alternatives ' In addition to the traditional types of general aviation facilities such as FBO facilities, aircraft hangars, and tie down areas,there has been a need identified for industrial aviation facilities at Greeley-Weld County Airport. These facilities require access to both the runway and taxiway system and the surface access system. In determining those areas to be considered for industrial aviation use, those sites meeting the following criteria will evaluated only after all the needs for other development has been accommodated: • Parcel size exceeding 10 acres • Access or potential for access to the airfield • Access to the area roadways ' • Reasonable topographic conditions Colorado Air National Guard: The Colorado Air National Guard, located on the south side of the ' airport, maintains a long-term lease hold of approximately 17 acres. The ALP illustrates the Guard's boundaries of the existing ground lease agreement. ' Railway Access: There is no rail access to the airport. Aviation Support Facilities ' Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Facility (ARFF) The Greeley-Weld County Airport does not have dedicated ARFF facility and one is not required ' according to its current certification. However, the Greeley-Weld County Airport has acquired a larger ARFF vehicle that requires a facility. It is anticipated a future facility can be a joint use facility with the fire department. ' Snow Removal and Maintenance Equipment (SRME) Building The Greeley-Weld County Airport is currently short on space to store maintenance equipment that should ' be stored inside. Space is reserved in the ALP for a future SRME building. 1 2004 7-8 I 1Lill Z.-Wit7 MASTER PLAN Jr'?L7tl Fuel Storage Facility The Greeley-Weld County Airport owns and leases an above-ground fuel storage facility and fueling equipment for the Trajen Flight Support. This facility has a 12,000-gallon Jet A tank, a 12,000-gallon 100LL tank,and a 2,000-gallon auto gas tank. The fuel storage facility is located on the south side of the airport, adjacent to the terminal apron. According to the future fuel storage requirements tabulated in the Chapter 4, the existing storage requirements for Jet-A fuel will likely need to be expanded within the ' initial years of the development plan. A site location for a future fuel storage facility is identified on the Airport Plans. Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT1 A benefit/cost analysis for the addition of a control tower was included in Chapter 4. The analysis ' indicates a benefit of 1.35, which shows justification for funding the construction and staffing the tower with FAA funds. The next step would be to prepare a siting study and review the benefit/cost analysis by the FAA. Space is reserved on the Airport Plans for possible ATCT locations. ' Miscellaneous Support Facilities Space is reserved on the Airport Plans for an aircraft wash rack and fuel truck parking containment pad. ' Airport Property Map The Airport Property Map,Exhibit VIII, indicates how various tracts of land within the airport boundaries were acquired (e.g., federal funds, surplus property, local funds, etc.). The purpose of the Airport Property Map is to provide information for analyzing the current and future aeronautical use of land acquired with federal funds. ' Land Use Drawing The Land Use Drawing depicts existing and recommended use of all land within the ultimate airport ' property line. The purpose of the Land Use Drawing is to provide airport management a plan for leasing revenue-producing areas on the airport. It can also provide guidance to local authorities for establishing appropriate land use zoning in the vicinity of the airport. ' Land Use Planning Guidelines The Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority is concerned about the development of land uses that are not ' compatible with the airport as well as aircraft noise. Other issues to be considered when addressing the overall issue of land use compatibility include safety and other environmental impacts to land around the Greeley-Weld County Airport. Although several federal programs include noise standards or guidelines as part of their funding-eligibility and performance criteria, the primary responsibility for integrating ' airport considerations into the local land use planning process rests with the governments of the city of Greeley and Weld County. The objectives of compatible land use planning are to encourage those land uses that are generally considered to be incompatible with airports (such as residential, schools, and ' churches) to locate away from airports and to encourage land uses that are more compatible with airports (such as industrial and commercial uses) to locate around airports. ' 2004 7-9 1 g4211 fy 1 ill 11.111471 MASTER PLAN 4, ,i�fi'f FM Actions Related to Land Use Planning While the FAA can provide assistance and funding to encourage compatible land development around airports, it has no regulatory authority for controlling land uses to protect airport capacity.The FAA recognizes that the state of Colorado, the city of Greeley, and Weld County governments are responsible for land use planning,zoning, and regulation, including the planning necessary to provide land use compatibility with the Greeley-Weld County Airport operations. ' However, pursuant to the Federal Airport and Airway Development Act, as a condition precedent to approval of an FAA-funded airport development project, the Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority must provide the FAA with written assurances that "...appropriate action,including the adoption of zoning laws have been or will be taken, to the extent reasonable, to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations including landing and takeoff of aircraft....." To assist in the compatible land use efforts, the FAA,city of Greeley and Weld County have expended ' significant funds related to airport planning and off-airport land use compatibility planning for the Greeley-Weld County Airport. The Greeley-Weld County Airport Master Plan has identified the near- term and long-range projections for airport activity and the development necessary to meet these activity ' demands. Roles and Responsibilities The roles and responsibilities listed here are not intended to be all-inclusive,but are identified to present the key roles and responsibilities of these entities related to compatible land use planning. ' Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): The FAA is responsible for the development of guidance related to federal laws and regulations affecting the aviation industry. This guidance is provided through the establishment of Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), FAA Orders, and FAA Advisory Circulars (ACs).The FAA also distributes funds to support the development of master plans, noise and land use ' studies, and environmental studies for airport development projects (which directly relate to the compatibility between the airport and aircraft activity with the local community), and the expansion and safe operation of airports and related aviation facilities. The FAA is also responsible for the utilization of airspace and control of aircraft flight through its air traffic control facilities; is responsible for the implementation of flight standards (airworthiness of aircraft ' and noise emissions of aircraft, for example); is responsible for navigation aids and other facilities necessary to provide a safe and efficient air system; and is responsible for ensuring that airports that receive federal funding are in compliance with grant assurances. Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority: The Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority is responsible for the development of information to support the land use compatibility planning. This support includes ' the preparation of master plans, noise compatibility and land use studies,community involvement programs, and the interaction with local planners and elected officials related to land use compatibility. City of Greeley and Weld County Government and Elected Officials: The city of Greeley and Weld ' County land use planners and elected officials are responsible for local land use zoning and control.These entities and individuals are responsible for preparation of comprehensive plans and reviewing and implementing zoning and land use regulations in a manner that considers the effects related to local 2004 7-10 fiilPWiY MASTER PLAN � RJ ' airport facilities and aviation activity. These responsibilities include paying particular attention to noise impact mitigation,tall structure location, landfill development, and wildlife interaction with aviation activity in addition to other infrastructure interface considerations. Land Use Patterns around General Aviation Airports The roles and responsibilities for land use compatibility planning and implementation and the requirements that have been placed on each entity and individual involved are critical to the land use planning process. More important, however,is the knowledge that these roles and responsibilities must be interwoven for successful land use compatibility planning to occur. Land use plans (comprehensive plans) ' prepared by the city of Greeley and Weld County recognize the implications of planning for airports and off-site airport related development. In fact, local land use planning as a method of determining appropriate and inappropriate use of properties in and around airports should be an integral and important ' part of the whole package of land use policy and regulatory tools used by both the Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority and the city of Greeley and Weld County land use planners. Preparation and adoption of land use plans should serve as the beginning point, setting policy for the following activation of local ' land use regulatory tools, such as zoning, subdivision regulations,building codes,and avigation easements. As attempts are made to coordinate city and county land use planning with the Greeley-Weld County Airport Master Plan, an important fact to recognize is that very often such coordination is significantly hampered by the fact that the airport facilities are surrounded by the city of Greeley and Weld County each having local government jurisdictions. Each of these jurisdictions has final authority to adopt and enforce its own local land regulatory tools.Thus,coordination between the Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority and the city of Greeley and Weld County land use planners becomes critical. Incompatible Land Uses Incompatible land uses around the Greeley-Weld County Airport jeopardize the safety and efficiency of flying activities and the quality of life of the community's residents. Incompatible airport land uses ' include residential development, schools, community centers and libraries, hospitals, and buildings used for religious services and tall structures, smoke and electrical signal generators landfills and other bird/wildlife attractants. New housing demands generated by increased population are one of the contributing factors to incompatible land uses around general aviation airports. Communities are often confronted with the need and desire to expand their tax base by increasing residential and business development. Residential development, particularly high-density development,is not compatible with airport operations due to aircraft noise impacts and for safety reasons. The siting of tall towers and other height hazards around an airport also creates an incompatible land use. Towers in the airport airspace can endanger the safety of flight activity, the flying public, and people and property on the ground.The current proliferation of tall telecommunications towers likely will be followed by the rush of telecommunications companies to site digital towers. Siting towers in industrial parks, which are normally compatible uses with airports, tends to complicate the land use compatibility issue. Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority Commitment The Authority is responsible to the extent reasonable for ensuring that land uses around the airport are compatible with existing and future airport operations. The Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority will 2004 7-11 MASTER PLAN /47r iAV ' initiate coordination efforts with surrounding communities to ensure that existing and future airport development is compatible with the land use plan for the area. Land Use Controls for the Greeley-Weld County Airport The proposed Land Use Planning Zones and land use zoning for each planning zone are identified below. ' The FAA does not regulate off-airport land use other than the criteria regarding air navigation safety provided in FAR Part 77. However, the FAA does support general aviation airports to implement Land Use Planning Zones as a land use compatibility tool.The specific areas,both on and off airport property, that are included in the planning zones are based on aircraft accident investigation data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Figure 7.2 illustrates the dimensions and locations of each of the following Land Use Planning Zones: • Land Use Planning Zone 1 —Runway Protection Zone • Land Use Planning Zone 2—Inner Safety Zone ' • Land Use Planning Zone 3 —Inner Turning Zone (60-degree sector) • Land Use Planning Zone 4—Outer Safety Zone • Land Use Planning Zone 5 —Sideline Safety Zone ' • Land Use Planning Zone 6—Traffic Pattern Zone In locations where the Land Use Planning Zones are within multiple jurisdictions, representatives from ' each jurisdiction would be involved in the planning and implementation process. Appropriate land use zoning should be established to ensure compatibility of land uses and development densities around the Greeley-Weld County Airport. Zoning also would control the construction of tall structures in the airport's airspace,electronic interference with the airport's navigation aids, and wildlife attractants around the airport. The Compatible Land Use Matrix shown in Table 7-1 lists recommended land uses and densities of land development depending on the particular Land Use Planning Zone. For example, the recommended land use in Zones 1, 2 and 5 would prohibit residential development and allow low-density(less than five people per acre)industrial development. Recommended land uses in Zones 3 and 4 would range from ' zero to low-density residential development and industrial development ranging from 25 to 40 people per acre. Recommended land uses in Land Use Planning Zone 6 would allow low-density residential development and industrial development accommodating fewer than 100 people per acre. Once zoning is adopted for Land Use Planning Zones, proposals for development in the zones will be evaluated by the jurisdictional bodies responsible for land use around the airport. The Compatible Land Use Plan is based on several major elements: the Airport Influence Area, the Airport Critical Zones, the Traffic Pattern Airspace, and the 65 DNL Noise Contours that were discussed in Section 6 of this Master Plan. Exhibit IX depicts the Airport Influence Area, the Critical Zones and ' the Traffic Pattern Airspace for the Greeley-Weld County Airport. Airport Influence Areas are defined as property within the vicinity of the airport where particular land uses are either influenced by or will influence the operation of the airport. These influences can either be positive or negative. It is recommended that all new development within these areas be covered by an Avigation Easement allowing aircraft to operate within the development area. This is accomplished through the platting and subdivision process for all residential development,as well as office and ' 2004 7-12 ' MASTER PLAN q '"j industrial type development. It is also recommended that public buildings, such as schools and hospitals, that lie within the confines of the Airport Influence Area be sound attenuated to achieve an interior noise level reduction of 25 db as required by FAR Part 150. Critical Zones are rectangular areas off of the end of the runways. There are two types of critical zones per this Land Use Plan. They are defines as large and small based on the whether or not the runway has ' an Instrument Landing System (ILS) in place or is planned for in the future. The ILS runway requires a "large" critical zone. This zone starts 200 feet off of the end of the runway and is centered on the runway. The zone is 4,000 feet wide and is 10,000 feet in length. Both Runways 9/27 and 16/34 require the ' "large" critical zones as depicted on Exhibit IX. The"small"critical zone also starts 200 feet off of the end and is centered on the runway. It is 2,000 feet ' wide and is 5,000 feet in length. The size of these zones is based on criteria found in the Model Land Use Regulations that are published by the Colorado Land Use Commission under House Bill 1041 and Section 24-65.1-101 et seq., CRS 1973 of the Colorado Land Use Compatibility Guidelines. It is recommended that all residential and public type buildings within the critical zones of and airport be ' prohibited for reasons of aircraft and human safety,flight track dispersion and single-event noise level irritation. Traffic Pattern Airspace includes areas within the vicinity of the airport that control the traffic flow of aircraft. The areas consist of four different legs that an aircraft is required to travel for safe operations around the airport. The four legs are the upwind leg, the crosswind leg, the downwind leg, and the base ' leg. These legs make up a rectangular route and are typically known as a left-hand pattern or a right-hand pattern. The left-hand pattern is the most common as it consists of a series of left-hand turns. The pilot sits on the left side of the aircraft and, therefore, this pattern provides the pilot a continuous view of the airport. Right-hand patterns are not typical, but may be used in certain circumstances, such as when a highly populated the area exists below the left-hand pattern airspace. Exhibit IX depicts the traffic pattern airspace for the Greeley-Weld County Airport. Runways 16,34 and ' 9 all have left hand patterns while Runway 27 has a right hand pattern. 1 2004 7-13 I MASTER PLAN #11O4071 ' industrial type development. It is also recommended that public buildings, such as schools and hospitals, that lie within the confines of the Airport Influence Area be sound attenuated to achieve an interior noise level reduction of 25 db as required by FAR Part 150 . Critical Zones are rectangular areas off of the end of the runways . There are two types of critical zones per this Land Use Plan. They are defines as large and small based on the whether or not the runway has an Instrument Landing System (ILS) in place or is planned for in the future. The ILS runway requires a "large" critical zone. This zone starts 200 feet off of the end of the runway and is centered on the runway. The zone is 4,000 feet wide and is 10,000 feet in length. Both Runways 9/27 and 16/34 require the "large" critical zones as depicted on Exhibit IX. The "small" critical zone also starts 200 feet off of the end and is centered on the runway. It is 2,000 feet wide and is 5 ,000 feet in length. The size of these zones is based on criteria found in the Model Land Use Regulations that are published by the Colorado Land Use Commission under House Bill 1041 and Section 24-65 . 1 - 101 et seq. , CRS ' 1973 of the Colorado Land Use Compatibility Guidelines. It is recommended that all residential and public type buildings within the critical zones of and airport be prohibited for reasons of aircraft and human safety, flight track dispersion and single-event noise level irritation. Traffic Pattern Airspace includes areas within the vicinity of the airport that control the traffic flow of aircraft. The areas consist of four different legs that an aircraft is required to travel for safe operations around the airport. The four legs are the upwind leg , the crosswind leg, the downwind leg , and the base leg . These legs make up a rectangular route and are typically known as a left-hand pattern or a right-hand pattern . The left-hand pattern is the most common as it consists of a series of left-hand turns . The pilot sits on the left side of the aircraft and, therefore, this pattern provides the pilot a continuous view of the airport. Right-hand patterns are not typical, but may be used in certain circumstances , such as when a highly populated the area exists below the left-hand pattern airspace. Exhibit IX depicts the traffic pattern airspace for the Greeley-Weld County Airport. Runways 16 , 34 and ' 9 all have left hand patterns while Runway 27 has a right hand pattern. 2004 7- 13 I I MAS/ER PLAN ,/// I - II , ec0.ro• 1 § g I ,o, 00• 10 2 :7;1,I el ' ® & L, s‘ r46, g 1 i @.). J0J 0'u' I I 30fl CO' 1- IJ4J Jc I I I((O.W 1400000' I ' LEGEND RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE ' I ® INNER SAFETY ZONE IINNER TURNING ZONE IOUTER SAFELY ZONE ' ® SIDELINE SAFETY ZONE (-6-':, TRAFFIC PATTERN ZONE ' Figure 7.2 Lard Use lrinntng Zones I 1 MASTER PLAN JfM 07:IhJ I Table 7-1 Compatible Land Use Matrix I Land Use Land Use Land Use Planning Characteristics Guidelines Land Use Planning Strategies Zone I 1. 0-5 people/acre Avoid land use which 2. Airport sponsor should purchase property if possible. Population Density concentrate people 3. Zone land uses, which by their nature will be indoors or outdoors relatively unoccupied by people (i.e., mini-storage, I small parking lots). 1. Create a height hazard overlay ordinance around the airport. I 2. Airport sponsor should purchase property if possible. Prohibit all residential 3. Airport sponsor should obtain avigation and land uses. All non- obstruction easements. Residential vs. residential land uses 4. During site development process, shift all structures I Non-Residential permitted outright away from the runway centerlines if possible. 5. Land Use subject to the Landscaping requirements shall establish only low Zone 1 Population Density growing vegetation. and Special Function 6. Prohibit high overhead outdoor lighting. I Land Use guidelines. 7. Require downward shading of lighting to reduce glare. 8. Evaluate all possible permitted conditional uses to assure compatible land use. I 1. Prohibit overhead utilities and all noise-sensitive land uses. 2. Zone land for uses other than for schools, play fields, I Special Function Prohibit all Special hospitals, nursing homes, daycare facilities and Land Use Function Land Uses churches. 3. Limit storage of large quantities of hazardous or flammable material. I 4. Ensure permitted uses will not create large areas of standing water, or generate smoke/steam, etc. I I I I I I 2004 7-15 MASTER PLAN ____j:417 16 ' Land Use Land Use Land Use Planning Characteristics Guidelines Land Use Planning Strategies ' Zone Avoid land use which 1. 0-5 people/acre. 2. Zone land uses, which by their nature will be Population Density concentrate people ndoors or outdoors relatively unoccupied by people(i.e., mini-storage, ismall parking lots). 1. Create a height hazard overlay ordinance around the airport. 2. Airport sponsor should obtain avigation and Prohibit all residential obstruction easements. Land uses. All non- 3. During site development process, shift all structures Residential vs. residential land uses away from the runway centerlines if possible. ' Non-Residential permitted outright 4. Prohibit mobile home parks. Land Use subject to the 5. Landscaping requirements shall establish only low Population Density growing vegetation. Zone 2 and Special Function 6. Prohibit high overhead outdoor lighting. ' Land Use guidelines. 