Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hangar Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Airport Board to draft minimum construction standards as hangar demand rises
Summary
Board members agreed to form a committee to adapt Central Colorado Regional (Buena Vista) guiding documents into minimum construction standards and a hangar development plan, while acknowledging new county drainage and FAA environmental requirements that could affect timing and costs.
Unidentified Speaker (board participant) opened a lengthy discussion about establishing a committee to draft minimum construction standards, hangar development rules and associated fees, and handed out the airport master plan and sample documents for review.
The speaker said the board will likely use Buena Vista’s Central Colorado Regional guiding documents as a template and asked members to redline those materials in advance of a follow-up meeting. "We're probably gonna use kind of theirs as a template, and then edit that to kind of meet more of what our standards are," the speaker said.
The board was told county planning and zoning now requires a location-and-extent permit to ensure airport improvements align with the county comprehensive plan; the speaker is preparing that documentation for the entire airfield to avoid repeating reviews for each new hangar. He also said the Federal Aviation Administration must complete environmental clearance before construction can proceed.
Planning and zoning is additionally asking for drainage engineering for hangar developments. The board was told an engineer had suggested a 20-foot-by-60-foot catch pond behind each hangar; members said that requirement, if applied per-hangar, would significantly reduce usable land and raise costs. Speaker 4 said he is discussing a blanket drainage plan with Dibble Engineering to present a single plan that planning and zoning can accept rather than requiring separate drainage plans for each structure.
Members debated standardized hangar sizes versus demand-driven placement. Randy Tom and others said many builders favor 60-by-60 hangars; the master-plan placeholders include multiple sizes (50-by-50, 80-by-80 and T-hangars). The group discussed offering a "menu" of standardized sizes so layout and taxiway widths remain consistent while accommodating builders who are ready to proceed.
The board also discussed building-combination strategies to reduce infrastructure duplication. A participant noted that once a combined structure exceeds roughly 12,000 square feet it would trigger fire-suppression requirements, significantly increasing construction costs and altering design choices.
Next steps: board members were asked to review the distributed documents and submit redlines; the group intends to reconvene in January to form the standards committee and begin drafting local hangar construction rules.
