Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-02891 ApplicationCOMMENDED EXPANSION OF ADAMS FIELD AND ITS EFFECT ON SOUTHERN RENDERING COMPANY Backa=nd. Adams Field presently has three aircraft run- ways-, however, only one of them (Runway 4/22) is a -precision instrument runway and is of sufficient length and strength to accommodate scheduled air carrier aircraft on a daily sustained basis. Runway 17/35 can be used by airline air- craft under certain wind, temperature, and aircraft load conditions, but the use of Runway 17/35 on a sustained basis would impose definite restrictions on air carrier operations® The Southern Rendering Company is located adjacent to and north of Adams Field. The plant is just to the northwest of the approach end of Runway 22, outside of the Clear Zone but within the transition zone. Three structures associated with the plant protrude into the airspace of the transition zone and therefore constitute obstructions. The -obstructions are at the edge of the clear zone and have Dosed no operating problems to this time. One of the structures, a smokestack, is painted and lighted as an obstruction. The other structures are a hopper and a storage bin. Problem. Within the next year or two it will be necessary to commence major construction work to upgrade the existing Run- way 4/22 and strengthen it in order to accommodate both the present class of air carrier aircraft and the heavier type expected in the future. For the longer term, consideration Page 2 must be given to keeping the approaches to the runway free of obstructions so that the required 50:1 glide slope can be maintained. If and when justified by traffic demands, the runway should be capable of being upgraded to a Category II runway with more sophisticated instrument landing aids. The major construction required, whether it be an overlay or a complete reconstruction, will most likely be impossible to accomplish under air traffic conditions and the runway will have to be closed to traffic for the construction period which may be up to twelve months. Discussion of Alternate Solutions. The engineers and planners working on the Airport Master Plan, as well as the airport . staff, have carefully studied various alternates to improve the existing runway with the least disruption to air traffic. The possible solutions include: (a) Close Runway 4/22 and divert air carrier traffic elsewhere until reconstruction is completed. - (b) Close Runway 4/22 and use Runway 17/35 for air carrier traffic until reconstruction is completed. (c) Construct an extension to Runway 17/35, then divert air carrier traffic to it while working on reconstruction of Runway 4/22. (d) Construct a new parallel Runway 4/22 approximately 4,200 feet southeast of existing 4/22 and divert air carrier traffic to the new runway. (e) Construct a close -in parallel Runway 4/22 800 feet northwest of the existing Runway 4/22. Use the new Runway page j 4L/22R for air carrier traffic while reconstructing existing Runway 4/22® After construction is complete, move air carrier traffic back to 4R/22L and continue use of the close parallel for general aviation aircraft and as a reliever or backup for air carrier aircraft when the primary runway is closed for any reason. Solutions (a) and (b) were rejected as being not in the public interest since scheduled airline traffic to Little Rock would be curtailed entirely or severlV limited by either of these alternates. Alternate (c), the extension on Runway 17/35, is considered impractical because of environmental® land acquisition and obstruction clearance problems and the need for major pave- ment strengthening for sustained operations. Solution (d) was ruled out as being economically unjustified because of the amount of land acquisition needed, as related to the current and projected traffic demands, although this may ultimately be justified under the lona range Master Plan in the 20-25 year period. Solution (e) was decided on as being the most practical, economical and effective means of solving the problem. Previously, it was thought that reconstruction of Runway 4/22 would also require eliminating about 800 feet from the southwest end and adding a like amount to the northeast in order to provide a clear 50:1 approach slope at the southeast® However, in consultation with the FAA at Fort Worth, we have determined that maintaining a 50.