Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'There being no further testimony presented, the public hearing was closed. <br />" <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mayor Keller called for a recess. <br /> <br />Mr. Haws left during the break. <br /> <br />Mr. Long stated that he believes that the Master Plan is only that, a <br />master plan. He further noted that the suggestion is that the Council <br />,cannot adopt this plan and that the arguments seemed to be circular. He <br />indicated that if this is viewed by some as a land use action then an <br />acceptable process of adopting an exception to LCDC's goals has to be <br />I followed. He further stated this is not a rezoning action; it is in <br />response to Federal regulations, and if anything, it is a refinement <br />" pl an. <br /> <br />Gary Chenkin stated the 1990 Plan had been adopted in 1972 and did include <br />, acknowledgment of the Airport Master Plan then being prepared. The <br />Airport Plan now under consideration is an updated refinement of the <br />1990 Plan. He further stated that there are many items to be considered <br />regarding specific off-airport uses and these should be included in the <br />Metro Plan Update process. He emphasized that specific off-airport land <br />uses are not currently under consideration in this adoption process. He <br />felt adoption of the Airport Plan need not be delayed until acceptance of <br />the Metro Plan Update. In response to the adequacy of the notice, he <br />stated he had checked with LCDC staff and received information that the <br />notice should be published in the paper with general circulation as soon <br />as it was realized an exception may be considered. He further noted there <br />was no request for any specific length of time for running this notice in ~ <br />the paper and that it was published within their usual 15- to 5-day <br />guideline for hearings. It did appear in Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday <br />nights' Register-Guard. He further stated that individual notices had <br />been mailed to people who had testified at the last hearing. <br /> <br />Mr. Obie asked for clarification regarding the staff recommendations based <br />on the comments made at the last hearing. He desired additional informa- <br />tion regarding the location of private aircraft runways and stated he was <br />not aware of the letter from Mr. Henry regarding the ball fields, but that <br />he would look favorably toward continuation of that activity. He further <br />stated he heard Mr. Gleaves saying one thing and the amendment saying <br />another; at least as it is written in the memo. He did not understand. <br /> <br />Mr. Shelby noted that in 1972, six alternative locations were considered <br />for the parallel runway and three factors were considered in looking at <br />each of them. Those factors were cost, environmental impact, and capa- <br />city. He stated that because of environmental concerns, very few new <br />airports are being built. He further stated that there is a difference in <br />cost for the chosen runway which would make it cost about $50,000 less <br />annually in operations. He further noted that the airspace capacity will <br />become saturated if it continues at the current rate in about three-and- <br />one-half years. He further stated that even if additional airports are <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />2/25/80--6 <br />