7. Require downward shading of lighting to reduce glare. 8. Evaluate all possible permitted conditional uses to assure compatible land use. ' 1. Prohibit overhead utilities and all noise-sensitive land uses. 2. Zone land for uses other than for schools, play fields, Special Function Prohibit all Special hospitals, nursing homes, daycare facilities and Land Use Function Land Uses churches. 3. Limit storage of large quantities of hazardous or flammable material. 4. Ensure permitted uses will not create large areas of standing water, or generate smoke/steam, etc. 1 1 ' 2004 7-16 I SRA7 Th gliri 77 I MASTER PLAN Alill ILand Use Land Use Land Use Planning Characteristics Guidelines Land Use Planning Strategies I Zone Avoid land use which 1. <25 people/acre. 2. Zone land uses, which by their nature will be Population Density concentrate people ndoors or outdoors relatively unoccupied by people (i.e., mini-storage, i1 small parking lots). 1. Create a height hazard overlay ordinance around the Limit residential airport. I development to 1 2. Airport sponsor should obtain avigation and dwelling unit per 5 obstruction easements. 3. During site development process, shift all structures acres, away from the runway centerlines if possible. Residential vs. I 4. Prohibit mobile home parks. Non-Residential All non-residential 5. Landscaping requirements shall establish only low Land Use land uses permitted growing vegetation. outright subject to 6. Prohibit high overhead outdoor lighting. Zone 3 the Special Function 7. Require downward shading of lighting to reduce Land Useglare. Guidelines. 8. Evaluate all possible permitted conditional uses to assure compatible land use. ' 1. Prohibit overhead utilities and all noise-sensitive land uses. 2. Zone land for uses other than for schools, play fields, hospitals, nursing homes, daycare facilities Special Function Prohibit all Special and churches. Land Use Function Land Uses 3. Limit storage of large quantities of hazardous or flammable material. ' 4. Ensure permitted uses will not create large areas of standing water, or generate smoke/steam, etc. I I I I I I I2004 7-17 /7/1101 MASTER PLAN JBEI3V7 1/2fill' ' Land Use Land Use Land Use Planning Characteristics Guidelines Land Use Planning Strategies ' Zone Avoid land use which 1. <40 people/acre in buildings, <75 persons/acre Population Density concentrate people outside • pbuildings. indoors or outdoors ' Maximum 1 du/5 1. Create a height hazard overlay ordinance around acre in rural area, the airport. 1du/2.5 acre in urban 2. Airport sponsor should obtain avigation easements. 3. Clustered development to maintain density as long area. as open space remains unbuilt. Place clustered Residential vs. development away from extended runway Non-Residential All non-residential centerline. Land Use land uses permitted' 4 prohibit mobile home parks.outright subject to 5. Require downward shading of lighting to reduce the Special Function glare. Zone 4 Land Use 6. Evaluate all possible permitted conditional uses to Guidelines. assure compatible land use. ' 1. Evaluate noise-sensitive land uses in light of aircraft noise contour lines (if available) when establishing ' new zoning. 2. Prohibit high overhead utilities and all noise- sensitive land uses. Special Function Prohibit all Special 3. Zone land for uses other than for schools, play Land Use Function Land Uses fields, hospitals, nursing homes, daycare facilities and churches. 4. Limit storage of large quantities of hazardous or flammable material. 5. Ensure permitted uses will not create large areas of standing water, or generate smoke/steam, etc. I ' 2004 7-18 IA 114Yc 17 1 MASTER PLAN „l gicilf'Tj ILand Use Land Use Land Use Planning Land Use Planning Strategies Characteristics Guidelines ' Zone Avoid land use which 1. 0-5 people/acre. 2. Zone land uses,which by their nature will be Population Density concentrate people I indoors or outdoors relatively unoccupied by people(i.e., mini-storage, small parking lots). 1. Airport sponsor should purchase property if possible. I 2. Create a height hazard overlay ordinance around the airport. Prohibit all residential 3. Airport sponsor should obtain avigation and land uses. All non- obstruction easements. I residential land uses 4. During site development process, shift all structures Residential vs. P permitted outright away from the runway centerlines if possible. Non-Residential Uential subject to the Land Use Population Density 5. Landscaping requirements shall establish only low Zone 5 and Special Function growing vegetation. ' Land Use guidelines. 6. Prohibit high overhead outdoor lighting. 7. Require downward shading of lighting to reduce glare. 8. Evaluate all possible permitted conditional uses to I assure compatible land use. 1. Prohibit overhead utilities and all noise-sensitive land uses. I 2. Zone land for uses other than for schools, play Special Function Prohibit all Special fields, hospitals, nursing homes, daycare facilities and churches. Land Use Function Land Uses 3. Limit storage of large quantities of hazardous or I flammable material. 4. Ensure permitted uses will not create large areas of standing water, or generate smoke/steam, etc. IAvoid land use which 1. <100 people/acre in buildings, <150 persons/acre Population Density concentrate people outside buildings. indoors or outdoors I 2. Create a height hazard overlay ordinance around Maximum 1 du/5 the airport. acre in rural area, 3. Airport sponsor should obtain avigation easements. I 1 du/2.5 acre in urban 4. Clustered development to maintain density as long area. as open space remains unbuilt. Place clustered Residential vs. development away from extended runway Zone 6 Non-Residential All non-residential centerline. I Land Use land uses permitted 5. Prohibit mobile home parks. outright subject to 6. Require downward shading of lighting to reduce the Special Function glare. Land Use 7. Evaluate all possible permitted conditional uses to I Guidelines. assure compatible land use. 1. Prohibit all Special Function Land Uses. Special Function Prohibit all Special 2. Evaluate noise sensitive land uses in light of aircraft I Land Use Function Land Uses. noise contour lines (if available)when establishing new zoning. I2004 7-19 I lq'fflr = ovy MASTER PLAN �I}Yflf�?T 8.0 Development Program ' This chapter presents a Financial Plan and a Capital Improvement Plan for the Greeley-Weld County Airport. ' Financial Plan Estimates of airport operating revenues and expenses provide a measure of an Greeley-Weld County Airport's ability to fund its operation. Airport revenues are derived from activities conducted by aircraft ' users and businesses at the facility. Activity cost centers include Airport management,operation and maintenance and their associated expenses. Airport capital improvements funded with or without federal and state grants are excluded from the evaluation of Airport operating expenses. The net operating income (revenues less expenses) is available for debt service programs to implement capital improvements, or may be used for direct payment in full of such improvements. Net operating income surpluses can also be accumulated until required for future expenditures or held in reserve to offset losses ' in subsequent years or for other purposes. This practice is consistent with the requirement that funds generated at federally obligated airports (those receiving federal grants)be used exclusively for airport operations and improvements. Diversion of such funds for other purposes is contrary to these federal regulations. The sections that follow review the rationale utilized to generate pro forma statements of Greeley-Weld County Airport operating revenues and expenses. Observations concerning means to increase net Airport operating income also are provided. The results of this evaluation serve as a component of the financial plan that includes funding the recommended Greeley-Weld County Airport Capital Improvement Program. Operating Revenues The Greeley-Weld County Airport generates operating revenue from a number of sources. These include: • The lease of land that has been improved through private investment with hangars and other facilities. Examples include privately owned hangars and farming operations. t • Rental of facilities owned by the Airport, principally a number of T-hangars, portions of the terminal building and other buildings on the Airport property. ' • Rental of based aircraft tiedown spaces on the Airport east ramp. • The sale of aviation fuel, which includes a$0.06 per gallon fuel flowage fee assessed to all users receiving fuel delivered at the Airport; receipt of two-thirds of the sales tax, or$0.04 per gallon, ' on non-commercial jet fuel sold at the Airport as returned from the state of Colorado through its Entitlement Refund program; and an excise tax of$0.04 per gallon collected by the state on the sale of all aviation fuel. • Oil and gas leases for wells located on the Airport property. • Various miscellaneous sources, such as operator licenses issued by the Airport and earnings on investments. ' 2004 8-1 siUf 11.111/AW MASTER PLAN 1 Projections of future annual operating revenues were prepared on the following basis: • The 20-year aviation activity demand levels presented in Chapters 3 and 4 will be realized. • The terminal area facilities development program will provide for the use of existing terminal area for the smaller general aviation aircraft. Larger corporate and commercial aircraft activity centers will be assigned to the northeast quadrant of the Airport site(previously described as alternatives). • Existing leases and other rates and charges reflect current market value. The current base ground rent is $0.18 per square foot. • Lease rates will be adjusted with increases tied to the Consumer Price Index for the Denver- Greeley-Boulder region. An annual increase of two percent was anticipated. ' • At the conclusion of a lease term, the tenant has the option to improve the facilities to meet applicable building codes and Airport protective covenants as needed,or remove the facilities from the Airport and leave the remaining land area in an undisturbed state. This reflects the deletion of the reversion clause in existing leases and its substitution with the above conditions as currently contemplated by the Airport. • Revenue derived from the sale of fuel will be linked to aircraft operations forecasts at the current per gallon rates. • Future aircraft hangars will be privately financed, and the Airport will receive a ground rent at the rate applicable at the time of the lease. • Future public-use aircraft tiedown areas will be constructed with federal and state grant ' participation and included as part of the fixed base operator leasehold. Ground rents will be charged for these apron facilities. • Operating revenues are derived from those Airport facility and land resources required to meet ' the 20-year aviation demand. This includes a 1.5-acre site for another fixed base operator in the proposed new general aviation corporate and commercial site. • Revenues that may be derived from the lease of Airport land for other uses or as compensation ' for through-the-fence activity are not included in the projections. ' Table 8.1 presents the pro forma statement of annual operating revenue for each of the major sources. In 2002, operating revenue totaled about $540,000. Over the 20-year planning horizon, operating revenues are expected to increase to about$1.01 million. This represents an average annual rate of about 3.2 percent and reflects the growth in Airport facilities. Oil and gas wells are expected to generate operating revenue through the forecast horizon. However, these operations may be discontinued in the longer term should the land area be required for aviation purposes. The table segregates the ground rents received from existing leaseholds and those to