Schematic Layout Development

Transcription

1 Schematic Layout Development Northeast Hangar Area Manassas Regional Airport Manassas, Virginia November 2015

2 Introduction In response to the continuing development demand at Manassas Regional Airport, the following report summarizes the methodology and findings associated with the development of schematic layouts for the northeast hangar area. The intent of this effort was to develop a concept that demonstrates the overall potential for the northeast hangar complex. The resulting layouts presented herein are not intended to establish final layouts or limits, only to document that development is possible, and to what overall magnitude. Once demand generates a need to expand into this area, a more detailed preliminary engineering effort should be completed. Additional data will also need to be gathered and taken into consideration, including but not limited to: Formal environmental clearance (Environemental Assessment) Field coordination with various agencies on RPA/Wetland limits (Information used in this report is based on aerial information only. Formal investigations were not undertaken.) Floodplain impacts/assessments Traffic impact on local roads including queueing for railroad crossings Utility capacity Development criteria/interface with portions of site located within Prince William County, including Coastal Zone coordination Stormwater quality and quantity management November 2015 Page 1 of 22

3 Site Information/Background Manassas Regional Airport is a public use airport, owned and operated by the City of Manassas, Virginia. Just thirty miles south of our nation s capital, the Airport s facilities and location make it a key regional asset (see Figure 1). The Federal Aviation Administration has recognized Manassas s importance by designating it as one of the 84 national General Aviation airports, providing communities access to national and international markets. The airport is served by an Air Traffic Control Tower, and is home to several businesses, basing several large turbine corporate aircraft. As presented in Figure 2, Runway 16L-34R (6,200 x 100 ) is the airport s primary runway and is supported by parallel Runway 16R-34L (3,702 x 100). Runway 16L s Instrument Landing System (ILS) approach allows the airport to function during most visibility conditions by providing 1/2 mile visibility and 200 foot ceiling minimums. The parallel runway system is served by several taxiways which lead from hangar, FBO, and apron areas located to either side of the parallel runway complex. The airport terminal building is the center of a variety of services for arriving and departing travelers, those in need of U.S. Customs assistance, and pilots. November 2015 Page 2 of 22

4 10 Schematic Layout Report: Northeast Hangar Area GAI Airport JYO Airport IAD Airport DCA Airport M i l e s Manassas Regional Airport (HEF) 20 Mi l es N GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 5 Mile Figure 1: Vicinity Map November 2015 Page 3 of 22

5 Figure 2: Airport Diagram November 2015 Page 4 of 22

6 Northeast Hangar Area Shown on Figure 3, the northeast hangar complex is home to some of the larger aircraft and business based users. The northeast area has been expanded to a point where any future expansion is very limited or a change in development patterns would be necessary. The purpose of this paper is to present the general constraints on expansion within the existing limited footprint and to explore expansion options to the east of the complex, across Wakeman Drive. Figure 3: Northeast Hangar Complex November 2015 Page 5 of 22

7 Site Features/Constraints The project area has several features that affect development including: Wakeman Drive - currently the eastern boundary of the site Observation Road to the north Commuter/heavy rail line to the north Cannon Branch and associated environmental buffers to the east (beyond Wakeman Drive) Airport boundary north near the rail line and along Cannon Branch to the east Harry Parrish Boulevard to the south Airport to the west Design Parameters The desire for any future development of the northeast area is to continue to service large aircraft using the airport and to support the businesses associated with the aircraft owners. Using this information, an Airplane Design Group III, as defined in the FAA s Advisory Circular AC 150/ A) was chosen as the critical aircraft group to use for evaluating development potential. This design group includes aircraft with wingspans up to but not including 118 feet. Some of the aircraft in this group are: The Boeing Business Jet (B 737) Gulfstream series aircraft (including the G VI) Challenger Series Aircraft Bombardier Q-400 Bombardier Global Series Aircraft November 2015 Page 6 of 22

8 Table 4-1 from FAA AC 150/ A Airport Design lists the design standards. November 2015 Page 7 of 22

9 Development Options Option 1 While indicated as not desirable by airport staff and inconsistent with the Airport Layout Plan (See Figure 4), an option was developed using the existing physical limits, specifically Wakeman Drive. As presented on Figure 5, the development potential within the immediate footprint of the site is limited. Figure 4: Plan for Northeast quadrant from Airport Layout Plan While other concepts are possible, the option shown provides the necessary perspective to identify issues including: A hangar smaller than the desired aircraft size Problematic site access thru an existing lease area Likely no direct access to Observation Road or Wakeman Drive Precludes future growth to the east without removal of facility Unlikely to meet City design standard requirement for setbacks, etc. Inconsistent with current Airport Layout Plan November 2015 Page 8 of 22

