Loading...
Airport Board of Adjustment Minutes - 10/24/2012MINUTES AIRPORT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 24, 2012 PRESENT: Gary Diehm, Acting Chairman Amy Bobrowitz Chad Hughes Samuel E. Amerine Tim James James McKechnie, Assist. City Attorney John Burrus, Director of Aviation, Traffic, and Transportation Bobby Teague, Asst. Community Development Director /Building Official Karen Gagne, Planning Administrator Marty Odom, Planner III Monique Coleman, Planner II ABSENT: Brian Hooker I. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL AND OATH OF OFFICE The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Diehm at 1:33 p.m. r 1 ♦ Members ♦ Legal Depart. ♦ City Staff ♦ Council Liaison City Clerk Lydia Ozuna swore in four Board of Adjustment members (Gary Diehm, Amy Bobrowitz, Chad Hughes, and Samuel Amerine). Ms. Ozuna provided the Oath of Office forms for all members to sign and informed them the form would be on file in the City Clerk's Office. Tim James arrived shortly after the meeting started. Mr. James was sworn in by the City Clerk in the City Clerk's office. Acting Chairman Diehm proceeded to make the following announcements: a. Motions made by the board members including all staff recommendations listed on the staff report and deviations will be discussed on a case -by -case basis. b. Applicants and citizens may address the board or answer questions from the board members are asked to speak into the microphone at the podium. c. Please turn off all cell phones so they do not disrupt the meeting. _. 1 AIRPORT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE 2 OCTOBER 24, 2012 II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23, 2005 MEETING Acting Chair Diehm called for approval of the minutes and if there were any corrections or comments. There being none, Mr. Amerine made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted and Ms. Bobrowitz seconded. The motion carried; minutes approved. III. REGULAR AGENDA CASE AV 12 -01 Request for a variance from Section 6400 (Airport Zoning Regulations) of the Zoning Ordinance, to construct a new hangar that will extend 7 feet into the transition zone slope. 4515 Jacksboro Hwy. (Kickapoo Downtown Airport) Acting Chair Diehm proceeded to the case — a request for a variance from the Airport Zoning Regulations to construct a new hangar that will extend 7 feet into the transition slope zone. Acting Chair Diehm asked for a motion to approve the variance request. Mr. Amerine made a motion to approve and Ms. Bobrowitz seconded. Acting Chair Diehm, requested Mr. Odom present the case. Mr. Odom stated this is a request for a variance to allow a new aircraft hangar to extend 7 feet into the transition slope zone at Kickapoo Airport. The applicant is Rik Lipscomb. The size of the proposed structure is 60 feet by 75 feet and it will be 30 feet tall at its highest peak. The transition slope zone is a building height limitation zone that is created by extending a 7 to 1 slope starting at the edge of the primary surface. Mr. Odom illustrated the slope with a diagram. Mr. Odom showed a cross - section at Kickapoo Airport. He described the 75 -foot wide runway and the 500 foot primary surface, which does not allow for any structures. The primary surface is centered on top of the 75 -foot runway which allows for 250 feet on either side of the runway. At the edge of the primary surface is where the 7 to 1 transition slope begins, which has a height limitation that states we do not want structures to extend beyond that (barrier) without a variance. Mr. Odom stated in order to grant a variance from the City's Airport Zoning Regulations, the Airport Board of Adjustment must find that a literal application or enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship and that the granting of a variance would result in substantial justice, it is not contrary to the public interest, and would be in accordance with the spirit of the regulation. Mr. Odom stated the applicant has provided a letter of determination from the FAA stating that they have no objections to the proposed building provided that certain conditions are met. Mr. Odom noted he will go over the specific conditions when he discusses staff's recommendations. Mr. Odom stated the applicant Mr. Lipscomb submitted detailed information stating there was no impact to the adjacent airspace; the only condition placed on the construction of the applicant's hangar was that the FAA will require Mr. Lipscomb to install obstruction lighting on top of the AIRPORT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE 3 OCTOBER 24, 2012 hangar roof. By making their determination the FAA has no issue with regards to the construction of this hangar or the proposed location. The applicant stated he recognizes the Airport Regulations were designed to protect the airspace and flight approaches into