be constructed over time to illustrate the contribution of these new facilities to the Airport revenue stream. ' 2004 8-2 a M N I M M - a s M MI I M M IIIIII MI MI - I N ATable 8.1 Pro Forma Operating Revenues y m Ground Rents XI Hangar I� Year Based State Excise Fuel Rents Existing New Oil and Gas Office Space Jet Fuel Facilities Facilities Aircraft Leases Leases Sales Tax Tax Flowage Miscellaneous Total Z Tiedown Distribution Fees 2002 231,840 210,511 0 2,450 6,475 9,570 12,138 24,079 23,657 19,435 540,155 2003 236,477 214,721 0 2,499 6,605 9,761 12,670 24,739 24,305 19,824 551,600 2004 241,206 219,016 0 2,549 6737 9,957 13,225 25,417 24,971 20,220 563,297 2005 246,030 223,396 0 2,600 6,871 10,156 13,804 26,113 25,655 20,625 575,250 2006 250,951 227,864 0 2,652 7,009 10,359 14,408 26,829 26,358 21,037 587,467 2007 255,970 232,421 73,897 2,705 7,149 10,566 15,040 27564 27,081 21,458 673,850 2008 261,089 237,070 75,375 2,759 7,292 10,777 15,458 27,839 27,351 21,887 686,898 2009 266,311 241,811 76,883 2,814 7,438 10,993 15,887 28,118 27,625 22,325 700,205 2010 271,638 246,647 78,421 2,871 7,586 11,213 16,329 28,399 27,901 22,771 713,776 2011 277,070 251,580 79,989 2,928 7,738 11,437 16,783 28,683 28,180 23,227 727,615 2012 282,612 256,612 111,210 2,987 7,893 11,666 17,250 28,970 28,462 23,691 771,351 2013 288264 261,744 113,435 3,046 8,051 11,899 17,800 29,230 28,718 24,165 786,352 2014 294,029 266,979 115,703 3,107 8,212 12,137 18,368 29,493 28,977 24,648 801,653 2015 299,910 272,318 118,017 3,169 8,376 12,380 18,954 29,759 29,237 25,141 817,261 2016 305,908 277,765 120,378 3,233 8,544 12,627 19,558 30,027 29,500 25,644 833,184 2017 312,026 283,320 154,279 3,297 8,714 12,880 20,182 30,297 29,766 26,157 880,919 2018 318,267 288,986 157,364 3,363 8,889 13,138 20,810 30,585 30,049 26,680 898,130 L.. 2019 324,632 294,766 160,511 3,431 9,067 13,400 21,457 30,875 30,334 27,214 915,687 , 2020 331,125 300,662 163,722 3,499 9,248 13,668 22,124 31,169 30,622 27,758 933,597 �` 2021 337,747 306,675 166,995 3,569 9,433 13,942 22,812 31,465 30,913 28,313 951,864 t3ti 2022 344,502 312,808 210,457 3,641 9,622 14,221 23,522 31,764 31,207 28,879 1,010,622 co ...."*--1 -C ' SHELLY PA1/27/111/4/17 1 MASTER PLAN iiilfi // ' Operating Expenses The Greeley-Weld County Airport incurs costs to manage, operate and maintain the facilities that it owns. In 2002, these operating costs totaled about $484,000 of which nearly$268,000,or 55 percent, was for salary and wage costs. This is a common feature of the operating cost structure at airports of comparable size, activity level and management organization. Major categories of Greeley-Weld County Airport operating expenses are presented in Table 8-2. Unlike the operating revenues that increase at rates linked to the consumer price index, the costs to manage, operate and maintain the Airport are expected to increase at slightly higher rates. The impacts of ' increased security requirements,utility and insurance rates, and the maintenance of facilities as they age prior to their replacement are some of the underlying reasons for a higher rate of growth in Airport operating expenses. Lease terms and the marketplace govern the extent to which these cost increases may ' be passed along to users of the Airport. The Greeley-Weld County Airport staff currently includes an airport manager, office manager, assistant ' airport manager and three maintenance staff. As Airport activity increases and new airfield and terminal area facilities become established either through Airport or private funds, the number of Airport staff will need to increase in order to maintain the level of service now afforded. Forthcoming security ' requirements for general aviation airports will likely increase the number of hours for staff to be on site, thus necessitating additional work shifts of personnel. Currently, Airport staff provides on-site coverage 7 days per week 7 (d/w), 9 hours per day (9 h/d). Security requirements imposed by federal agencies at general aviation airports could gradually increase that coverage to 7 d/w, 24 h/d.The need for an ' individual experienced in marketing on-airport land areas for revenue production may also be a desirable addition to the staff. Funding for this position could be shared with the city of Greeley and/or Weld County and is considered justified early in the 20-year planning horizon. Specific trigger events for staff changes are presented in Table 8-3. Staffing of the planned air traffic control tower will be addressed in its entirety by the FAA because the ' governing benefit/cost ratio is anticipated to exceed 1.00 in each year. As indicated in Table 8-3, it is expected that the Airport staff will gain in number incrementally and eventually double to 12 people by the year 2022. Salary and wage costs are expected to increase at an average annual rate of 2 percent reflecting staff turnover and changes in pay grade as less experienced staff join the Airport operation and more senior staff advance to careers at other airports. The combination of increases in staff and salary and wage costs for the largest component of Greeley- Weld County Airport operating expenses yields a substantial,but necessary, increase to nearly$779,000 by 2022. 2004 8-4 IMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIMIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIOIIMII O A Table 8.2 to Pro Forma Operating Expenses y m Xi Salary Office Supplies Buildings, 13 and and Professional Grounds, Equipment and Wage Administrative Services Equipment Repair Land Year Costs Utilities Expenses (non-grant) and Maintenance Insurance Improvements Miscellaneous Total Z 2002 267,934 44,764 29,104 11,707 20,871 37,525 44,896 27,342 484,143 2003 273,293 49,240 29,686 12,292 21,497 41,278 45,794 27,889 500,969 2004 341,183 54,164 30,280 12,907 22,142 45,405 46,710 28,447 581,238 2005 392,577 59,581 30,885 13,552 22,806 49,946 47,644 29,016 646,007 2006 445,891 65,539 31,503 14,230 23,490 54,940 48,597 29,596 713,787 2007 501,180 78,647 32,133 14,941 24,195 57,687 49,569 30,188 788,541 2008 511,203 84,545 32,776 15,688 24,921 60,572 50,560 30,792 811,057 2009 521,427 90,886 33,431 16,473 25,669 63,600 51,571 31,407 834,465 2010 531,856 97,703 34,100 17,297 26,439 66,780 52,603 32,036 858,813 2011 542,493 105,030 34,782 18,161 27,232 70,119 53,655 32,676 884,149 2012 553,343 126,036 35,478 19,069 28,049 72,223 54,728 33,330 922,256 2013 564,410 132,338 36,187 20,023 28,890 74,390 55,823 33,996 946,057 2014 620,087 138,955 36,911 21,024 29,757 76,621 56,939 34,676 1,014,971 2015 632,488 145,903 37,649 22,075 30,650 78,920 58,078 35,370 1,041,133 2016 645,138 153,198 38,402 23,179 31,569 81,288 _ 59,239 36,077 1,068,091 2017 658,041 183,838 39,170 24,338 32,516 83,726 60,424 36,799 1,118,852 2018 671202 188,434 39,954 25,555 33,492 86,238 61,633 37,535 1,144,041 2019 684,626 193,144 40,753 26,833 34,497 88,825 62,865 38,285 1,169,828 2020 698,318 197,973 41,568 28,174 35,531 91,490 64,123 39,051 1,196,228 `'..1/21/4---- 2021 712,285 202,922 42,399 29,583 36,597 94,235 65,405 39,832 1,223,258 Q� �i1 h 2022 778,538 243,507 43,247 31,062 37,695 97,062 66,713 40,629 1,338,453 in ,C rm.,: I irMASTER PLAN I Table 8-3 Airport Staffing Requirements I Staffing Level Year Trigger Event Airport Land Development Operations Maintenance Total Manager Marketing Manager 2002 Current 1 0 2 3 6 I Revenue 2003 enhancement 1 1 2 3 7 Security 2004 1 1 2 3 7 7 d/w 12 h/d I 2005 Security 7d/w 16 hid 1 1 3 3 8 Security 2006 1 1 4 3 9 7 d/w 20 h/d I 2007 Security 1 1 5 3 10 7 d/w 24 h/d 2008- None 1 1 5 3 10 2013 2014 New facilities 1 1 5 4 11 2015- None 1 1 5 4 11 2021 I2022 New facilities 1 1 5 5 12 The cost for utilities (electricity, water, gas and telephone) will increase over time as unit rates rise and new facilities are maintained and operated by the Greeley-Weld County Airport are established. These I include lighted taxiways and the air traffic control tower. These could double the number and size of facilities requiring utility services. Utility rates were expected to increase at 10 percent for each of the next 5 years and decrease incrementally to 2.5 percent for the last 5 years of the planning horizon. IInsurance costs also reflect higher rates in the early years of the projections and then are expected to moderate over the remaining 15 years. This assumes that future acts of terrorism on the scale of ISeptember 11, 2001, are not repeated worldwide. Equipment and land improvements reflect the acquisition of new ground service and maintenance Ivehicles over time. The contemplated elimination of the reversion clause and the reliance on private funding for terminal area I improvements enables the cost for buildings and grounds repair and maintenance to increase at a moderate level of three percent annually. Overall, Greeley-Weld County Airport operating expenses are estimated to increase to about$1.34 Imillion by 2022. Salary and wage costs will account for about 58 percent of the total operating expenses, a slightly higher percentage than at present. INet Operating Income Table 8.4 presents a summary of the net operating income for the Greeley-Weld County Airport. The results indicate an operating surplus in the initial years that demonstrates a decreasing trend.The annual I losses increase in each subsequent year, reaching nearly$328,000 by 2022. Thus, subsidization of the Airport by the city of Greeley and Weld County will be required if the assumptions used in preparing the pro forma statements of operating revenues and expenses are realized. The economic impact of the I2004 8-6 �'i�r'f1/y' ' MASTER PLAN Airport on these communities more than offsets the subsidy level and is a common result at general aviation airports. The Colorado Aeronautics Division sponsored an Economic Impact Study of the public- use airports in the state. Utilizing 2002 data, the study estimated that the Greeley-Weld County Airport ' generated an annual economic activity of approximately$40.3 million. This value represents a measure of the aviation and aviation-related services plus intermediate goods and services derived from users of the Greeley-Weld County Airport. The Airport was also estimated to generate annual earnings of about ' $35.8 million, which measures the total wages and salaries paid to all persons who directly or indirectly owe their jobs to aviation activity at the facility. In 2002, approximately 1,631 jobs were created by aviation activity conducted at the Airport. ' Observations The net operating income levels shown in Table 8-4 could be improved by considering the following ' items: 1. Greeley-Weld County Airport operating revenues could be based on a higher consumer price ' index. At an annual rate of 3 percent,the effect would be to increase operating revenues by about$52,000 to approximately$1.06 million by 2022, A consumer price index annual rate of growth of 5 percent yields a total operating income of nearly $1.20 million in 2022, a gain ' of approximately$186,000. Thus, the use of higher consumer price indices, while beneficial, is insufficient to offset the net operating loss in its entirety. Other means to increase operating revenues should be explored and these are presented below. ' 2. The Greeley-Weld County Airport has land resources available that could be developed by the private sector. Uses could be for aviation or non-aviation purposes. Large parcels include those east of Runway 16/34, north of Runway 9/27 and in the approach to Runway 9. Five ' parcels totaling nearly 235 acres could be placed under a land lease. At the current rate of $0.18 per square foot, these parcels have the potential to generate an annual ground rent revenue of approximately$1.88 million. If adjusted to a consumer price index that increases 2 percent annually, these parcels could generate some $2.79 million in ground rents in 2022. Either contribution to the Airport's revenue stream would reverse annual net operating losses to surpluses. ' 2004 8-7 I MASTER PLAN jAgRficiF 'Pf/figiVi i I Table 8-4 Pro Forma Net Operating Income ' Operating Cumulative Net Year Revenue Expenses Net Income Operating Income 2002 540,155 484,143 56,012 56,012 ' 2003 551,600 500,969 50,631 106,643 2004 563,297 581,238 -17,941 88,702 I 2005 575,250 646,007 -70,757 17,945 2006 587,467 713,787 -126,320 -108,375 2007 673,850 788,541 -114,691 -223,066 2008 686,898 811,057 -124,159 -347,225 2009 700,205 834,465 -134,260 -481,485 I 2010 713,776 858,813 -145,037 -626,522 2011 727,615 884,149 -156,534 -783,056 . 