10 Figure 5: Option 1 - Development within existing limitations November 2015 Page 9 of 22

11 Option 2 Option 2 was developed to evaluate the potential of expanding to the east. As shown on Figure 6, for this Option, the road was relocated to the eastern most boundary, established by approximating a 100 foot environmental buffer along Cannon Branch (which is also close to the airport property line). Figure 6: Option 2 - Development with adjustments to Wakeman Drive and other features It s important to note that this environmental buffer is approximate; formal surveys and an environmental assessment would be required prior to any construction. These surveys and assessment would likely revise the boundary. However for the purpose/goal of this effort, the boundary location is adequate. With the eastern boundary defined, the next step for Option 2 was to determine where and how aircraft could move from the existing airfield pavements to the area opened for development. By working north to south, five general areas of development were defined as presented below. November 2015 Page 10 of 22

12 Option 2 - Area 1 It is likely that any relocation of Wakeman Drive will require a substantial commitment by a tenant to justify the local costs associated with the road relocation. Items that would have to be addressed include environmental impacts and a crossing of a small stream/ditch. Area 1, the northern most site, shown in Figure 7, is providing the most promise for large hangars as the space available is relatively deep compared to the rest of the overall site. Highlights of Option 2 - Area 1 include: T h e a b i l i t y t o p h a s e t h e r e l o c a t i o n o f W a k e m a n D r i v e. W h i l e not ideal for traffic flow, the phased relocation shown allows for incremental financial commitment. Apron space and taxilanes designed for Group III aircraft (wingspans up to 118 feet, taxilane object free width is 162 ). Potential for large hangars. Those shown are for visual references only. Actual hangar size(s) will depend on need of future tenant. To accommodate new apron, existing autoparking needs to be relocated. A parking lot east of existing Wakeman Drive has been shown to replace those spaces lost. It is important to note that the lot size is based on maximizing the general space available and not based on any space demand. Phase I relocation of Wakeman Drive. Figure 7: Option 2 - Area 1 November 2015 Page 11 of 22

13 Option 2 - Area 2 Schematic Layout Report: Northeast Hangar Area As presented in Figure 8, Area 2 is to some extent interdependent on Area 1. Due to the lack of direct airfield access to Area 2, an office building is shown to the east of the parking lot developed as part of Area 1. This office can either be an office used for direct airport use or through coordination with the FAA, this area could be defined as nonaviation related use. Also shown as part of Area 2 is the potential relocation of the airport s fuel farm and its Figure 8: Option 2 - Area 2 replacement with a second office building. This idea is being presented primarily to reinforce conversations during the development of these layouts that the fuel farm location is not fixed and under the right circumstances, could be relocated. The other purpose for showing the relocation is the somewhat cumbersome access that is developed for the fuel farm with the relocation of Wakeman Drive. Highlights of Option 2 Area 2 include: Two new multi-story office buildings (height limit subject to FAR Part 77 surfaces). Common parking with office and adjacent development to allow for campus style development. Potential to shift/expand development to the south with the relocation of the fuel farm. Airside access from the fuel farm (prior to relocation or if it remains) and other users is maintained. November 2015 Page 12 of 22

14 Option 2 - Area 3 Area 3 (Figure 9) starts by constructing the second phase of the Wakeman Drive relocation. As before, the traffic pattern developed is somewhat awkward as it requires right turns versus a direct path. These right turns are necessary to accommodate the future and final phase of the relocation while not sacrificing or creating temporary roads. An example of this can be seen where the access to Area 2 is now shifted to the east of the second phase of Wakeman Drive relocation, yet the original leg is still maintained and now accesses the parking lots only. Highlights of Option 2 Area 3 include: A new 58,000 sf apron area Two new hangars The rotating beacon and the airfield electrical vault are between Area 2 and 3 and would likely be relocated to more appropriate locations. Airside access is maintained thru existing gates and roadway network. Phase II of Wakeman Drive It is important to note that with expansion into Area 3, the airport boundary now crosses into Prince William County. Development would likely require review and approval of both the City of Manassas and Prince William County. This also triggers the need to complete Coastal Zone coordination. Something that would have been completed as part of the environmental effort. Figure 9: Option 2 - Area 3 November 2015 Page 13 of 22

