|
. ,
<br /> . , , N,.....14:V: .'"?....r,p11::'7:" •;,,',-,%•%.V,Tri.y476:40r.•.,Ytt 0,9:.:,,e.,,pilt,.71,11z..k.....Vtar : !, ..,f4.10,ice. ,t: ,' 7':' .„1.,; • ,i-.';''' % .
<br /> .'.:':-?-t-,."71 ,:- , : --. .?r,:wt,-cr+•4,44.4.1:.k::;77,;.,,..41.7 i'iL--.'.==,"..-'.4,:, ,,v, ;A. ;,: ,i,... z.;..: ,„ ,1 ,'!"...T.I. T;...X..,.7: ,74,r,_ ..,....
<br /> ".% '0, '',', 'i':•377.
<br /> . . ..
<br /> 03
<br /> The Board discussed the condition regarding the fire access road.
<br /> Smith indicated that the alternative suggested through Meadowcrest
<br /> subdivision was acceptable.
<br /> MOTION: Pilkey moved that the request to delete condition #3 be denied for the
<br /> 1
<br /> reasons stated in paragraph four of the handout. She added that the
<br /> condition allow for an access road through either Teer Road or Meadowcrest
<br /> subdivision. Laszlo seconded the motion,
<br /> . I
<br /> , 1
<br /> Smith indicated that the developer had no more information to add regarding
<br /> the obtaining of easements through the Meadowcrest subdivision.
<br /> VOTE: UnanimouS.
<br /> 1
<br /> The Board discussed the condition regarding the accessory uses at the airport,
<br /> I
<br /> Gordon asked staff to specify what uses were proposed. Smith directed the
<br /> Board to the uses specified on the diagram of a typical hangar. Mehler indi-
<br /> cated that the diagram was intended to suggest the location and space allocate
<br /> 1.
<br /> to uses within the three hangars, but that the uses specified in the letter
<br /> of April 114, 1983 from Peloquin Associates were what the developer wished
<br /> to be included. He stressed that the diagram indicates only the space to
<br /> be utilied for the uses. Smith indicated that the staff understood
<br /> that only the uses specified on the diagram were to be considered. Mehler
<br /> felt therie was a misunderstanding by staff.
<br /> Gordon ndI ted that at issue was what uses would specifically be allowed.
<br /> MOTION: Gordon moved that the following uses specifically be granted in the condition
<br /> for apprdval: lounges, pilot ready room, flight training area, parts
<br /> sales and service, restrooms, vending machine area, locker rooms,
<br /> aircraft sales offices, offices for airport manager and staff and radio
<br /> sales and service. She continued that the following uses should specifically
<br /> be deleted: concession area, car rental, unlimited office space and all
<br /> items listed under (p) in the letter from Peloquin Associates.
<br /> Shanklin felt all the uses specified in the letter were normal accessory uses.
<br /> Mehler noted the developer had submitted the information requested by
<br /> Rick Cannlity which included the uses expected to be included and the space
<br /> allocated to the uses.
<br /> I
<br /> Laszlo felt a car rental service was reasonableoas was a snack bar. She
<br /> emphasized,, however, that she did not want a commercial venture which would
<br /> attract people instead of just servicing those normally using the airport.
<br /> I
<br /> Gordon f e, t the Board needed to define accessory use. Smith responded that
<br /> /1.
<br /> an FAA ciFcular on accessory uses specified those included in the diagram
<br /> as appropriate, but did not include the others in the written list.
<br />
|