2012 771,351 922,256 -150,905 -933,961 I 2013 786,352 946,057 -159,705 -1,093,666 2014 801,653 1,014,971 -213,318 -1,306,984 2015 817,261 1,041,133 -223,872 -1,530,856 I2016 833,184 1,068,091 -234,907 -1,765,763 2017 880,919 1,118,852 -237,933 -2,003,696 I 2018 898,130 1,144,041 -245,911 -2,249,607 2019 915,687 1,169,828 -254,141 -2,503,748 2020 933,597 1,196,228 -262,631 -2,766,379 I2021 951,864 1,223,258 -271,394 -3,037,773 2022 1,010,622 1,338,453 -327,831 -3,365,604 1 3. Property owners adjacent to the Greeley-Weld County Airport could elect to develop their land and seek access to the Airport in through-the-fence operations. Such operations are I discouraged by the FAA, which would prefer that the Airport own and thereby control the use of the land. However, federal funds for acquisition would be unlikely as these land areas are not required for aviation purposes. Thus, the Greeley-Weld County Airport would need to I raise the funds to acquire the properties. This scenario is considered unlikely. The Airport can, however, exact control over the use of these land areas through an access agreement that also assesses the same ground rent paid by on-airport tenants and thereby overcome federal ' objections. A 64-acre parcel west of the existing terminal area and south of Runway 9/27 is a candidate I for through-the-fence operations. If 10 percent of the area, approximately 6 acres, were actually developed for aeronautical-related activities, the annual ground rent at the current rate would be nearly $48,000. This revenue helps to offset the projected net operating loss in each year of the planning horizon. I 2004 8-8 MASTER PLAN1a'?11T 4. Greeley-Weld County Airport operating expenses could be reduced if no new facilities were provided at the Airport. The land development marketing manager position could be eliminated as well as additional maintenance staff. Associated costs for utilities and building grounds,equipment repair and materials would also be reduced. It is estimated that the impact of a no new facilities policy would reduce annual operating costs to about$1.04 million or by ' $294,000 at 2022. A no new facilities policy also would reduce annual operating revenues from the loss of ground rents. Fuel flowage fees, and fuel sales tax and refunds from the state would also be reduced as the Airport could be expected to attract fewer new based and ' transient operators. Additions to the operations staff to provide anticipated increased on-site security coverage are expected to continue to be required. Annual operating revenues could total approximately $785,000 in 2022 under a no new facilities policy, representing a ' reduction of about$225,000 in that year. A net operating loss of nearly$259,000 would result at 2022 level of activity. This net operating loss is approximately$69,000 less that associated with improving the Airport as indicated in Table 8.4. Therefore, there appears to be a relatively slight gain as reflected in the lower net operating loss from assuming a no new facilities policy. 5. Retention of the reversion clause in existing and future leases also can contribute to increased ' Airport operating revenue. During the 20-year planning horizon, a total of 15 improved leaseholds could revert to the Greeley-Weld County Airport. Of these, only those structures whose general condition would require minor investment were considered. It was expected ' that this would apply to three leaseholds that could generate a total revenue of approximately $41,000 in the year of the reversion. These revenue values would increase in each subsequent year after the reversion. By 2022, the facilities reverted to the Airport could be expected to ' generate nearly$50,000 in revenue. The Airport could earn additional revenue when the relatively new corporate and commercial hangars constructed in recent years reach the end of their lease terms, primarily between 2038 and 2042. The condition of these structures would need to be considered prior to a decision regarding their lease to the former tenant or to others. t The gain of these structures to the Airport's inventory of facilities would be offset by those reverted to the Airport in earlier years and whose condition would not warrant further rehabilitation for lease. The land area occupied by these older structures would then be ' available for redevelopment with reversion of the improvements at a future date. This continues the cycle of investment and gain of operating revenue by the Airport thought the reversion clause. 6. Airports may charge a landing fee to aircraft using the facility provided that the rate is reasonable and nondiscriminatory. For example, the Greeley-Weld County Airport could charge a landing fee to all operations conducted by aircraft not based at the Airport. However, this would discourage the use of the Airport by many pilots operating light aircraft, the predominant user class of the Airport. A landing fee could be imposed on non-based aircraft that are engaged in commercial activity. This could exclude aircraft arriving for maintenance to be performed by operators at the Airport. The imposition of the fee would be based on the pilot's declaration; however, it is generally expected that all transient business jet aircraft would be operating for some commercial purpose. 2004 8-9 1 7 11711.MASTER PLAN //A7�/ 7 Based on a landing fee of $25 applied to only transient business jet arrivals (estimated as 50 percent of all business jet landings) , the Greeley-Weld County Airport could generate a total of $47 ,000 at the 2002 level of activity and nearly $ 134 ,000 in 2022 at a rate adjusted for increases in the consumer price index ($37). These landing fees represent a fraction of the operating cost of the aircraft; higher rates could be applied based on the certified takeoff weight of the aircraft and the impact it imposes on the weight bearing capacity of the runway ' and other paved aircraft operating areas. Nonetheless , some pilots of these aircraft could object to the landing fee charge, especially if they purchase fuel at the airport. This is a common practice at most general aviation airports. Therefore, the imposition of landing fees ' may tend to discourage the use of the Airport by these aircraft and have the opposite effect on Airport revenues . ' Capital Improvement Plan The airport improvement projects required to satisfy the forecast aviation demand at the Greeley-Weld County Airport have been placed into three phases : short range (0-6 years) , intermediate range (7- 10 years) , and long range ( 11 -20 years) . The following descriptions, illustrations (Figure 8.1 , Figure 8.2 and Figure 8.3) and cost estimates (Table 8-5 , Table 8-6, and Table 8-7 at the end of this section) indicate the suggested phasing for projects during the short- , intermediate-, and long-range planning periods. These are suggested schedules and variance from them may be necessary, especially during the latter time periods . Project descriptions have been provided for the first six years projects as they are the most critical and the scheduled projects outlined in that time frame should be adhered to as much as is possible and feasible. The demand for certain facilities , especially in the latter time frame, and the economic feasibility of their development are the prime factors influencing the timing of individual project implementation. Care must be taken to provide for adequate lead-time for detailed planning and construction of facilities in order to meet aviation demands and the establishment dates presented in the tables. It is also important to minimize the disruptive scheduling where a portion of the facility may become inoperative due to construction and to prevent extra costs resulting from improper project scheduling. Most property acquisition has been scheduled for the short term to facilitate the implementation of the recommended development plan. Proiect Descriptions Phase I (0-6 Years) 2003 (current calendar year Realignment and Reconstruction of the Parallel Taxiway A to Runway 9-27 Projects that were programmed for 2003 and, in fact, are under construction , include the reconstruction of the parallel Taxiway A to Runway 9/27 . This project includes the realignment and reconstruction of Taxiway A to match the alignment of the western one-third of the taxiway. For purposes of this Master Plan, the ALP drawings show this taxiway in the new alignment, as it will be complete by the time this Master Plan is complete. ' Rehabilitation of Runway 9/27 Runway9/27 is also programmed for rehabilitation in the form of an asphalt overlay in the current plan year 2004. This project will be complete by the time this Master Plan is complete. 2004 8- 10 GL $?3r2kni81n S q�[ a ss pp s`Saligaas5p . pasT ,Sal! i F t t G ' ayix p 8 r____,,_ • I ;: 14 I I ! r ._ I..; 14.salg ' "in."'" 1 Ia . , I II N11$'i i '6 _ �I'I 11 �i 111 till ' ...,. . 11 I ; i IIITIIiI , 'I , - pp pp Mum yy Ld t l I i ill $q 8 ir Jla , a tS; •I t t ks I O8'4�' 9 . S it ^f I, I` r II ��t i�_ .; • I II I y? .... ....... i ..-,. �4 .. �rtli � z: �.1 S 'i iI• • . . 3 3 'rte 1 — rti Y I i q I+1-:r lJae ti' } ?�_�1� 40 a4 & [f t 1 11 ( `Ll .. E. r 1 a_°I k ..y. /P' • ..._-22 C ' :I C !,..• •n,i_ .-4.--------.. :'J 11111 -- ; -------131-1- __— •—T I e tint; I v X 8@ z CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN q 2 �lp . la 1 N 3tlRJi .yye.n:a„ r mamas ■ OPPv Y1 Y 14 bank a.F..olu am MI Js — an.on, El (Seal.01 Ol- a 35b/N YYYY • _ v.w..r,a anemic,:a. a ma' ' I Y .• nn,,0-1.74.40. - ..a.a.w...n.a..w:.•.:.:. Y Wn./ :aye14,C301•24:1 v aw» ae: i / . ! �vaa , ry .u.u,wswu •^1 04,01 al vi WC w anz TM mMpY•Mlo'o}.1i . t _ .mM.uOWL un J 'CORM s+Ka •14e• nM..�.a..• w' YY IBr .—/ F imam IA.WO 7Y.d.=2 Zi aL anruu,c-4.•70.70•.1-,v �.� .}-I llI + -p! I 4.3.7:3 EC=Sig 03.3.0 _ —_ Iw w:a�ww i.-v • ",.J.pl. ....wa �a�.. •I / it . 9 ].1.701.373. — .CVM.PSYoamrv. — .VMnn WIaN"�`�... /. I�i+-y, fly IeLifL� TL .. Am mss_ e _ lid--1-7/1 CSat3f o!—L)r. wv GC 44...0,0 S ? .I1 !r 'I`, *. !an xi 1 I3 _ ifi MCI We 009 _.__ __ .: 7: 4 ' mx,0001x0 7 .020 73170 A 3A W.1.0 G80038 30551 - I '?.�� -MI --.1 A ill thaw a.1 4 f ,1 •^ .✓ I 4 F;:Y r .v nr+,0.70,0 Fa( , T/ 1, g '! �,. 1 • —.v I _III = .r.Mr,its` I 1 " maw _ 3 �� 1 1, M f-3�^ _ _ _ - • :• 1— r- - Mw a . .. ,-411.1:;,P.1 • OA XECK G E--_ E - ! j 1 I I4 ,1Winn, F �, �r. 071bV W',TOW.) , ! V .i un.wn., - - rit,�.pni•,F,A.Vi • r i....me t: • , i t2� ,'', WEELE*.COLGWDO • • Fes, • y 1j ,a • I Y'f 1h _, _ �— i �.w rte+ �'•a�__t^ � i1". )I 1,. • ?f. #jlri *�dR t,„,,...a.,e rvt, / t`..1 laI TAI, • "151 .v-. x_c. .-0'f 4 s -1 —1, y ISSUE RECORD + -i.- ---44 / . \ CRAY=eoo a6 G= INO f-,;-2— �f •f�.l I — L2588_t �•� . /rF Fwrte, : , I: Li _, , ..�. _ _ c-t PHASE'a!rr-an YEARS) nip rFcyxo� �°.L_!__,!)1 ` 3-09-OM-II mu mr-tnill mo r =Mtclidear l OW •11 •r•.N w.. ---- •,mrtv.`u. • yt ' )! IrditiWire am& u—=: acxea.°<.a,Nat r..•.x.••.,. -:�' L f - 1� x. - yr . C • 4.rL.V Of\•.Itt vN __ 1 CANAn ia, 8/04 40.VRfIQiw.. 12.r 4m'f..RKY rm R`)1 t ' n a•_VWPV}.IMNKOwisa } Ma:u:.0 ICI ry .pq J C. uafWN.P Welk QmmxamA., .J wM�1R•1 •.. /4 ---1 41 CSR A,mr•� • r.,„_..„ r1 f at\fJ'v.YVm+rwY . �K ramua xxx ;r.,,,,......„ y ! f S� / v n�.a9a aa.a asas at+,•r WA asaosAe v:.ma wR races .