Res 1986-106 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

is one other principle of consideration that must not be '1'her~ and should be fully cxmsidered in the overall development ~ for ~e airport. The distribution of utilities and services p :m an airport complex must be economic and efficient, or higher ~ costs resulting from inefficiencies will likely result. In ther words, it makes more economic sense to consolidate facility ~tionS into cohesive and concentrated developments than to scatter them Q.1t over widely spaced locations. 1b the extent that it has been possible to do so, the consultants are att.emPtin9 to respect the affinity relationships between like kinds of 1::lU8ineSses, and take advantage of oc:xnma1 interests of facilities and services. Where there is an identifiable difference in requirements or functional characteristics that oould lead to conflicts, additional space has been allocated. IaDd use Di.tlwssim In our discussion of land use alternatives and recommendations for future land use controls, detailed reoommendations fm;: specific kinds of development within the broadly defined land use recommendations cannot be made within the limited scope of this study. As stated earlier, there are many land uses compatible with airport operations, sane of which fall within the general classification of industrial, and some of which do not. Examples of those which do not fall within the industrial classification, but which have not proven to be compatible, are certain kinds of recreational facilities (parks, golf courses, lakes), agriculture (including grazing of livestock), and certain kinds of training or educational facilities which have a relatively high tolerance to noise. Conversely, wi thin the industrial category of land uses there are many tyPes of activity which are DOt compatible with airport activities. Examples are activities which generate smoke or other emissions which tend to obscure visibility, activities which attract birds or other forms of wildlife, such as deer or coyote, or activities that may have asS<X"iated with them an element of risk that can be increased by overflight of aircraft, storage of hazardous wastes, c:hemi.cal processes involving toxic products, the storage or manufacture of ordinance or nuclear materials. As a secondary consideration, any industrial activity which creates undesired impacts, such as toxic, effluent, or other objectionable environmental problems that create an undesirable image, or which require complex or expensive solutions to remedy the situation, is also incompatible. An airport is generally oonsidered as an industrial land use and for that reason, the most reasonable and compatible new land use on the airport is industrial. No~; al cxmsiderations have been given to 5.12