04/08/87 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RESPONSE TO MR. J. SENTYRZi (OAKWOOD CONSTRUCTION & REALTY) COMMENTS: Mr. Sentyrz~s letter statee that he is opposed not only to airport zoning but airport development as a whole. A number of alleged "facts", comments and questions are expressed which are erroneous or are unrelated to airport zoning. A number of questions were raised which would be more appropriately addressed by the City if necessary. The underlying threads of his comments, however, appear to center around the following: 1) Purchase of land for the airport 2) housing and business "hazards" 3) Impact on property values and taxes Mr. Sentryz appears to be under the mistaken impression that the proposed airport is being purchased to relieve the present owners of property of a tax burden, iThe proposed acquisition program encom- passes some 52 parcels of property owned by nearly 30 different.par- ties. Mr. Sentyrz's comments in this regard are unfounded. Mr. Sentyrz raised the concernlthat a bowling.alley, a daycare center, a restaurant, bible church, and Northern Oxygen are hazards. All of the above except Northern Oxygen are located within the proposed Zone B. Northern Oxygen is outside~of the B Zone. Since the area was platted and established as a commercial use district in 1976, all of these parcels are exempt from the Zone B restrictions regarding density, site population, and use restrictions. Were the existing uses not currently established, they would be prohibited from Zone B. While it would be desireab!e if the existing uses were not in Zone B, the facts are that the air~.~ort currently exists as do the adjacent land uses. The proposed development, however, would improve the existing facility, enhance.~its utility to airport users, and provide greater margins of safety with respect to clearances, operational controls, and guidance than what exists at present. There is no legal question as to whether these existing businesses should be grandfathered in.i Since they were established prior to the date of adoption of'the ordinance, they must be grandfathered in. Mr. Sentyrz questions the impact that the airport may have on property values. He states that it is a well known fact that airports cause a devaluation in residential properties located in the immediate flight patterns." There is no support documentation for this statement. He attached a standard VA clause which addresses noise impacts which are a result of ~ aircraft. Our conversations with VA officials indi- cate that this would not be! applicable to smaller airports. We should receive additional clarification from them regarding noise thresholds at which time this may apply. It is likely that it would apply only above 65Ldn. Only the areas i~mediately (within a few hundred feet) around the runway are expected to experience noise levels above 65Ldn. 7