-1 slope free of obstruction at the approach to Runway 22 Page 4 (northeast) will allow us to keep the runway thresholds at their present locations. This will avoid the need to move the exist- ing lights at the southwest end of the runway and avoid the need to relocate the street and levee at the northeast endo It will also eliminate the need to completely clear the land presently occupied by Southern Rendering Company. Only the same three structures® (smokestack® hopper and storage bin) which are obstructions to the existing runway will be obstruc- tions to the proposed close -in parallel. The buildings them- selves are below the approach slope in both instances. Recommended Solution. The Airport Commission® as well as the consulting engineers and staff have approved the concept of, constructing the close -in parallel runway 4/22 to be used while the existing runway 4/22 is overlayed or reconstructed to meeting air carrier needs© From conversations with representatives of the Federal Aviation Administration at Fort Worth, we believe that the FAA will also approve this plan® We propose to leave the runway thresholds in their present locations and to leave the approach slope at the runway 4 (southwest) end at its present 40:1 configuration® The approach slope for the north- east and would remain at 50:1 and therefore be suitable for eventual upgrading to Category II if required. The approach slope for the close -in parallel would be maintained at 34:1 since no instrument landing system would be involved. In order to accomplish the foregoing® we recommend that an easement be purchased from Southern Rendering Company which Page D would allow the Airport Commission to clear all existI'na obstructions by lowering or relocating them, and to control the airspace over the company property to prevent obstructions, whether manmade or natural, to the approach and transition zones of the existing and future runways. Granting of an easement such as described above will afford the Airport Commission adequate property interests to protect the airport approaches and would eliminate the need to acquire fee title to the land. In that case, the Southern Rendering Company could remain at its present location and expand its facilities as planned, subject to the restrictions of the easement. A. E. TOWNSEND, JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW SUITE 1050, PLAZA WEST BUILDING LEE & McKINLEY STREETS LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72205 September 19, 1974 Mr. Don Venhaus Planning and Zoning Commission City Hall Markham and Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Don: Re: Southern Rendering Company PHONE 664-9380 Reference is made to the request of Southern Rendering Company for a building permit for the construction of an addition to its present facility. This matter will be on the agenda of the Board of Directors on October 1, 1974. In endeavoring to comply with Section 43-9 of the Zoning Ordinance, and having insufficient time to appear before the Planning Commission, we submit letters supporting the issuance of waiver for a building permit. Being unable to find a Board of Fire Underwriters or Factory Insurance Association as set out in the Ordinance, we have obtained letters from the Insurance Service Office of Arkansas and Little Rock Fire Department. I am also enclosing a copy of a sketch of the work for your information. Any assistance you can give us in this matter will be appreciated. Very truly yours, A Townsend, Jr. AET:sf cc: William D. Brown Enclosure s INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICE r• OF ARKANSAS P O BOX 2667 •TOWER BUILDING • LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203 TELEPHONE (501) 376-1361 WM. M. HARMAN. MANAGER September 12, 1974 Mr. Frank Lambright Williams and Rosen Insurance P. 0. Box 3686 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Serial 446286 Southern Rendering Company 4300 East 9th Street Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Mr. Lambright: In accordance with your request we have reviewed the information concerning the proposed expansion of this location and can see no increase in hazard from such extension in so far as fire insurance rates might be involved. Yours very truly, INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICE OF IXKAN AC TTI. M. Harman Manager wmh:rg LITTLE ROCK FIRE DEPARTMENT `'t•ks's MARKHAM & ARCH STREETS LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 JACK D. DAVIS PHONE 376-6111 Fire Chief September 11, 1974 EXT. 248 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: With reference to the proposed annex or expansion to the Southern Rendering Company Plant located at 4300 East 9th Street, Little Rock, Arkansas, this Department does not in any way see where the addition as proposed would conflict with the operation as it now exists, but would, in certain instances, improve the operation. We do not see that the proposed addition would create any special hazards that would be objectionable. Sincerely, -CS L Jack D. Davis, Chief JDD/mld PREVENTING FIRES SAVES LIVES AND PROPERTY Z\NNEX NO -2- 54 J L i r ate /11114 --I- PARKS PLAN -AF LEVEE R 1) IAI 5T 0 --74 0 v7 !ter [-2-56. 71 7 7- -57 I 1 w - °�I houTH�RtJ• RE►JD�R►►�6r co, �9 z MARY \v, L;5aaw r PA r -GES. 2 � 1\612� 4. sal e f S ' h N \ I to aY cb Ae PSA or Ol " 1 . NBW AnPlliafJ • R. it, el 4? ilk --- - VOL ,