08J. Appendix Jd
MEMORANDUM
To: Jane Howington, City Manager
From: Tom Jentz, Planning Director
Date: September 13, 2011
Subject: Kalispell Airport - Review of Alternative Sites
Planning Department
201 1st Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406) 758-7940
Fax: (406) 758-7739
www.kalispell.com/plannin�
The planning department has completed a thorough review of the 5 general sites and
13 associated sub -options proposed by Stelling Engineers for
development/redevelopment of the Kalispell Airport. A summary of our findings are
presented below. If you wish a more elaborate presentation and detailed supporting
documentation, do not hesitate to contact our office and we will gladly provide such
materials. Our review involved utilizing adopted plans, regulatory schemes and
traditional planning concepts. It did not focus on actual airport operations or
fundability but rather on the larger picture of neighborhood impact, neighborhood
compatibility and neighborhood and community functionality. The following criteria
were utilized:
• An analysis of environmental conditions including presence of wetlands,
streams and floodplain that would impact development of the sites.
• Compliance with the Kalispell Growth Policy
• Compliance with the Kalispell Transportation Plan
• Compliance with the existing underlying zoning
• The preservation of important road systems
• Community access
• Community safety issues as prescribed in our planning and regulatory
documents.
Site 1 Analysis:
There are six options involved with site 1, the existing airport site. Some of the
options offer slight modifications but generally have several things in common. The
Kalispell Growth Policy has considered this general location as a public airport for the
past 25 years. Proper land use regulations including zoning and specifically airport
zoning are in place to insure proper development is allowed in this area and
inappropriate development is excluded. Additional comments for each option are
below:
Option A is some merit of the 6 options in that it pulls the airport south away from
the south Kalispell residential development but involves significant requisition and
relocation efforts (12 residences, 3 shops and 4 hangers and relocation of a cemetery).
Option B has significant merit. The runway is moved south away from south Kalispell
residential neighborhoods, the runway is canted slightly southwesterly to allow a
better approach -takeoff alignment away from existing residential neighborhoods, clear
zones are on airport property and existing road systems are generally maintained
intact. This is accomplished with generally minimal impact to existing facilities on
the airport or adjacent neighborhood.
Option C is discounted as it involves closing Cemetery Road and involves a runway
extension into an area that is master planned for commercial and residential
development. It additionally has environmental impacts associated with relocating
Ashley Creek and some possible impacts on the floodplain.
Option D maintains generally the status quo and offers the most easily constructed
option. It involves minor community disruption, existing facilities are maintained and
complies with our city growth policy. Drawbacks do involve maintaining a flight
pattern near residential development to the north.
Option E and F again benefit from maintaining existing airport facilities while moving
the runway 1000 feet to the south away from the residential neighborhood to the
north. It allows for some expansion and minimal community disruption.
Site 2 Analysis
This option involves relocation of the entire airport to a location immediately adjacent
to the city. This site was quickly discounted as a majority of the site is located in 100
year floodplain. Our growth policy speaks strongly against development, especially
public infrastructure in such a location. During seasonal flood events, significant
precautions and expense would be required to keep the airport operational. The
runway itself may have minimal impact on the floodplain however, associated
facilities including hangar spaces, retail activities and associated airport services
would be greatly hampered if not outright prohibited on much of the site.
Site 3 Analysis
Site 3 was discounted as its location places it significantly east of the city of Kalispell
in a location beyond our planning jurisdiction. It is a location that has no local land
use regulations in place such as zoning, therefore, there is no guide or control of
adjacent land use development, an issue that will forever plague and ultimately limit
the life of this site. From a planning standpoint, if the airport is to be owned and
operated by the City of Kalispell, it should serve the city. In locating the airport
facility beyond the existing commercial service area of Kalispell this location neither
has a functional relationship to Kalispell, nor does it have access to or benefit from
the city. In summary, this site could serve as a Flathead County funded and
maintained facility but it has no tie or benefit to the city.
Site 4 Analysis
Comments are same as Site 3 Analysis above.
Site 5 Analysis
This site has some merit. The site is adjacent to the city with the city limits including
Section 35 to the southeast of this site. It has good access to the local transportation
system and the existing rural transportation network is not disrupted. West Reserve
Drive offers generally immediate access to the north commercial center of Kalispell
approximately 2 miles to the east. The site has county zoning in place which
generally limits development to a rural density of one residence/40 acres or in some
cases 10 or five acres but does not anticipate nor allow dense development to
encroach upon the future airport facility. Finally, there are no known environmental
limitations on the site. Conversely, the development of this site will significantly
impact agricultural land which conflicts with our growth policy. Secondly, the West
Valley Neighborhood Plan in which this site is located speaks against the development
of commercial facilities within the plan area. Finally, Section 35, which lies at the
southeast corner of the site, is master planned for approximately 2,500 residences.
Potential conflicts may arise with future flight patterns.
Recommendations:
In summary, the staff has recommended the following options in order of preference
and compliance with the criteria described above:
1. Site 1, Option B - Described as the current Airport Layout Plan
2. Site 5, Option A - West Valley site north of West Reserve and east of West
Spring Creek
3. Maintain the status quo, keep airport in current location and configuration
4. Close Kalispell Airport and relocate all services up to Glacier Airport.
Airport Advisory Board Meeting, 8/17/2011
Airport Manager update
1) Update on Study
a. FAA was furloughed, but is now back online and moving forward with their part of
the airport study.
