Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09072021 Planning & Zoning LAYDOWN - DOT210907 P&Z LAYDOWN - DOT DOT&PF clarifications of items from public comment, the July P&Z meeting, the Aug. 11th joint work session, & questions ahead of the Sept 71" Planning and Zoning meeting: 1) The proposed airport improvements will leave the embankment of the existing long runway (RW 13/34) in place. Runway pavement/asphalt, lights, and NAVAIDS (VASI's) will be removed. Grass will be planted on the existing embankment to stabilize and negate its appearance as a runway from the air. 2) The proposed improved RW 16/34 embankment will be built to full runway strength beyond the south end of the new runway and to the end of the embankment to facilitate eventual lengthening of the runway when FAA approved operational forecasts support federal funding. DOT has gained FAA approval to include a future, longer 4000-foot runway in federally reviewed planning documents for implementation when justified. 3) Taxiway A, that connects the two runways, will be removed entirely, including the embankment, and the area restored to like -natural conditions. 4) Tree clearing at the north end of the new runway is required to meet FAA standards for safe approach and departure of aircraft. However, in response to public comments, we are re-evaluating and discussing with FAA if there is any possibility of reducing the amount of tree clearing required. We are also looking into whether we can reduce the amount of tree clearing south of the GA apron. 5) We are not filling in the pond to the north of the airport. In response to public comments, a buffer of vegetation will remain around the pond. 6) FEMA flood regulations preclude placing fill in a regulatory floodway. Because a regulatory floodway crosses the existing main runway (RW 13/31), the runway cannot be raised without placing fill in the regulatory floodway. The flood map from the Hydrologic and Hydraulic report is attached (see Flood Map). Hydrologic studies provided to the city and borough show that raising the main runway above flood -level could cause floodwater levels to increase by as much as four feet in places and cause the area of potential flooding to expand significantly, especially to the east of the Resurrection River, potentially threatening the property of numerous Seward area residents and organizations. 7) According to hydrologists because a very large amount of sediment flows down the Resurrection River, a dredged channel would not maintain itself and dredging would have to be done periodically on a continual basis. This would be an additional DOT maintenance expense, not reimbursable by the federal government. Since state transportation maintenance funds have been reduced significantly over the last few budget cycles, there is already a shortage of funds for existing maintenance commitments. 8) To restore strength to RW 13/31 would require reconstruction of the embankment, not merely repaving. Alternative 1.1, reconstructing the long runway (RW 13/31) to existing dimensions and raising it above flood level, would result in flood impacts to adjacent property owners, be expensive to build and would not be eligible for federal funding. 9) Federal money (with a state match) is available for the proposed improvements to the existing crosswind runway (RW 16/43) also known as Alternative 2.2. 10) The shortage of maintenance funds could prohibit the DOT&PF from frequently repairing flood damage to RW 13/31 if the project were not to proceed. 11) The proposed improved RW 16/34 will be of sufficient size to support fixed -wing medivac flights. If the main runway is damaged beyond repair before the proposed improvements are completed, fixed -wing medivacs may be unable to operate on the existing RW 16/34 because of its short length. 12) Will the airport improvements include water, sewer, electricity, and a fire hydrant? If not, is there a plan to provide these improvements in the future? The only utility work included in the project is an extension to provide power to the new FAA PAPI for the new runway. There is not a plan to provide these utilities in the future and they are not eligible for federal funding. 13) Is the DOT responsible for the maintenance of the dry fire hydrant at the pond? From our research DOT&PF did not install nor do we maintain this dry fire hydrant. From speaking with the Seward Fire Chief, his understanding is that the dry fire hydrant was installed with a State of Alaska grant that went to the City of Seward Public Works Department. Both the Fire Chief and Public Works were unclear who has maintenance responsibility and are looking into it. 14) If the DOT only acquires the smaller triangle of the private property of the Leirer lot, is creating access to the larger remainder required as part of the replat? No, creating access is not required as part of this platting process. Upland public access does not currently exist to the Leirer parcel or to the beach adjoining the Leirer parcel. DOT&PF is unable to provide this access as it would present a significant safety hazard for airport operations. Use of land below the line of mean high water will not be restricted. 15) Why hasn't DOT contacted and negotiated with the land owners already? DOT&PF Right -of -Way doesn't contact land owners with a request to purchase or negotiate prior to having an approved appraisal in conjunction with an approved preliminary Right -of -Way Acquisition Plat. Obtaining the appraisal and the preliminary ROW Acquisition Plat is the current process we are in. Once both of those have been approved we would proceed with contacting the owner with a request to purchase and proceed with negotiations as needed. The size and location of the parcel acquisition could change based on negotiations with the owner. Any changes agreed upon with the owner would be reflected in the final ROW acquisition plat. 16) What is the Right -of -Way acquisition plat process? Please refer to Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB) Code of Ordinances Title 20.10.070 Right-of-way acquisition plat (see attached Code of Ordinances). In this ordinance it appears the KPB planning director has the authority to approve the final plat without conferring with the city a second time if they so choose. This is our understanding from reading the ordinance, you may want to consider clarifying the process with KPB. 17) There has been some confusion as to whether this is a subdivision. If it is a subdivision, then City code requires certain improvements, which is why some people have been asking whether or not the City should require the DOT to provide utility improvements to the property. My understanding, is that this is an ROW Acquisition Plat. There is no subdividing, just re -platting of the boundary of the airport. Is this correct? This is NOT a subdivision plat, this is a Preliminary Right -of -Way acquisition plat. The land added to the airport would become State Land/Airport Property, and thus not a re -sellable parcel. 18) Is the ROW that is needed by the DOT on these three parcels simply a ROW for airspace, or also land? If it also is a land ROW, will there be any construction on the land? The ROW is needed for airspace and land use. The current project does not propose any improvements be constructed on these acquisition parcels, however improvements may need to be constructed on these parcels in the future based on airport need. 19) Is there is a plan for keeping the runway, or any runway operational while the construction on the new runway is ongoing? DOT&PF will have a Construction Safety and Phasing Plan that will require the contractor to keep a runway open during construction. There will be brief unavoidable periods of full closure, some overnight, where neither runway is available which will be coordinated ahead of time.