Airport board backs amended hangar lease, recommends two more leases and asks staff for survey and utility plan

The Airport Board recommended amending a hangar lease to accommodate an 85-foot‑wide building for Legend Air and voted to forward two additional private hangar leases to the City Council, while asking staff to obtain a survey and a utility plan before finalizing construction, the board decided at its meeting.

Board members and airport staff discussed whether to keep a standard pad size (currently 50-by-50 on the plan) or change to 60-by-60 pads, how larger hangars (a requested 50-by-85 or 85-foot-wide building) would fit into existing rows, and where to place water and sewer lines. The board recommended that public works pursue water- and soil‑settling work for the proposed row and asked a consultant to produce a survey-grade layout so leases can be tied to clearly staked pads.

The board’s action: it recommended amending the lease for pad designated “2 North, 1 East” (listed in meeting documents as the Legend Air request) to allow an 85-foot-wide hangar and voted to recommend approval of leases for pads identified as 2 North, 3 East and 2 North, 4 East. The board made clear the leases are private (not commercial) leases and that lease addresses and precise legal descriptions will be finalized after survey work.

Why it matters: the decisions affect airport layout, infrastructure costs and future development. Board members warned that nonstandard pad sizes can leave irregular leftover space that can attract storage of trailers and other ad hoc uses; staff and developers said a coordinated survey and master-plan approach would reduce that risk and improve construction timing.

Most substantive points

• Hangar size, pad standardization: The board debated whether to set a uniform pad size for new hangars or allow variable sizes based on demand. Staff and several board members favored a standard 60-by-60 pad depth with flexibility in building footprints on that pad; developers argued for at least one 85-foot-wide building and said that larger hangars may require combining two adjacent pads.

• Survey and legal descriptions: Board members asked that the proposed hangar row be surveyed to produce survey‑grade legal descriptions and corner stakes so future builders and surveyors can stake pads precisely rather than referencing informal map labels (for example, “Hangar 47,” which one participant described as a trade name rather than a legal parcel). The board asked the consultant (JV Aviation) to provide a formal layout and price for that work.

• Utility placement and maintenance tradeoffs: Staff reported that existing water and sewer lines for that area run along 700 West and that bringing utilities behind the hangars would keep lines out of the taxiway but place water and sewer closer to building back walls. Developers argued that locating utilities on the taxiway side would make maintenance (and any future repairs) easier because the lines would not be directly behind building walls. Board members noted the two approaches carry tradeoffs: placing utilities behind hangars reduces disturbance of the taxiway but could put pipes within a few feet of hangars and complicate repairs; placing utilities in the taxiway increases the chance of tearing up pavement when repairs are needed.

• Infrastructure cost and financing: A staff estimate cited an approximate $300,000 infrastructure cost for serving the backside of a row of hangars, a figure board members said would be difficult for a single developer to carry. The board discussed options for city involvement or cost‑sharing, including the idea of the city installing utilities and back‑charging hangar leaseholders, but noted the city’s standard practice outside the airport is not to front such development costs without a reimbursement agreement.

• Surveyed phasing and water settling: Developers said they wanted to begin “water settling” (compaction/wet‑settling of pad areas) and build in phases; staff asked for time to obtain a survey and for the board to set consistent standards and timelines in leases. The board discussed extending plan submittal and build deadlines; staff reported a council precedent of allowing four years to submit plans and additional months to complete construction on certain leases. The board agreed to include a clause in lease recommendations that a survey‑grade legal description will be finalized within a defined period.

• Fire code and spacing concerns: Board members raised fire code thresholds and sprinkler triggers for closely spaced hangars: speakers referenced fire code provisions (identified in the meeting as “409 and 415”) and explained that distance between buildings can affect sprinkler requirements. The board requested staff confirm fire department requirements for required separations and sprinkler triggers before finalizing pad spacings.

Votes and formal actions

• Recommend amending the lease for 2 North, 1 East (Legend Air request) to permit an 85-foot‑wide hangar. Mover: Clark (board member). Seconder: Scott (representative for Legend Air). Outcome: recommended to City Council (approved by the board at the meeting). Vote tally: not recorded in the transcript by name; board called for ayes and heard none opposed on the record.

• Recommend approval of lease for 2 North, 3 East (Sunny LLC). Motion and second recorded; outcome: recommended to City Council.

• Recommend approval of lease for 2 North, 4 East. Motion and second recorded; outcome: recommended to City Council.

• Direct public works to handle water settling for the proposed row (staff action). Motion recorded (mover not specified in public record excerpt) and seconded; board instructed Mike (Public Works staff) to coordinate settling and related infrastructure work and to work with the consultant on survey requirements.

Other business and next steps

Board members asked staff to: (1) obtain a survey-grade plan from JV Aviation (or the named airport consultant) that stakes pad corners and shows taxiway and alley dimensions, (2) confirm utility routing and maintenance implications with Public Works, (3) verify fire‑safety separation and sprinkler thresholds with the fire marshal, and (4) forward the lease recommendations and proposed lease language (including a clause that final legal descriptions will be provided after survey) to the City Council for final approval. Staff said the City Council is scheduled to consider the recommendations at its next meeting (noted in the meeting as September 29).

The board also discussed related airport topics: a shortage of transient tie‑down spaces, outreach with the FAA on run‑up areas and apron improvements, outreach to local aviation groups about low‑flying operations (FAA coordination on temporary flight restrictions remains unresolved), and a draft letter to an outside aviation program that staff had forwarded to the city for letterhead and finalization. The board said it will review the consultant’s formal airport layout and the FAA’s comments in a future meeting.

The board meeting adjourned after the items above.