2) Gary Gates from the FAA is planning on meeting with the City of Kalispell regarding the
available alternatives for the airport.
a. After a site is agreed upon, t,,,'00,,lyI'katie,d1`th)�Og
yn,ly
b. :;fluil�;;ig
f f1 oln "Opti N 'I 'l Awf t ir+ lbteA i'
3) We would like to have a discussion on the site selection and make a recommendation.
4) Fred cited City Administrative code 1166, paragraph 2-29 and City of Kalispell resolution
4523 which states that the city manager can appoint temporary committee members. The
City Manager can call the committee whatever he/she finds appropriate. In this case the
Manager elected to call the group the Airport Advisory Board, so, that is its official title.
5) Tip requested clarification on DNR insurance to protect the board members personally
because of the potential of litigation. Fred indicated as the board has no power, no liability
exists, however was going to check on this and get back to the board.
Terry motioned to discuss site selection and make a recommendation to the FAA and city council.
1) Fred gave a summary of the various options available
a. Site 1, option A, runway moves south, same alignment.
i. Positive, stays at existing location, allows for reimbursement of existing city
investment.
ii. Negative, multiple expensive houses at the south and which will need to be
moved, radio towers will need to be removed, near city population.
b. Site 1, option B, runway moves south, 5.6 degree alignment change clockwise from the
air.
i. Positive, stays at existing location (this is the current aiport layout plan), allows
for reimbursement of existing city investment.
ii. Negative, one residence needs to be moved, radio towers will need to be
removed, near city population.
Site 1, option C, runway moves south with realignment, further south than in 1,13.
i. Positive, stays at roughly the same location.
ii. Negative, Cemetary road is significantly relocated/changed, no reimbursement
of existing city investment, hangers in existing ALP will have to be removed,
near city population.
d. Site 1, option D, runway is extended south.
i. Positive, stays at roughly the same location.
ii. Negative, no project federal funding, No NIPIAS designation, no reimbursement
of existing city investment, no ongoing federal funding, does not meet
runway/taxiway width specifications, near city population.
e. Site 1, option E, move the runway south and extend it.
i. Positive, stays at roughly the same location.
ii. Negative, no project federal funding, no NIPIAS designation, no reimbursement
of existing city investment, no ongoing federal funding, does not meet
runway/taxiway width specification and will require moving of expensive real
estate improvements on the south side of the airport, near city population.
2) Site 1, option F, same as 1-13 except is not federally funded.
3) Site 2, option A, South of existing location by the river.
a. Positive, moving away from city population, could easily extend city services, federally
funded.
b. Negative, in flood plain, the city received negative pubic comment, near to Skyranch
airport, no longer a city airport, no reimbursement of existing city investment, moves
away from existing location.
4) Site 2, option B, same as 2-13 except different alignment.
a. Positive, moving away from city population, could easily extend city services, federally
funded.
b. Negative, in flood plain, the city received negative pubic comment, near to Skyranch
airport, no longer a city airport, no reimbursement of existing city investment, moves
away from existing location..
5) Site 3, option A, south of McGwinneger Slough.
a. Positive, moving away from city population, federally funded.
b. Negative, in flood plain, the city received negative pubic comment, near to Skyranch
airport, no longer a city airport, no city services or infrastructure, no reimbursement of
existing city investment, fog, moves away from existing location..
6) Site 4, option A, B and C, south of Site 3 near river
a. Positive, federally funded, moves away from city population,
b. Negative, road relocations, negative public feedback, fog, moves away from existing
location.
7) Site 5, option A
a. Postive, federally funded, moves away from city population,
b. Negative, interferes with GPI approaches, Fog, moves away from existing location.
Kj}1wa,flpcagpr� ryrw the current approved airport layout plan to the FAA and city
council, Dan seconded, all were in favor of the motion.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:38 by Dan's motion and Tip's second. All were in favor.
Kalispell City Aiport Advisory Board
8/17/2011
The Kalispell City Airport Advisory Board recommends the adoption of Site 1, Option B, the currently approved
Airport Layout Plan as the preferred alternative for the upgraded Kalispell City Airport. This recommendation was
motioned for approval by Keith Robinson, seconded by Dan Snyder and approved by the Kalispell City Airport
Advisory board unanimously on 8/17/2011.
The board's recommendation is based on the following:
-The airport remains at approximately the same location
-The City of Kalispell would be reimbursed for extensive investment in the airport
-This option allows relatively little relocation of households, businesses and public infrastructure
-The City of Kalispell would not have to move and reimburse private investment in hangers
-The City of Kalispell would receive federal funding for the project
-The Kalispell City Airport would continue to maintain its NIPIAS designation
-The Kalispell City Airport would receive annual federal maintenance of $150,000 per year
-An upgraded airport at this location would meet current airport specifications to provide for safer
operations off and on the airport property
-This location is located within the City of Kalispell and receives benefits from city infrastructure and services
-This location is"not threatened by flooding
-This location has received relatively little negative public feedback compared to other alternatives
considered
-This location does not interfere with traffic patterns/approaches presently utilized by KGPI, Glacier Park
International Airport
Signed:
f
Scott/Richardson
r
I
Bruce Tulloch
Terry Anclerso6
Dan Snyder
Keith Robinson