Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hangars And Codes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grand County Airport board designates southern parcel for standalone T‑hangars, narrows size rule
Summary
The Grand County Airport Board voted unanimously to designate the southern ‘Area 18’ as the site for standalone T‑hangars and adopted a lease‑size definition based on maximum width and depth (excluding doors). Staff will draft minimum‑standards language on fire separation and rated walls for a vote next month.
Get email alerts on the Hangars And Codes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Grand County Airport Board voted unanimously to designate the southernmost parcel labeled “Area 18” on the airport layout plan as the primary location for standalone T‑hangars and approved a separate motion defining hangar lease size by maximum width and maximum depth, not counting door openings.
The actions followed an extended technical discussion about how T‑hangar shapes, door swings and taxiway placement affect usable area. Board members and staff said nested or “zipper” arrangements of T‑hangars save space, while stand‑alone T‑hangars can act like box hangars that require pavement on both sides.
Staff briefed members on recent NFPA and building‑code guidance that treats aircraft hangars as a unique occupancy. The board heard that, under the cited code language, buildings closer than 30 feet to an imaginary property line may require two‑hour rated walls — effectively creating a 60‑foot separation between freestanding hangars unless a firewall is built. Members discussed the cost implications of two‑hour rated walls in metal buildings and noted that rated assemblies commonly require concrete or CMU construction.
Because the topic involves code interpretation and would change lease or minimum‑standards language, the board instructed staff to draft updated minimum standards that address required fire separation or firewall construction. That revised language will be returned to the board as an administrative item at the next regular meeting for a formal vote.
Neither motion changed existing hangar leases; instead the actions set where new standalone T‑hangars should be sited and how future lease footprints will be measured. Both motions passed unanimously.
Next steps: staff will prepare draft minimum‑standards language that incorporates the code references discussed and will circulate the draft before the next board meeting so members can vote on the change.
