02/11/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

c RaY Costello, 3040 25th Street SE, Salem, identified himself as the a~sistant administrator of the Oregon Aeronautics Division and Director of Planning for the aviation system. He noted that the agency endorses the Plan, particularly in respect to planning for land use in the vicinity o~ the airport. Mdrk Beisse, FAA, Seattle, represents FAA planning for Oregon. He noted the FAA had participated in this study and that they commend City staff (~specially Planning and Airport commissions) for their work. This precise Plan will be used for determining funding eligibility of this project and helping with facility design, providing an excellent basis for management of the airport. He said the Plan provides the best solutions available. He stated they would approve this Plan as proposed, subject to continued work on land use compatibility. He encouraged Eugene, in conjunction with Lane County, to adopt land development controls based on this Plan. This action is a prerequisite to FAA.s funding this program. The airport and airway development requires action including the adoption of zoning ordinances to restrict the use of land in the vicinity of airports to activities compatible with the airport operations. He stated they are pleased with the planning and development, but cautioned that following through with development and ensuring compatibility of land use is essential. c, Melba Barnes, 29943 Awbrey Lane, stated the Plan seemed very well planned, but she was concerned that the sewer area would be placed at the end of the runway and that it would be hazardous to the public. Those speaking against: Vernon D. Gleaves, 975 Oak Street, attorney on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Elbert Drake, property owners at the northeast quadrant of Greenhill Road and Airport Road, asked that a memo that had been distributed under separate cover, dated January 30, 1980, subject: Mahlon Sweet Airport Update Plan, be entered into the public record. He also stated his feeling that this is more than a facilities plan, but rather a land use plan and that the consultants. report indicated the compatible uses for this area would not be restricted to airport land. He further indicated that the Drakes' land (presently zoned AV) is also prime development land. He also stated there was an apparent lack of concern about the hazards for residential development and the Drakes. residence for planes flying above the Drakes' residence, and that there seemed to be an exclusion on devel- opment granted to the City on non-airport required development in and around the airport, which he claimed was in violation of antitrust laws. He stated if the City is to infringe on the air space over the Drakes' land and develop the airport in this manner, it has a duty to acquire and pay for the land. He also submitted that the City should not be developing its own land use plan, but rather involving Lane County in this process, and that the Plan is therefore invalid. He added that the Plan does not include the State's Land Use Planning Goals. He also questioned the Plan's being predicated upon road vacation, which might or might not happen. ~ 2/11/80--6 e e e