Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br />~ <br /> <br />Ms. Miller asked what additional steps would be necessary prior to closure <br />of Greenhill Road and what processes would be available for public involve- <br />ment regarding the terminal expansion before that project would be under- <br />taken. Mr. Shelby noted the steps regarding terminal expansion would <br />involve selection of an architectural firm with which to negotiate a <br />contract for the City's consideration. Upon execution of the contract, <br />the chosen firm would begin to work with the City and airport clients to <br />determine Phase 1 development. The Airport Commission is now trying to <br />determine how to get maximum public input into that phase. After that, <br />a bond issue or other means of financing will be suggested in order to <br />apply for grants. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />In response to Mr. Lieuallen's request for clarification~ Mr. Long respon- <br />ded that the argument presented in earlier testimony was that the implemen- <br />tation of the Plan with the kind of zoning that was discussed would render <br />certain property unusable. He stated that if governmental action results <br />in a situation where no use can be made of the property, the owner may be <br />entitled to compensation, although he does not feel that is the case in <br />this situation, nor is that question before the Council at this time. <br /> <br />Mr. Obie suggested to the Council that the Plan not be approved during the <br />meeting and that staff be requested to prepare memos or alternatives that <br />would address 1) acknowledgment that the Council is not dealing with <br />future land use designation in the Plan; 2) that Greenhill Road not be <br />closed without provisions for solutions to traffic problems; 3) that the <br />Plan be amended to require a subsection regarding dealing with energy <br />problems facing commuters. He stated he was not suggesting the Plan be <br />amended, but that the three already mentioned concerns be dealt with. Ms. <br />Smith asked Mr. Obie if he had a time schedule in mind for resolving these <br />concerns, and he responded, one week to ten days. Mr. Shelby stated Mr. <br />Obie's first two concerns could be addressed within that time frame, but <br />that the subsection on energy might take longer and be subject to negoti- <br />ation between FAA and the consultants. Mr. Obie suggested adopting the <br />Plan with acknowledgment that the energy concern will be dealt with in the <br />future. Ms. Miller agreed that these concerns should be dealt with and <br />hoped it would clarify some concerns of hers regarding controls and guide- <br />lines for development. She also felt some of the concerns regarding the <br />terminal expansion, such as passenger boarding methods, also needed clari- <br />fication. Mr. Parry stated the terminal building is a schematic plan <br />which would be discussed with the airport tenants. The current airline <br />tenants have generally approved the concept. <br /> <br />Ms. Smith moved that the Airport Master Plan be brought <br />back to City Council February 25 for consideration; Mr. <br />Lieuallen seconded the motion. Roll call vote; motion <br />carried unanimously. <br /> <br />Mr. Haws left during the break. <br /> <br />,e <br /> <br />2/11/80--9 <br />