Kickapoo Downtown Airport and the ordinance should be used as a tool to evaluate the impact that any potential project will have on the airspace. The applicant also stated the FAA is the federal agency responsible for making that determination and they have the professional expertise to make that analysis. Mr. Odom stated in the case of constructing the applicant's hangar, the FAA determined there will be no negative impact to the airspace and runway approaches. Subsequently, their determination does run contrary to the ordinance. Mr. Odom stated staff's response was to concur with the applicant's analysis. Staff feels the Airport Zoning Regulations were written to be consistent with the FAA criteria and if the FAA finds no imminent threat with respect to the safe and efficient use of airspace by aircraft and with respect to safety of persons and property on the ground then staff feels a variance may be justified. Mr. Odom stated staff recommends approval of this request with the following conditions: 1. The applicant complies with FAA guidelines for operations safety during construction; 2. The applicant complies with FAA guidelines for obstruction lighting on the new hangar; and 3. A separate notice to the FAA is required for any construction equipment such as .temporary cranes whose working limits would exceed the height and lateral dimensions of the proposal. Public Comments: Acting Chair Diehm asked if the applicant or applicant's representatives would like to give a recommendation on the case. John Burrus, Director of Aviation, Traffic, and Transportation for the City of Wichita Falls addressed the Board. Mr. Burrus stated this meeting indicates the City is growing at the Kickapoo Airport and there are several other applicants also interested in building hangars. Mr. Burrus stated he hopes there will be opportunities to talk about future variances of the ordinance because Kickapoo is growing and expanding, and meeting the needs of the general aviation community. Mr. Burrus stated he worked with Planning to develop the Airport Zoning ordinance and views it as a tool to protect airspace and approaches coming into Kickapoo Downtown Airport. Mr. Burrus stated the primary consideration is that the ordinance will be a trigger point for an FAA airspace analysis for similar projects. Mr. Burrus stated the FAA was notified and they provided requirements and documentation which was provided for the Airport Board of Adjustment. He stated documentation will be provided in future cases if proposed development impedes the slope. s AIRPORT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE 4 OCTOBER 24, 2012 Mr. Burrus discussed the airport layout plan adopted by the Wichita Falls City Council and approved by the FAA. Mr. Burrus identified the location of Mr. Lipscomb's hangar on the plan and the future hangar construction was also depicted on the layout plan. Mr. Burrus stated on the second set of documents showed the FAA approval of the hangar locations as well as the City Council agenda item that approved the adoption of the airport layout plan. Mr. Amerine asked for clarification on the services available at Kickapoo and asked if there are any instrument approaches into Kickapoo. Mr. Burrus referred to Bobby Teague, Assistant Community Development Director for a response. Mr. Teague stated there were a couple of instrument approaches — an NDB (non - directional beacon), which is used infrequently and there is a GPS to runway 35. Mr. Amerine stated he had been an airfield manager at five locations and in his experience airport obstructions sometimes make a difference in approach minimums. Mr. Amerine stated he was going to assume (since the runways are non - precision runways) that it (the obstruction) will not affect any approach minimums and that the approach has been published. Mr. Teague stated the approach has been published as GPS 35. Mr. Diehm asked if every time there was a hangar built in the 500 -foot slope if the Board would have to grant a variance. Mr. Burrus replied, "if it impedes the ceiling of the slope, yes sir." Mr. Burrus stated he was aware of another tenant that plans to come before the Board in six to eight weeks for a similar request to today's case. Mr. Amerine stated during his experience in the military they established an obstruction variance line that once approval is granted and it's not exceeded, the waiver (variance) can be carried forward. Mr. Amerine asked if the Airport BOA could do the same or if each time a hangar was proposed applicants have to come before the ABOA to request a variance. Mr. Burrus stated it depends on the height of the structure. He stated staff would need to meet to discuss procedures but staff would also have to take that decision before City Council. Mr. Burrus said staff can discuss and come back to the Airport BOA with recommendations if that was the