[Mtt,la gllr afIM.M / n_ewt�_wx WM:R`Kw Y[•yV ..at r waa..irN.n.. acr:a: f' 4Vise..nr, 1 . .."', OP • .un umax•r.. _• awr wa'u :� 441 : PHRSE U (11-20 Yf/R5) ,...�.�..:An.Aw.°.tt...... yj u}r a.v a, ••w•- ® naN aue pl•wAK fo ,1 aIN1anaaa0,1 a'ia •.'A..a..v ROURE 83 MASTER PLAN J// r 1 2004 Perimeter Fence and Gates—Phase 1 Currently, the airside of the Greeley-Weld County Airport does not provide security from the landside in the form of fencing or gates. With the focus on security at airports in the recent years, it is important to provide the level of security at Greeley-Weld County Airport that is consistent with the industry.The security regulations from the newly formed Transportation Security Administration are not fully developed for general aviation airports at the time of this writing. There are several known steps that will need to be implemented for any development plan. These plans also need to be implemented to attract I business aircraft that currently have little security for their aircraft while parked on the terminal transient apron. ' Phase I for the fencing and gates will focus on establishing a security barrier between the airside and landside in the vicinity of the terminal area.This will include security fence separating the airside from landside.It is recommended this fencing be upgraded in the terminal area for a pleasing aesthetic appearance. This could be accommodated by using rod iron fencing in certain locations,using coated and colored fencing, and possibly combining chain link with an upgraded decorative post system. Access to the airside facilities will be required; it is recommended that electronic sliding gates be provided in those areas. These should be provided with an integrated communication system to the terminal to provide a proximity type card access through the gates. I Runway 9/27 Lighting Runway 9/27 is the oldest runway at the airport. Its lighting system has not been upgraded since its construction. The standard design procedure at that time was to direct bury conduit with electrical cable connecting the lighting system. This system has worked well for many years; however, it is beginning to show it age and these systems are susceptible to grounding along the direct buried cable causing voltage deviations in the lighting circuits and light fixture malfunctions. This project will provide electrical cable in ducts with lighting cans and new can-mounted lights. 2005 ' Land Acquisition Runway 16 Approach The only property that the airport does not own is the RPZ for Runway 16 approach. The airport has an ' avigation easement for the RPZ but does not own it fee simple. This project will acquire the land fee simple providing all airport functions, services, facilities, and RPZs under airport ownership. ' These approach lighting systems are installed and maintained by the FAA F&E group. The cost for the system is provided by the FAA. This project is listed in the development plan to indicate that a system is planned, the potential budget for the system, the fact that is tied into the control tower, and to estimate the ' approximate year in which it may be installed. New Control Tower For the Greeley-Weld County Airport to grow and reach its ultimate potential a control tower will be necessary to attract the business that will expand the Airport. As indicated earlier, the tower is an integral part of securing an approach lighting system on the airport for Runway 34. A control tower would also 2004 8-14 I JVJLz7IIJYL�yJF ' MASTER PLAN ATIS , '� allow the displaced threshold on Runway 34 to be removed, allowing longer landing distances on the runway. ' A benefit/cost analysis for a new control tower was development as a part of this master plan and is included Chapter 4.The benefit/cost analysis results were favorable to FAA providing the funds to construct the tower and to provide the cost to operate the tower. The next step would be to do a siting study to have more detailed information with which to approach the FAA for approval and funding of a control tower. It is recommend in this study that the Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority proceed with the control tower siting study which will provide greater analysis for the FAA and a more detailed estimate of the construction cost. Perimeter Fence and Gates—Phase II 1 Phase I of the perimeter fence and gate project focused on the inner terminal area where there is the most opportunity for aircraft and vehicles to mix and the security of the transient aircraft while at the terminal apron. Phase II will extend the fencing to other priority areas of the Airport. It is anticipated that the design for the perimeter fence and gates will be prepared in the Phase I for the entire airport. Construction then will simply occur phase until the fencing project is complete. 2006 ' Rehabilitation of Aprons and Taxilanes—Phase I Phase I includes the design of all aprons and taxilanes for rehabilitation. With the design complete, 1 construction can occur as the construction budget allows in each subsequent phase,using established unit cost and maximizing the area that can be rehabilitated. ' This project will include field investigation to include topographical survey and geotechnical investigation. It is expected the rehabilitation will include the removal of failed asphalt pavement, reconstruction of any base material that may have failed, crack sealing and asphalt overlays. Often the apron and taxilanes require drainage improvements, and they will be included in the apron and taxilane rehabilitation. Vehicle Road Access for Facility Development Alternative B ' Alternative B is considered the primary development area for the airport. To attract business, the Airport Authority will need to provide infrastructure to the area. Providing access off of the County Road from SH 265 will provide great access into the development area. The Authority will provide the main access ' road, then the developers will provide the access into the various hangar developments. Utility Infrastructure for Facility Development Alternative B ' Through many discussions and presentations the development of Alternative B (north of Runway 9/27 and east of Runway 16/34) is the preferred development area for future larger business, general aviation FBO, and hangar storage facility. The consensus is to investigate the cost and begin the process to develop in that area. From discussions with the Airport staff and the Authority, it was determined that to prepare for development, the Airport will provide utilities and landside access to the area. The utility infrastructure for Alternative B will include an analysis of the cost and the timing for the utility development. ' 2004 8-15 Z/Bff l- MASTER PLAN 1151 ,/7/7 This utility project will extend the utilities from their existing location near the main entrance to the Airport to Alternative B. The utilities under consideration are limited to water and sewer main lines.The services will be considered as part of the development cost to be provided by the developer of the area. ' 2007 Overlay Runway 16/34 and Taxiway C Runway 16/34 is the newest runway on the field having been completed in 2000.The runway was planned to have an overlay to increase the strength rating from 45,000 dual wheel to 70,000 duel wheel. This overlay will provide for a maintenance enhancement as scheduled in the 20-year pavement life and will provide the needed increase in strength to 70,000 lbs. To enhance the marketability of the Greeley-Weld County Airport and to better provide for the larger aircraft that routinely request to utilize the airport, this Master P considered the option of increasing the strength even beyond (to possibly 95,000 lbs)in this first overlay, with plans to increase to 150,000 lbs within the 20-year planning horizon. The costs provided in the Capital Improvement Program in Table 1 8-5 are for the originally planned increase to 70,000 lbs. Taxiway Access for Facility Development Alternative B Access for Alternative B from the airside will be from Runway 9/27 at the east end and from Runway 16/34 at the south end. The access will extend from the runways 90 degrees to the edge of an apron edge taxilane. It is anticipated that the apron and the apron edge taxilane will be constructed as part of a ' development program by a developer. The airport would be responsible only for the cost to provide the taxiway access for the runway to the apron edge. ' 2008 Rehabilitation of Aprons and Taxilanes—Phase II Phase I includes the design of all aprons and taxilanes for rehabilitation. With the design complete, 1 construction can occur as the construction budget allows in each subsequent phase,using established unit cost and maximizing the area that can be rehabilitated. ' Phase II will include verification of field conditions to determine if there are any needed changes to the design and a construction bid set. It is expected the rehabilitation will include the removal of failed asphalt pavement, reconstruction of any base material that may have failed, crack sealing and asphalt ' overlays. Often the apron and taxilanes require drainage improvements; those improvements will be included in the apron and taxilane rehabilitation. ' FBO Development Infrastructure projects for Alternative B are assumed to have been complete. This project will develop an FBO complex. This in intended to be a private development with all of the costs borne by the developer. ' Hangar Storage (8 units) This project will develop and construct hangar storage units to support the development of an FBO complex at this site. These units are set up so they could be constructed by unit and incrementally added on as the need develops. The cost for this project assumes 8 units will be built, with associated access road,parking and apron/taxilane paving. ' 2004 8-16 LuffI i ' sillll/1 / / MASTER PLAN A!, '.WII>�T 2009 Rehabilitation of Aprons and Taxilanes—Phase III 1 Phases I and II included the design of all aprons and taxilanes for rehabilitation and construction of some facilities.Construction will continue to occur as the construction budget allows, using established unit cost and maximizing the area that can be rehabilitated. ' Phase III will continue verification of field conditions to determine if there are any needed changes to the design and a construction bid set. It is expected the rehabilitation will include the removal of failed asphalt pavement, reconstruction of any base material that may have failed,crack sealing and asphalt overlays. Often the apron and taxilanes require drainage improvements; those improvements will be included in the apron and taxilane rehabilitation. ' Project Listing Phase II (7-10 Years) and Phase III (11-20 Years) Phase II (7-10 Years) ' 1. Vehicle Road Access for Alternative A 2. New Fuel Farm ' 3. Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting 4. Painting and Striping 5. Perimeter Fence and Gates 6. Drainage Improvements 1 7. Crack Sealing and Slurry Seal 8. Lighting Improvements 9. General Aviation Hangar Development ' 10. West Parallel Taxiway for Runway 16/34 11. FBO Development Phase III(11-20 Years) 1. Overlay Runway 9/27 2. Overlay Runway 9/27 Taxiways 3. Overlay Runway 16/34 4. Overlay Runway 16/34 Taxiways ' 5. New Terminal Complex 6. Land Acquisition 7. Infrastructure for Industrial Park 8. Landscaping ' 9. Drainage Improvements 10. Painting and Striping 11. Crack Sealing and Slurry Seal 12. Lighting Improvements 13. FBO Development 14. General Aviation Hangar Development ' 15. Expand Terminal Apron 16. Approach Lighting System ' 2004 8-17 MASTER PLAN TIil�J!J�' ' IRRI / Cost Estimates ' Cost estimates by phase in Table 8-5, Table 8-6, and Table 8-7 are provided for the total cost for each project, that portion to be borne by the Greeley-Weld County Airport sponsor or local entity, and that part of the total cost anticipated to be paid by the FAA under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) or similar program. In addition to airport sponsor funds, the local share can include sources such as state or local economic development funds,regional commissions and organizations, other units of local government, as well as funding from private individuals or businesses. Currently, state grants for aviation projects in Colorado are administered through the Colorado Aeronautical Board of the Colorado Department of Transportation. The Aeronautical Board is funded through the collection of a percentage of the aviation fuel sales in the state. The percentage of costs borne by the FAA is subject to change depending upon current funding ' legislation and policy at the time of construction. The relationship between local and anticipated federal funding as shown in this document is based on current FAA participation of 90 percent of the total project cost,but this ratio does vary according to some anticipated state funding participation on various projects. ' Before detailed planning on a particular project is developed, the funding structures and requirements should be identified to determine the current funding policies by the various entities. All cost estimates presented in this Master Plan are based on 2003 costs. 1 1 1 1 ' 2004 8-18 1 �// ff1f7- / f/ft // J1" I MASTER PLAN Iili 'll 'J I Table 8-5 Phase I (0-6 Years) Development Plan Project Costs Project Description I 2003(Current Year) Note Federal State Sponsor Private Total Costs Reconstruct R/W 9/27 Parallel TAW"A" 4 $ 1,825,000 $ 101,389 $ 101,389 $ 2,027,778 Rehab RNJ9/27 4 $ 925,000 $ 51,389 $ 51,389 $ 1,027,778 I Subtotal $ 2,750,000 $ 152,778 $ 152,778 $ - $ 3,055,556 2004. Perimeter Fence and Gates-Phase I 4 $ 150,000 $ 8,333 $ 8,333 $ 166,666 RAN 9/27 Lighting 4 $ 500,000 $ 27,777 $ 27,778 $ 555,555 I Subtotal $ 650,000 $ 36,110 $ 36,111 $ $ 722,221 2005 Land Acquisition RW 16 Approach 4 $ 600,000 $ 33,333 $ 33,333 $ 666,666 I New Control Tower 4 $ 700,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 780,000 Perimeter Fence and Gates-Phase II 4 $ 150,000 $ 8,333 $ 8,333 $ 166,666 Subtotal $ 1,450,000 $ 81,666 $ 81,666 $ - $ 1,613,332 I 2006 Rehab Aprons and Taxilanes-Phase I4 $ 150,000 $ 8,333 $ 8,333 $ 166,666 Vehicle Road Access for Area B 1 $ 600,000 $ 600,000 Utility Infrastructure for Area B 1 $ 3,500,000 $ 3,500,000 I Subtotal $ 150,000 $ 8,333 $ 4,108,333 $ - $ 4,266,666 2007 Overlay BM116/34 and 15W'C" 4 $ 4,950,000 $ 275,000 $ 275,000 $ 5,500,000 Taxiway Access for Area B 4 $ 4,050,000 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ 4,500,000 ISubtotal $ 9,000,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ $ 10,000,000 2008 Rehab Aprons&Taxilanes-Phase II 4 $ 150,000 $ 8,333 $ 8,333 $ 166,666 I FBO Development 2 $ 2,400,000 $ 2,400,000 Hangar Storage(8 units) 2 $ 3,200,000 $ 3,200,000 Subtotal $ 150,000 $ 8,333 $ 8,333 $ 5,600,000 $ 5,766,666 I 2009 Rehab Aprons&Taxilanes-Phase III 4 $ 150,000 $ 8,333 $ 8,333 $ 166,666 Total $ 14,300,000 $ 795,553 $ 4,895,554 $ 5,600,000 $ 25,591,107 I Notes 1) Sponsor Funding—current revenues,cash reserves,general fund,etc. 2) Private Funding—funded from non-government sources or revenue bonds. I 3) State Funding—Colorado Division of Aeronautics. 4) Federal Funding—FAA/AlPand other federal funding programs. 5) Project to be funded by others,no cost estimates will be generated. Cost estimates,based on 2003 data,are intended for preliminary planning purposes and do not reflect a detailed engineering evaluation. I I I2004 8-19 �// Rff/11' �/ /111T. 11 1.> I MASTER PLAN AVHI L7 'J I Table 8-6 Phase II (7-10 Years) Development Plan Project Costs IProject Description Note Federal State Sponsor Private Total Costs 1.Vehicle Road Access for Area A 1 $ 495,000 $ 27,500 $ 27,500 $ 550,000 I 2.New Fuel Farm 4 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 3.ARFF 1 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 4.Painting and Striping 4 $ 150,000 $ 8,333 $ 8,333 $ 166,667 I 5.Perimeter Fence and Gates 4 $ 150,000 $ 8,333 $ 8,333 $ 166,667 6.Drainage Improvements 4 $ 450,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 500,000 7.Crack Sealing and Slurry Seal 4 $ 150,000 $ 8,333 $ 8,333 $ 166,667 I 8.Lighting Improvements 4 $ 450,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 500,000 $ 9.GA Hangar Development 22,000,000 $ 2,000,000 10.West Parallel Taxiway for R,W 16/34 4 $ 900,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 1,000,000 I 11.FB0 Development 1 $ 4,000,000 $ 4,000,000 Total $ 2,745,001 $ 152,500 $ 752,500 $ 6,000,000 $ 9,650,001 I Notes: 1) Sponsor Funding—current revenues,cash reserves,general fund,etc. 2) Private Funding—funded from non-govemment sources or revenue bonds. 3) State Funding—Colorado Division of Aeronautics. I 4) Federal Funding—FAA/AIP and other federal funding programs. 5) Project to be funded by others,no cost estimates will be generated. 6)Projects not listed in order of priority ICost estimates,based on 2003 data,are intended for preliminary planning purposes and do not reflect a detailed engineering evaluation. I I I I 2004 8-20 I 44 lR.fHiv- WE ' MASTER PLAN AiWPiH7 Table 8-7 Phase III (11-20 Years) Development Plan Project Costs 1 Project Description Note Federal State Sponsor Private Total Costs I 1.Overlay R/W 9/27 4 $ 2,250,000 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ 2,500,000 2.Overlay 9/27 TMl's 4 $ 1,800,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 2,000,000 3.Overlay RAN 16/34 4 $ 3,150,000 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 3,500,000 I 4.Overlay RAN 16/34 TAN's 4 $ 2,250,000 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ 2,500,000 5.New Terminal Complex 1 $4,000,000 $ 4,000,000 6.Land Acquisition 4 $ 1,800,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 2,000,000 I 7.Infrastructure for Industrial Park 1 $1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 8.Landscaping 4 $ 150,000 $ 8,333 $ 8,333 $ 166,667 9.Drainage Improvements 4 $ 450,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 500,000 10.Painting and Striping 4 $ 990,000 $ 55,000 $ 55,000 $ 1,100,000 11.Crack Sealing and Slurry Seal 4 $ 405,000 $ 22,500 $ 22,500 $ 450,000 12.Lighting Improvements 4 $ 450,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 500,000 t 13.FBO Development 2 $ 4,000,000 $ 4,000,000 14.GA Hangar Development 2 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 15. Expand Terminal Apron 4 $ 450,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 500,000 I 16. Approach Lighting System 4 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Total $14,445,000 $ 785,833 $5,785,833 $ 6,000,000 $ 27,016,667 ' Notes 1) Sponsor Funding—current revenues,cash reserves,general fund,etc. 2) Private Funding—funded from non-government sources or revenue bonds. ' 3) State Funding—Colorado Division of Aeronautics. 4) FederalFunding—FAA/AlPand other federal funding programs. 5) Project to be funded by others,no cost estimates will be generated. 6)Projects not listed in order of priority ICost estimates,based on 2003 data,are intended for preliminary planning purposes and do not reflect a detailed engineering evaluation. I I I ' 2004 8-21 ill/hff IBL7Z }Y MASTER PLAN T r11/'l ' Summary ' As presented in the respective tables, the Greeley-Weld County Airport Development Plan cost estimates for the 20-year planning horizon, not including maintenance and operational expenses, amount to approximately$62,257,775. The anticipated FAA share is approximately$31,490,001, the CDOT share t is $1,733,886,and the sponsor share is approximately$11,433,887. In addition, approximately $17,600,000 has been classified as revenue-generating expenditures, which are typically financed by tenants or private developers (in some cases, where it is justified by projected revenue, these projects might be financed by revenue bonds). ' Of the sponsor's share of funds needed to develop Greeley-Weld County Airport,approximately $4,920,554 is required during the short-range period, $752,500 during the intermediate-range period,and ' the remaining $5,760,833 during the long-range period. Additionally, maintenance and operation expenses will increase as the Airport develops and more airport facilities are completed. Revenues generated by airport facilities should also increase. It is a worthy and feasible goal that operational ' expenses and revenues should balance at the Airport. This relationship should, however, be monitored closely so that future imbalances can be anticipated and provided for in the budgeting and capital improvement process. The federal share required for development of Greeley-Weld County Airport includes programmed expenditures of$15,050,000 during the short-range period, $2,745,001 during the intermediate-range period,and$13,695,000 during the long-range period. 2004 8-22 I lNLY MASTER PLAN sl ' T 9 . 0 Airport Layout Set Exhibit I : Airport Layout Plan Exhibit II : Technical Data Sheet Exhibit IIIA : Building Layout Plan 1 Exhibit IIIB : Building Layout Plan Exhibit IV : Airport Airspace ( FAR Part 77 Surface) Exhibit V : Runway 9/27 Approach Plan and Profile Exhibit VI : Runway 16/34 Approach Plan and Profile Exhibit VII : Land Use Plan Exhibit VIII : Noise Contours Exhibit IX : Airport Influence Area Boundary, Critical Zones, and Traffic Pattern Airspace Exhibit X : Land Use Planning Zones Exhibit XI : Exhibit "A" Exhibit XII : Utility Layout Plan J:A_Aviation Services\Projects\WLDAMasterPlanAReportAMaster Document.doc 2004 9- 1 1 n..-, , :I1 a .t .. ' � II i I 7 t-,- Illi1 .:, . , . , , , _ \ii I! f :x; • E.,„,:, ... s ,Y 9 ' 1 Ia I id ili � II : 3 `yl �I`i .f 1 ; I I I II,Y l, g. il ill P^9 I I I rill 11' 1.I Hi 1• I i n n x, }J II, '. Hi I I ' n11 I VI. I .Ili i 1 I i i i MIMI il i i ! §t'il Ile —if III l it ( i ; , Pc. I.11 Ili 01 iit,r-biti I �(.111,.,i Ir IlI� �I I i � % t. . I .: I I1 IL+ all I\;,,. 11¢.wxwal¢ , 10I I I ..r • . iu“.": . w•.. 7: . ' • of I II S.r __...w.-.3., • I I II •I t i---- r i IzSI( .6.,.#,...,, _�. _'Y/2Tv�titfi,!'.C- I .I it '_ Y L. P I Ii-P { KII� I --.I:e I'r1. 11 I' ]R.[, M ;IF \ i _( ..R f1.fX ` 4Xa . - s. '-�` -- —•V . v' -. in c m i %}—c�'8 1 ---_ AIRF0Ri MASTER PLAN kill 9 x / / � Jr ow-o e. °6 o°I 3 . rUG ° l GREE , COLORADO 11411 6° '�•. 'ii+2G. `s 201' 5' ®. '<A - o p O.I= '� ��,m ENE — �e9,, ►/ ,s. �, �f°v o - 5 .Xis o �� _ ' _ e I� _ 44®� E o ""'I IQ. �� ff �E I �+ EL i 1 .1 `� • y —i� � o 3 LOCATION MAP it m WO SCALE LLJ i 1- 0 0 .� fO ti Q s 0.C .30 5.+L 3')' p� �. 