Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-06-01 adj268 June 1, 1988 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia~ was held on June 1, 1988, at 4:00 P.M., Meeting Room #5, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The meeting was adjourned from May 18, 1988. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 4:14 P.M.), Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way (arrived at 4:10 P.M.). BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 4:14 P.M., by the Chairman, Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 2. Presentation of Plans for Terminal Building at Airport. Mr. Mike Boggs, Airport Manager, thanked the Board for the opportunity to meet and to present the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority's plans for the development of the airline passenger terminal at the airport. Assist- ing him this afternoon is Mr. Roger Cannon, the architect'for the project, of the firm O'Brien-Atkins from Raleigh, North Carolina. Mr. Boggs said planning for this project began about 18 months ago. The project is presently in the last stages of the design phase. Within the next two to four weeks the design stages will be completed and work will begin on the construction documents. Construction on the site and preparation for the path to the building is planned to begin this Fall, with structural work on the building to begin in March, 1989. Following the start of the structural work, completion of the project is projected to take about 18 months, which is expected around August, 1990. The original airport terminal building, consisting of 15,600 square feet, was built in the early 1960's and was designed to accommodate primarily one airline operating propeller-type aircraft. Since that time the growth in the local market and changes in the industry have made the existing building inadequate in all of its functional areas. Functional areas refer to airline ticketing, airline baggage makeup, baggage claim areas an4 lobby areas. With the exception of Dulles, the growth in the locai market (Charlottes- ville air service market) has been greater than any other~airport in the Commonwealth of Virginia since 1968. In 1978 when the airport first deregu- lated, it served one airline. At the present there are f~ur airlines and at one time this last year it served six airlines. There used to be nine flights daily, presently there are 27 daily flights and in January, 1988, there were 40 flights. In 1978, the airport handled 116,000 passeng~rs~, and in 1987 it handled 260,000 passengers. ~ Some issues that affect the continued use of the terminal are security requirements by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)iland the size of the airplane which this airport can handle, a 737 which carries 110 passengers. The present terminal building was not designed to accommodate a mixture of different size airplanes. Also, for smaller airplanes, pebple board across the ramp. With larger jets people expect to board throug~ jet waves (second level loading devices). Although the airport handled 260,000 passengers last i~ear, that only represents half the local air service demand. The rest ofi the people drive to Dulles, Richmond and Washington National to pick up their ~lights. The only way this airport will be able to get the service the peop~ want and to compete with other communities is to be able to provide f~r the airlines that operate in the area. In the next couple of years there a~ going to be a lot of opportunities for communities that have strong demands ~for air service, such as Charlottesville and Albemarle, to improve that serVice. There will be a net increase of 20 percent more aircraft flying the ski~s over the next couple of years. June 1, 1988 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) 269 An important reason for the new terminal building is that the terminal is the first impression that people get of this con~nunity and sometimes the last impression. The existing terminal facilities and the accommodations for airline passengers at the airport currently do not reflect the same kind of quality that exists in other parts of this community, thus the Airport Authority feels it is important that some improvements be made. When this project first came together, there were several considerations that the architects had to deal with: (1) size--ability to accox~odate traffic through the year 2000 which is projected at 440,000 passengers. The new building is expandable in both directions so that number can be exceeded when necessary; (2) flexibility--building expandable in all of the functional areas independently without affecting other areas; (3) accommodate both commuter operators with the smaller aircraft ~and the large jet aircraft with the same quality of service; and (4) severe site limitations. Restrictions are 750 feet from the runway centerline on constructing close to a runway, on the west side is a building restriction line of 750 feet imposed by the FAA, on the east side there is a 40 foot grade difference between the site and Route 606, and a parking development in the center of the layout. There remained a narrow area of approximately 140 feet of workable area. To the south of the existing terminal is the general aviation development (small airplanes, corporate operators, military flights). Ail of these dissimilar uses need to be separated, which places a limitation on development to the south. A further restriction that relates to the design of the building is the existing FAA control tower. The FAA made it clear in the beginning that it was their intent to continue to utilizethat tower and they would not spend additional funds on the tower. The design was therefore limited vertically by the height of the control tower. Tower controllers must be able to see airplanes and cannot have obstructions in their view. Mr. Cannon said O'Brien-Atkins is a multi-disciplinary design firm located in North Carolina. The firm is 13 years old and employes 115 people. The firm employs landscape architects, interibr designers, electrical, mechani- cal engineers, and graphic and signage desigm, i Some considerations that the Airport Authority presented to the firm for the project were: (1) quality of the area; (2) architecture and historical significance; (3) flexibility of the design; (4) service to both small and large airplanes; (5) people who require special assistance (elderly and handicapped pgrsons); (6) natural beauty of the area; and (7) allow natural daylight to make the building feel open, uncrowded, light and airy. In summary, the b~ilding should be a gateway to the community and it should look as good from~either side, in essence there should be no back door. The architects have tried to keep consistent concepts throughout the design of the facility, again paying special attention to the architecture. Mr. Cannon then presented the Board with a comprehensive description of the plans and layout of the building and of the airline opera- tions. Mr. Boggs said along with work that is going to be done on the building, there will be some additional site work at the Airport. The intent is to relocate the loop access road to the airport as far north as possible. Doing that will open up the center area for additional parking, future expansion and the ability to separate general aviation and commercial aviation. He gave the Board members a sheet showing the costs involved for the project. The budget for the project is $130 per square foot for t~e building which includes a built-in contingency. The total project costiis estimated at $12.1 million. Mr. Agnor said the design for the airpor~ was shown to local architects for comments. The responses were receptive t~ the plan. Mr. Agnor said the financial feasibility !is being examined at the present and funding is heavily dependent on the Virginia Department of Transportation. The financial feasibility will be finished sometime during the month of June. Mr. Bain asked if the funds are from loans or grants. Mr. Agnor responded grants. There will be some loans involved, b~t the federal and state funds are from grants. Mr. Bain asked the percentage of overall funds available. Mr. Boggs said the project is eligible for 10~ percent funding of public use space and the building is split about 65:35 i~ terms of public use space and revenue producing space. They have received a~ letter of intent for approxi- mately $6 million from the Virginia Aviation BOard. The federal portion of the project will be basically the site development with the exception of the 270 June 1, 1988 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) paid public parking and the request is for about $2.9 million in federal funds which comes from the Airport Improvement Program. The rest of the project would befinanced through other means. Mr. Perkins asked if the airlines pay for space. Mr. Boggs said the airlines pay a variety of fees such as rental, landing fees and use of holding space. The other concessionaires at the airport subsidize expenses for the lobby, bathrooms, etc. Mr. Perkins asked if there is an observation platform. Mr. Cannon responded "yes" it is in the center area on the second floor, overlooking the runway. Mr. Bain asked if the cost estimates are fairly solid figures. Mr. Boggs said the Airport Authority hired a firm to work with them.on the costs which have been increased to include inflation and a tough bidding basis. Mr. Cannon said for the cost estimates they used historical data and a Virginia contractor to do estimating to try to obtain as much knowledge as possible about costs as the project progressed. Agenda Item No. 3. Executive Session: Personnel. At 5:03 P.M., Mr. Bowie offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, for an executive session for personnel matters. Roll was called ~and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. The Board reconvened into open session at 7:29 P.M. : Agenda Item No. 4. Adjourn. There being no further :business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.