15 Option 2 - Areas 4 and 5 Areas 4 and 5 will likely be developed together. When Area 4 or 5 are opened, (see Figure 10) little would be gained by adding an additional phase to the relocation of Wakeman Drive. Area 4 opens up with the relocation/removal of two T-hangar buildings. While in fair to good condition today, by the time development demand moves to Area 4, it is likely that a costly rehabilitation of both the buildings and site would be necessary. This option re-designates the area for use by larger aircraft. Area 5 lacks the airside access so development would likely be for support facilities similar to the ARFF station currently shown on the Airport Layout plan. Highlights of Option 2 Area 4 and 5 include: A new apron area New large hangar with enough space to support a large parking lot or the space could be used for other needs if the parking needs are smaller than that shown. A local area to be used by the Airport for support. While designated as ARFF, any support facility could be accommodate. ARFF would likely require some airside access improvements. November 2015 Page 14 of 22

16 It is important to note that with expansion into Area 3, the airport boundary now crosses over into Prince William County. Development would likely require review and approval of both the City of Manassas and the County. Figure 10: Option 2 - Area 4 and 5 A complete layout of Option 2 is presented in Figure 11. November 2015 Page 15 of 22

17 Figure 11: Option 2 November 2015 Page 16 of 22

18 Option 3 East of the Airport, on the opposite side of Cannon Creek, is an industrial park. This park, located in Prince William County is currently managed by CBRE. The company s web page provides the layout shown in below which indicates that the proposed use is warehouse and distribution. As presented on Figure 12, an opportunity may exist to provide airport access across Cannon Creek. While direct airfield access would not be possible, this connection could facilitate use of both the airport and the industrial park by one entity that has both an aviation component and a non-aviation component. Accessing the industrial area to the east also introduces the possibility of using the industrial park s road in place of relocating Wakeman Drive. While this concept would require multiple crossings of Cannon Creek, this concept would provide for some additional depth for airport development and the connecting roads could provide for improved security for airport tenants. November 2015 Page 17 of 22

19 Figure 12: Option 3 November 2015 Page 18 of 22

20 Figure 13: Option 4 November 2015 Page 19 of 22

21 BUDGET ESTIMATES Budgets have been developed based on recent (CY 2015) prices for similar projects. Details of the budgets are presented in Appendix A. It is important to note that, due to the limited detailed information known at this level of effort, several contingencies have been added. Even with these contingencies, budgets should be revisited as any phase of the relocation of Wakeman Drive progresses. Budgets for each phase of work are presented below. November 2015 Page 20 of 22

22 Appendix A Preliminary Project Budget

23 PRELIMINARY PROJECT BUDGET RELOCATE WAKEMAN DRIVE MANASSAS REGIONAL AIRPORT, VIRGINIA Date: November 9, 2015 Administration IFE Estimate $ 5, $ 5, $ 5, $ 15, May be AIP Eligible Postage, other admin costs $ 10, $ 10, $ 10, $ 30, May be AIP Eligible Subtotal $ 15, $ 15, $ 15, $ 45, Preliminary expense ALP Update, planning study $ 150, $ - $ - $ 150, One time cost. Environmental Assessment $ 450, $ - $ - $ 450, Engineering basic fees Subtotal $ 600, $ - $ - $ 600, Design $ 350, $ 50, $ 50, $ 450, Bidding $ 10, $ 10, $ 10, $ 30, Subtotal $ 360, $ 60, $ 60, $ 480, Project inspection fees Construction Phase services $ 250, $ 225, $ 225, $ 700, May be AIP Eligible Subtotal $ 250, $ 225, $ 225, $ 700, Assumes high costs associated with Cannon Creek Phase 1 includes full design, other phases are bid package development Construction and project improvement cost Budget construction costs (rounded up to nearest $50,000) $ 1,800, $ 1,150, $ 1,150, $ 4,100, May be AIP Eligible Wetland mitigation and permitting (assume 3 acres) $ 250, $ - $ - $ 250, Cost is upfront for cumulative impacts Relocate Utilities Miscellaneous cost PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 TOTAL Contained in construction budgets Subtotal $ 2,050, $ 1,150, $ 1,150, $ 4,350, REMARKS Contingency 15% $ 490, $ 220, $ 220, $ 930, May be AIP Eligible Subtotal $ 490, $ 220, $ 220, $ 930, TOTALS $ 3,765, $ 1,670, $ 1,670, $ 7,105, All costs in CY 2015 dollars N:\15071\03 Project Data\Estimates\15071 CS01_Preliminary Page 1 of 1