direction the Board would like to go. Mr. Hughes asked if there were other structures that might have been built prior to the ordinance. Mr. Odom stated there were some pre- ordinance structures that exist and that extend into the transition slope. Mr. Burrus stated the terminal building falls into that category. Mr. Odom stated (regarding carrying a variance approval forward) if the hangars were "cookie - cutter" we could do a broad variance. However, he stated he doubts that will be the case because each hangar will be different and each person will have their individual needs but he said staff would look into the issue. However, Mr. Odom thought we would have to come back during each case. Ms. Bobrowitz asked if each hangar becomes the property of the City when the individual leasing the property loses their lease. Ll AIRPORT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE 5 OCTOBER 24, 2012 Mr. Burrus responded no and explained the City works on the land leases with clients and that the goal is to encourage development. Mr. Burrus stated leases are set at a 20 -year timeframe with a 20 -year option to renew. During that time period the tenant may sell their hangar to whomever they deem fit. It's the City's goal to keep the hangars in the ownership of the tenants. However, the City does have the right for first refusal but it's not one Mr. Burrus feels the City will exercise. Mr. Amerine stated concrete and asphalt has weight limitations. He asked if the infrastructure will be able to accept the proposed hangars and the airplanes and who will be responsible for determining what the weight bearings status of the apron and taxiways are and is the City going to be responsible for cleaning it up. Mr. Burrus stated the City is responsible for airside facilities and the aprons between hangar facilities. Mr. Burrus offered to get the weight determines to Planning staff to share with the Board. He stated the area around Mr. Lipscomb's hangar has been reconstructed to meet new standards. Mr. Burrus followed up by stating he is currently working with TX -DOT to find funding for a $2.3mil project to replace the remaining concrete that is approximately 30 -years old. To -date, the City has invested over $12mil in infrastructure at the airport. And he said the aircrafts on the airfield are taken into consideration to ensure decisions do not exceed the airport's infrastructure requirements. Mr. James asked for clarification on the airport plan to ensure that the airport hangar locations were considered by FAA and not just the runway facilities. Mr. Burrus said FAA did consider the airport hangars as well as the runway facilities. Also, the City identified capital improvement projects up to 20 -years out for the airport. Mr. Burrus reiterated the City is following the plan that has been adopted but that the majority of the funds being spent are being used for infrastructure. The City must rely on private development for hangars and that is what Mr. Lipscomb is doing. Mr. Diehm asked for public comments. There being no further comments, Acting Chair Diehm asked the Board to vote on the motion. Mr. Amerine made a motion to approve the variance request and Ms. Bobrowitz seconded. All five members voted in favor of granting the variance. The motion carried. IV. OTHER BUSINESS -SAFB JOINT LAND USE STUDY (JLUS UPDATE) Mr. Odom gave a brief overview of the Joint Land Use Study. The City of Wichita Falls through a grant from the Office of Economic Adjustment hired consultants, Matrix Design Group to conduct the regional JLUS. A Joint Land Use Study is a collaborative study that includes local community, county, state, and federal officials, residents, businesses, land owners, and the AIRPORT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE 6 OCTOBER 24, 2012 . military to identify compatible land uses and growth management guidelines near military installations. The primary objectives are: 1. To protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents and maintain quality of life; 2. To identify and recommend appropriate actions to ensure future land use compatibility between government and military operations; 3. To foster increased communications between Sheppard Air Force Base and the surrounding communities; 4. To develop a database to allow for ongoing analysis of development activities and growth patterns. The Joint Land Use Study is anticipated to be a 12 -month process with the outcome being a set of recommendations that will outline various goals and objectives to help ensure both land use and military mission compatibilities for future growth and development of land associated with and surrounding Sheppard Air Force Base. V. ADJOURN The Airport Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting adjourned at 2:00 p.m. J -:?h Gary ' m. Acting Chairman Date ATTEST: Karen Gagne, Planning Administrator Date