1 . ry0 5'17 2,0 p0 Os .,s � CC 0 474to 14' oczA�00 Nls 'mwl .' oa�,150 r5S O 7/ 7/ ix ----kJ ------LI ALL WEATHER WINO ROSE /FR WIND ROSE ?WS 036650911100001 FERMIS Mesons Crn1RAR Rummy TOSCO ] 713 513 RUNWAY 195'(15 I.N15 1 ORM 9/17 9757% 9175% 9664 9146% 9/17 90.33% 9613% 4163 9163% a./34 94.90 9736% 99.17% 99.750 56/34 9169% 9566 99.CGi 99%4 Carter::Burgess 9/27&11/34 56235 94.40% 99.00 99.95% 9/31 As 16/34 WAS 9912% 93715 999E SOURCE,Minis mole 0414 on(Firm)?anima mum A90 AIMUSP1IE90 ADUNGI AOTN(Now) 55411E IEYio'1L 0616\115 DATA CHAR RCM)mash Gamic 045 AILOSPXEme AaoxmunON(NOM) 5140066:172467 M EM..CO 51721901 010167 GROOM.CO PEMO 1993-3002(20-25 06/DAY) Emma 199}103(30-25 091/594) FR alum<Tons R FACES YORAM<3 . PR MG<IOW ET m0/99 Roar<3 MILES /� ('3 BM MusD 3200 ET0127150llrc31/2 MILE 61OCm&C3200IT AND 5150Lm31/3Mm ISSUE RECORD NO. BY DATE DESCRIPTION RUNWAY DATA RUNWAY END COORD/NA7ES Rummy 9 RUNWAY 27 FUNNY a RU9XAY 35 000045 6701110105 ILX3IUCE Mac FUTURE 535065 MERE 50611XW 15056 MOANS FUME 04 ]P 46011' MPROADIYEB0N HINT RUMS IWYMS I ELI 4 LIRE 4 RITE 600E YS RIM I L 3/4 MILE I/2 MS£ 2] 40'25'3'+.313' 951.P'3.3.737 I6 4P 3Y 22475' SC 3Y 55'.745' EN)PART 77.00110011 SLOPE 341 34:1 31:1 311 In 348 50:1 SANE 34 1P 25'13759' 101]T 51091' RUNWAY LENGTH SOO SAE 5.BP SAME 40.005 SAE MAO SINE RUNWAY WIDTH 100 SAW ISO SAE TOO SASE 400 SAYE DISPLACED 34 W 15.'N.618' IM 3Y 51645 WNW MC 6NWT SUE 4504411 SANE ASPWIi SINE ASPHALT SAME PAVEMENT MEN 51103410 AXONE 9HLS1 GEM 8.000 55.000 '0.000 55.090 W.W 55.00 MI.W] 55.0}1 DAL WHEEL CDR 30040 )0,000 00.00] 70.7[0 41,00 510ORT 4500] 150.000 DUAL OWN MAR X/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 14/0 N/A N/A FUXM5 I%NRXL MIR SAE AM SAE SAME NRL SAME MOW M4MM0 101-P500ION SAYE NOM-PRCIVON SAE 0960006 SAME PEm0N SANE my PROJECT x-08: PRmRDElWIINN SA SAME 0.64 SASE 000 SAME 3-08-0028-14 WY.GRADE 0 HM RUNWAY LENGTH E.Y SAW OPTS SAE ofi6 SAYE 06a SANE 040 0E 9O MECRAMm5 ACCEPTABLE SANE ACCEPTABLE SAE ltr9498 SAYE ACCEPTABLE iE SAE AIRPORT DATA COB PROJECT NUMBERore PERMIT a =CRAM 90.67 SAYE 90E7 SAME 9x.96 SANE 9490 SAE MEOW 070944-100 03/18/04 56UH*0149001 MIS PVT PN1 505.RUT SASE __PAP.051 PNl0w;401 PAR RER 'PIS.tt NIL 0SORTR moAPPEWCH 0000 [Yc-IT GP;DAR cc5 SAE CJS RAPS MR ¢5.5100 IS.758 515 AIRPORT°E9A0Rit(MS) 1697 1697 DESIGNER 00760: blE *PROVES AIRPORT P6Qyef RCf C-II SINE C-6 SINE 0-n 0-111 o-II 0-q ARDOR Al71bF.!POINT LOO. 25'351•W W 2fi 0519:1061 6916 AN .N 301 b CRIIMk MOUE! PIIOSIIEIY III SASE G11i51RFW Y SINE mIEST000A N 11.0-80 003515GY No Iq-00 (NR)CIO.ySOIES LOC. 104'P'09:V 110]T 56116 NW�U 71.6 SINE P8' SAF 71.6 IO-Y 7TRI 10)7' NEAR MATE Tome-I05E1 Timm JULY 911'7 SAW CMNIx<RAINBOW: A 1 AWRS9I SF® 136 NTS SALE 136 R3 SANE 145 NIS 140 ICS 145 Nrs 140 IRIS 000701 AND 1ERYIWL INv.NOS MR(511) OCT l:\...\1030-CW\M5O\0109119 \aMG-1001 pIG Boa NOWT 64009 SOME 600003 SAE 71.780RILES 14AME 01.]80 149500 FUNCTIONAL494 ROLL(URNS) GENERAL 025 nW0PIM OEI AO\80G PATH44VR WORT 15(531 >1.0s TRIES SAME 31000 wl6 SASE 31.960 Ylla SAYE 55.009 00£5 SAYE VISUALWS1RU OAl 4000 NM M.979 PAy YTJ,CC. WASH J:4..\10N_rN1\hO\070141\Sfifi RUNWAY SAFETY AREA mum sop SANE .5 SAE .IRO SAYE .50 SAE WS1flWEN1 APPROACH ADS CPS.DAR,IS GDS.VCR.IS RUNWAY OBJECT FREE IRA I I.WO SAE 0DTI. SAE 1000 SAME 100 S E RUNWAY 001571 FREE AREA TENCH NO SAE NO SAME .00 SAME .00 SAME RUNWAY !ERE NERD IP'GIX TomRETR SAE 1.16 SAL OWLS OLAFMRS I.LM SAYE RUNWAY OBSTACLE FRO 1oM V0 0050.011(00 SINE W PENETRATOR OWE 'Al PfMElW1KH SAYE W PENETRATION SINE RUNWAY ElEVABO01005a _ ENO ALLWOM A 6/0 46446 — NINE 4696.9 SAM 4645 SANE DISPLACED 101051VM ZONE [WAELEVATION N/A AM 047 M N/A 9/0 4657.9 s9/ac Rl751000 WIE ETEYAOW 4460 DARE . 210 SASE 4640..0 SAME wE MOD/F/CATION OF STANDARDS NrIENIGH POINT 46605 SAME SASE 4�s SAYE 4969 — SAYE 44096.SAM 9 SAYE NCH SPEED 1MIM1 SPRY 0494 P�TAMMY.0"00164699115/34 SEPARATION 40408 PR 61 TECHNICAL DATA SHEET LOW FOWL 406 SAE 4644.6 LYE 464.0 _ E 4415 SAYE A FFIOWN00 OO 000SpN 10 514'50-WAS 64100 ROAM DSIAOI3 so AIRPORT UM0R NP Fa}W.0pg.00 91 19U YW SINE MOO SINE 10.0.00 SANE 10.50 SAME MCI1ST 1,1997 REGARDING THE 9➢'N IT THE TOM `ART SINE SIRE 1099 LME IOCW sacKN-SYA 6 50S WW Si®ER 0MMY MBE WOWS 450 `ART SINE 5500 SAE __ SAE moon SAME AUK BEEN MOOED INIIJaXG 51004449 WWROMO M 595 SAE 5000 SAYE I0,000SUE 6400 WOO MOM ME REWR➢MM.0.174E OLd. L EXHIBIT II SHEET 2 OF 13 JUL , " RUNWAY 9/27 A / / // // //LNI l __, L), [_ / GREELEY, COLORADO 1 J /rarnrnr a' J L —1 I `� )'1 r-- ^- v-a _ _ _ Fr' F_ F -'604``-6LK�C'`y �.� l;y T1T T1T1T1T1T1 (� O , JJ,113 • Ea F {8,r 600-6Qj1 >v,l T. >`j 1 l 6q Lf 1T1T1T1T1T111T1 105 123 Fri F BUILDING PFSIflL110N UXF n ▪ i`' Tj YV;;c.` t 4_ '' 4, e ,l 106 ti 114 F-, H z �_� N ,, ;T; �� x,� 4, ^165 .41 Fy F .-, .,, �'� TO7 0- >J 627-619 ,'. ,i .B "OT 1 115 F I. .' a A.i 1> '624- -14" R6. i i 1\\‘k 620-62+-n 624-'ICI5 'K'.� \ .`` 169 se 5'�`Is4. ff6 121 . i.l▪ :;i .1 \ \\ 620-6$ `-e`c>\.,. .' _ .` 1]4 .95 109 125 " 4 \\\\�,`:; >,i - .;. �j�(` 1 1]9 e' 6P 152 A 117 r0 206 205 204 X203-202 I Z \\\ J°84] 649^3. 9t is 161 101 ;.,� 46 L i�---� -- J CI- ‘\ .>,-,. >-"--' 644-644,,r`' ' 710 116 \\ - w- I� \\ = 1,-c^,`.,1 . \ Cc,�� ,fin: _ —=—� w CC \\ 640_6 ,-1 _ 66 J F- \\�r: - .'�`Y>3 175 s •] l,. 102 +' 119. J 124 1 \ - t �.)- 160 S 1 163 \\ , ..., �'' 176 y J- 664�� \ F- \\I'jJ- 66J \ 665 f `. ?O , 1' \\t YTS 1 d \\\ 661....--CC-, ' i-,' >$ 756 1 O_' 660 \\;� , "%/ _t,=' % 173 • ,. 3 G A ill ,157 1 \ .. 0 AIRPORr FACILMES MST \ \A____.4-------- 'V\ I,yyO 61tt e�DG 60 °E5`Xe'"" \\ ANG 1 \ 103 12] 1W M IEw 4&JMFE n, t101IRnav(n s jillie101 , mtltfxrm Xmvx IEl CQ r':pu ss \\ AhL ,^Y�1 .704 103 36 maw Hwww In al 33 LL,0E 601 BULIMIC*7081 In \\\ 3 759 126 104 36 IMPORT 3I(E) R (510RA.£ROC In \\ 4 ANC .^.''y'\,\\ 160 ' 06 -- Pun EAN(E) I\ \ /"' 106 3Y. 4VREWNCE OULDWIEWYVFY MET main(E) \�\ ` ✓ f /�" llogw :vxrt�ieroR9mG(E) ISSUE RECORD ,I1 ent4E 1URG8R M NO. BY DATE DESCRIPTION 11 1 �� It 168 III V MATE 04CRINICAR p 11 44E�3r•. 4 ��- 112 V MATE WNW(f I I YI.V�iN: 113 61 PN42 xq NI BI \ . 115 COWcomIDA1t NVFM1(n '/� 5 II tV64M1LL Loma(() 116 iN CilidlcesiumCAL SIGmai (E) / ' 117 2 01 11096.IWYIR In „6 56 DI60406L Woo In / 9 52 ImIGW 1w9w(E) 121 30 COIYFFSIL mate(0 / 121 15 1-H60E8R(NYIfNt(n 1 14 6 1-IIWfJR Q) 123 45 CMREP/JIL BIPf4IG4E 774 IS i-nuiGe(E) i2.565 WANES!NANIX(E) AP IM0IECT x-06 , 196 ' 4M OWLET PEN£MICE MUM(0 3-OE1-0028-14 mi _ ra mar PM,Cf FAINT RIME)f) Ta 151 18 mulC mRmM.mMW(F) CO PROJECT BARER MIL WATT /Fl:FNn 5: FR 14XVR(E) 070944-100 10}/18/04 /` 151 ___ PIM1rz 81.116(n FW: .... AIRPORT PROPERTY WE 1s, a_C1I1E IC L,w6 I In OES'TNEO DRAWN: CHEER APPROVED: 155 ___ Calif RCM.IWCN(f) JRV AN ,WE JS ICE. •—� _� _ PROPOSED APRON LAYOUT 156 -- MATEWE MICAWNW F) i FU UME WNW DRAYANC PPiX\xU1E.- n PROPOSED ROOD 49 KYEINM late'TIM mini)�.�� 56 IT-I IV Nn n I�43 @TF6 Wa6M(___ WEE HANGAR a �•..) •J Existwc Win? 164 35 Iwa Late KEY MAP I AWFi in Tr y_ ��/• 6 .. R EXISTING FENCING 66 49 i-WN0A0 167 41 i-WNG¢ID IBB� Iq 41 /*PUP lialU ..i SHOP(E) 'f ROUE BUILDING 200 GRA0 PHIC 200 400 16n s I-wRr+R rt) _ IXLSIING AND MURE OEVELOPxfM(100-199) la M I-WMM(E) _ EximAs AND FUTURE DEvELDEmEN1(ICU-299) �v I j:(.�� CASING RAMA(TO BE REMovE0) MO 171 55 BSIEi914MNn BUILDING LAYOUT PLAN _ FUTURE DEVELOPMENT(30',-199) �-- J ■ EXISONG @DNNG ( DI FEET ) m sA Mara 1444C4R DRIER 1Wile [ MARE 3MLOP6061(400-499) 174 53 "1-WNOIR Ej C .YXX BUIIpNG NUNOEP(E).(E),(0) IJS 46 i-W0082 O FUME OES➢➢PNEM(500-X9) T T 176 -- I-NWCAR(E) 11 1 AIRCRAFT REDCAP((CJ In 46 FIWSJR 3 _ FUTURE DEVELOPMENT(600-699) In - BUSINESS MCA(6) 1N - 3-WN;R E) 160 0 mama (E) 291 54 c MR0.Ill Roo06 MAPS LEI z01 59 FUTUREYL La aI(1) KEY AMP mz-916 -- NruE MOM 1Ew3reIEM(F) EXHIBIT ILIA 201 - FUTURE NEL Fall Boo-6W --- 90 ()-10 9EVELIPYFM 3) SHEEP 3 01 13 In-Mac Banta IR)-TD 6E RAMO (n-ENURE Rums • Uk� t - .. t , r:. GAMEY.MOP=( b. �♦ `i� 55 '' 1...___:._,A a. {tea ;'L ','.ti , z..r r"'r PAY f N __ � AY5 y� 5 ' Y.w :mu. .� i; Z ssso. • V\ I, ` :y.`,,� a:, ,_ � , , ..c.- „, `5, \10�. 4" —mil . :: '1?..' „, - a��r te a! r�_„; t.:..... .I ?` F '.5 fro e, v a , +8.s - �. T• .. ,,,,.. ▪ •, J Huh - � ., m : �"�rrangy' "C i1I„,..•..: �, `YY__: -„ 5'1 » •.▪� i �w » I'-,t I^_ ylly. _II _ „ ISSUE RECORD _—_ 1. _ --_—_—�R'.e...r —_—_ `-4s nlw.Y us _If ____ ' - 1fl cot OES:.inW JII Y !II I :,'H-:....'7:--'7,,:;"-r',.,' ,„,.. FtaMIS UST a.a ' - -- — ow,w 'i'�v.rnv Wart w.ac \I — OAK Mc am..Or'N A,.•Jtlq./.YaM'0}C I _ ......w.rq IIM m'c.anu nwe.;v'rJ _ _ -n...... '.Aa OwVtlIC SS's 6ro OA1 BUILDING LAYOUT PLaN anV:maacl:"so:* _-t X* cos urn IIA MTJ ® Ma uasaa?.•.I / .'_'_ .:.w:nw+a: n•n meat l'c' -,..44— r_ A2Y I EJIF...I SAE.OF I)n i .a ' ' - r '4 '• GREEIEY•COMM q a 7.• r. 6567' _ J ..tea`-= i .- f BUR EUGE- _-___- ____— ___.�_.• _ --_ t— - - 'E2. SbU`3' v _yr-- \ _ S�RfPCF= — a si o �; • 41 2Zcor �I I _ L I B__ - ..es' - - 40('1 gPpRGLI$H -t-,E r- I =c ( _ . -v -_ t I-- �� - 'r I-4-711 I I .x..t _r - - S I I _� (i.?: ==1-1— r -I--__ =�1 I I II �I I Cater:Burgess •`� 1" " 197I!. -- _ -4....-___-_,-_-_,_a.„_-__ _ - .a.-4.94t I -_a �a ?vG.•o'L_SURFA 5 �tiSU RECORD _ _ _ _ •. m 4- .unw. � s:rO/Mr N aNl�..ia ENS I W41S Q�•18N� �� I x < V.• Shi CBWW:=OE 1.si 0 3030 60J0 p f4St) AIRPORT AIRENTE ..1 .-- .. - (DR PART 77 ROAM • • _ - - - FYHIBR IY yni >:r v T>i� 1Y at IM A.Me re. -I c •JAT mu sump 74 Ca0PelC MAU d•O 1000 GLEL.COLOVDD Fr-om (D/pm) l 3• r _ifitiik___ _ ,- , , ra` gi — — ISSUE REOR!)'- I - - t O'r Art ,■ T I ' ,jjl e. � o :mw oa r lL.eeI al b —sra " ' i— ' SRn'raI _ ea -Cyr -MO AKA -0)p W0) -AAA -W AA. WA WA 7310) n.+ :3•o 0)0) M. 7310) ma m a9 not a a t $03•70 mm MaTAW RUNINCY 9/27 AINROV R PUN AND PROFILE RVNWAr 9 .8 a..2i P@3EIL£ .vu.aur kW' DWI 9614 17 '.- (1. ..-": 'AYa GTa,.ia Sra UWP NU f#IR1EY•OOLONG (DJ MT) • • - 4•k- _ '( +1 h _-_J U �•� ] - S- •-_ _ R C Q SS weterillurgess an I I. I i ISSUE RECORD et ae I At as Ca ,. eara eta ^' — .. a' —IIIIIL— A...711:14111Bt- _ I- .xai,s'p.ma"`4 �` i _ RUPMAY 16/34 APPROACH _ — - PUN MD PROFILE -s dN vl.N -IMa 64 -MD V!O MO WO IWO TOW WV 01y OW Use mot ISIS INS WW MONO Mal Ib0 Mote IWO WO ISaW TIM 1010 iMW !' fLllf Ytl .34Yj Matt fern Vatasant ,•r, EXHI®T VI WS '0, 10 ♦ r i . t m II •:4Ci.Rnr n c �• .e • ;may i C Y O n ............../.....•.44•••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••• f •1 •', •1• • • ••I•. •,•' '1 :V 5•. E •• i + I + 1 1 r • • • • ♦ ��. I ta@�F ryFob ' 1 . `'I ,^ 'I ) • •• :•• •'• • T 4 •ate' •4tt qbV•• • • vN. .L • x� 1 . . •7. : . • I „u: • •�t•ar E ' 1 �• I R N . IR N C 7E� :u AIRPORT MASTER PLAN O ill �vr 4 % A 30 °p� Y ji . , , IIII axma £ 3 $ 3 i x a a k 0 W 0 • Q 3 i u 1 team nvc acs - r — 1- I II , \i V;'i I, sl II y ' I ��- ti it 1 i1i II \ L. , - \ ati :-- J w N L. �!L - nulr: , . . -Ili . V R 7--- V -:� ; 'A -N- yy sY 9 I L. 81.1 z 8 i 1 ° ': c I '' Fit: l NRPORI MASTER PLAN 05 . I5 r e A n a \� I• :�: n , � .ry',• lilt 'If: Y �Y_ 1 1 yr . IJ Q a, as _ T -} 4 r ^ R I! i s• ' .• �. L�01 a 1 r5 A A 1 1 , I, i { y . cc::ilitiri I I$ �: li _ I I r I Fa . i / I I x, 1 LI_ ~' 1.-_ 7 1 1 fir, -71, / ' ' 1 • " s -, ' - ,T``_ J ; / , % I, ' r L.F ./I . 1 1 I I ; I , aWAN .s,x ,To 4 - a I ' _ Logo.sr Y A I I1 1 -I 4 ` I € i 'illJ ii, ; ;I s L.$ S • I .1.1.r V111 MASTER PLAN II +tn •R1 II, SE'3ip'tlaiii E'?ldte`i;r ic_ilt;n: F 7i 1 iii 1 I ,i l 3 It „i ii, i Fi1 i'.$ ,F - �-- >99 919 9 / . I 111.9101 1 I. , €^ € 0d IHB�€8 -Ili rm."tkiiy iggllvi� ti U. (t. :Mill iti e i 4R :-r-- i! lg — Ilc Idii i!0. au ii id, a crca I d d ? £.si i I :r . qq iQ pp p Ci i -i/ icyi gcilit ��p7 �Lr� � / Gl l3 '1Yfi, 1. kiii Zasi,t Slee ilirbi1 g% P : t g ! ' ' Ice=11911iar1 i- 11e1S££ £'i5tigii“ € a e,= i!I��. 1445 1 zta •pxi °x•1° i I :it: T. 4a i eJ lihH Fn2ScE e i I? 'li l$ -�£ ] 3 d yy f� y Fy, , :. Y u; g! i i €i i7�'�€_Et� 17A€=E£�!€akilk�ib 1 4 r I I "; lI"nt11 t!41 �4 i.* siA$r!trrMijr€₹1€' € > I: lld J iiilis11 € . £ .). — ffIr 1i 1. : ., 4 1 F i wt3 13;1t - pit 4 VI lri ae ,: a I a E 49 '.Y"� Y.y I.I. i I n i I tiL :dF § __ 9'y . I III .lJ I - ;5g ;�� I III , _ till1ill IgoHlarl I I ky . ll . id — N . 2 .a y ,y ` y Ii I �I Si it V,"n �� h ,ry i i \} l%r � 'y. F i. 0 /J I !T ' Y_1 i I 1 = C �'a-. 4-•"ila :4 y I t Y ,,! jj 3 r,iy r _L .,_ ». ly . , { K I y - M��k� �°�`". . �yc.7:'----(.6444%:- �--•�e.rnPf3 ! I `'� I ��iUP' ?f g a . %- Ee 13»_� 'kw I• i_. ��'76 _ {fie "'.y _ 3 _ x y uits vzG ' 'Illy 5, • ill m a{ §;; Skiswslt;3 = !fib ' Sla ' 9' gS r '1 91u, F,, = - AIRPORT !ASTER PLAN R 1S r S .� g � • Jl GREELEY, COLORADO 1"—\'S\ . r o ce 7 Ox. .. S w �( CC w TT-F-1 Q O 0 a -mss -s cF < —12'N^ r CIS' ]r Q 1T �/ I SLR �ySy JI w-L _ L7 1 I I. N 111181 CQr..BU�e5i —Iz'w ill _ 1— —I ISSUE RECORD fNO. 9Y DATE DESCRIPTION 12•w-1}1i ;3I—s w— I NPPROJECTNUMBER3-08-0028-14CkB PROJECT NUMDER: D3I 18'WJ �� 070944-10003/18/04 DESIGNE➢: DRAWN: CHECK : APPROVEDTMNO TM JPI JS I DRAWING PAmENNAE _\3 PM1 J� OFILCI➢�M111�0I�149�0MFMNYDIWf O n ////// lo 1 --" ---Z—. /;; ii. DRAmxG PAm�Nwe / 1 J:FER\. fH_GDA\IDNG 079\44):EF K —lD' .z GRAPHIC SCALE 600 0 600 1200 UTILITY LAYOUT PLAN ( IN FEET ) LEGEND COUNTY ROAD 43 PROPOSED WATER LINE COUNTY ROAD 43 ! EXISTING WATER LINE PROPOSED WATER LAYOUT PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LAYOUT 00511MG SANITMY SEWER EXHIBIT XII SHEET 13 OF 13 Hello