24 ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST RELOCATE WAKEMAN DRIVE MANASSAS REGIONAL AIRPORT MANASSAS, VIRGINIA DELTA PROJECT NO DATE November 9, 2015 (CY 2015 DOLLARS USED) PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 TOTAL DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY UNIT PRICE TOTAL QTY UNIT PRICE TOTAL QTY UNIT PRICE TOTAL QTY UNIT PRICE TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS PAVEMENT DRAINAGE MOBILIZATION (10% OF ALL OTHER COSTS, ROUNDED) LS 1 $ 130, $ 130, $ 80, $ 80, $ 80, $ 80, $ 290, $ 290, MISCELLANEOUS DEMOLITION LS 1 $ 10, $ 10, $ 10, $ 10, $ 10, $ 10, $ 30, $ 30, CLEARING AND GRUBBING AC 10 $ 5, $ 50, $ 5, $ 35, $ 5, $ 35, $ 5, $ 120, UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION CY 25,000 $ 8.00 $ 200, ,000 $ 8.00 $ 120, ,000 $ 8.00 $ 120, ,000 $ 8.00 $ 440, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL LS 1 $ 50, $ 50, $ 50, $ 50, $ 50, $ 50, $ 150, $ 150, SEEDING AND MULCHING AC 10 $ 3, $ 30, $ 3, $ 21, $ 3, $ 21, $ 3, $ 72, AGGREGATE BASE, VDOT 21A TN 3,000 $ $ 90, ,500 $ $ 45, ,500 $ $ 45, ,000 $ $ 180, ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT, SM-9.5A TN 1,100 $ $ 110, $ $ 55, $ $ 55, ,200 $ $ 220, ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT, BM-25.0 TN 700 $ $ 63, $ $ 31, $ $ 31, ,400 $ $ 126, " RCP, CLASS III (ASSUMED) LF 130 $ $ 39, $ $ 39, $ $ 39, $ $ 117, " UNDERDRAIN PIPE LF 5,000 $ $ 50, ,500 $ $ 25, ,500 $ $ 25, ,000 $ $ 100, VDOT STD ES-1 EA 2 $ 5, $ 10, $ 5, $ 10, $ 5, $ 10, $ 5, $ 30, RIPRAP, CLASS I SY 25 $ $ 2, $ $ 2, $ $ 2, $ $ 6, MISC DRAINAGE (20% OF ALL OTHER DRAINAGE) LS 1 $ 20, $ 20, $ 15, $ 15, $ 15, $ 15, $ 50, $ 50, SECURITY UTILITIES TRAFFIC CONTROL 8' GALVANIZED CHAIN LINK FENCE LF 2,500 $ $ 62, ,200 $ $ 30, ,200 $ $ 30, ,900 $ $ 122, AUTOMATIC VEHICLE SLIDING GATE EA 2 $ 10, $ 20, $ 10, $ 20, $ 10, $ 20, $ 10, $ 60, PEDESTRIAN GATE EA 2 $ 1, $ 3, $ 1, $ 3, $ 1, $ 3, $ 1, $ 9, ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEM UPGRADES LS 1 $ 50, $ 50, $ 50, $ 50, $ 50, $ 50, $ 150, $ 150, " WATER MAIN LF 2,500 $ $ 200, ,200 $ $ 96, ,200 $ $ 96, ,900 $ $ 392, FIRE HYDRANT EA 2 $ 4, $ 9, $ 4, $ 9, $ 4, $ 9, $ 4, $ 27, WATER MAIN APPURTENANCES LS 1 $ 25, $ 25, $ 25, $ 25, $ 25, $ 25, $ 75, $ 75, SANITARY SEWER LF 2,500 $ $ 125, ,200 $ $ 60, ,200 $ $ 60, ,900 $ $ 245, SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE EA 2 $ 5, $ 10, $ 5, $ 10, $ 5, $ 10, $ 5, $ 30, POWER LS 1 $ 50, $ 50, $ 50, $ 50, $ 50, $ 50, $ 150, $ 150, TRAFFIC SIGNS LS 1 $ 5, $ 5, $ 5, $ 5, $ 5, $ 5, $ 5, $ 15, PAVEMENT MARKING 4" SF 1,700 $ 4.00 $ 6, $ 4.00 $ 3, $ 4.00 $ 3, ,300 $ 4.00 $ 13, SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCY 25% TOTAL CONSTRUCTION (rounded) $ 1,420,800 $ 899,825 $ 899,825 $ 3,220,075 $ 355,200 $ 224,956 $ 224,956 $ 805,019 $ 1,780,000 $ 1,120,000 $ 1,120,000 $ 4,030,000 N:\15071\03 Project Data\Estimates\15071 EST01 Page 1 of 1