11/26/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

_ ® M At the October 10, 1991 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the city airport director (Bill Sherry) not only raised the noise compatibility issue, but he also raised a safety issue in his verbal presentation and in a letter distributed at the meeting. These written comments were based upon correspondence which the airport director had received from the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). In these comments; airport staff strongly objected to the location of the proposed use based primarily on the grounds of safety, and secondarily on the effect of aircraft noise on the school. After the October 10, 1991 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the planning staff met again with airport staff to better understand the basis of the airport staff's position. The airport staff, through studies and expert opinion, were able to show that a definable safety concern should be addressed in relation to the proposed use. This safety concern is based upon the following three findings. 1. There is a clear and definable overflight zone, at the - end of active runways, within which the potential for accidents is significantly greater than in other areas around the airport... The location .of these overflight zones has been identified by the FAA, FDOT, and city airport consultants -as extending in width 300' on either side of the centerline of active runways and extending 5,000' from the end of these runways. 2. The conceptual plan design reviewed at the Technical Review Committee and.- Planning and. Zoning Commission meetings showed buildings and play areas to be located within the overflight zone as defined in #1, above. 3. Experts contacted by City airport staff, including the FAA, FDOT and airport consultants, all agreed that uses which concentrate or congregate people, such as the proposed school use, should not be permitted within the overflight zone due to a greater potential for a major catastrophe in the event of an accident. These findings are described in detail in attachments #7 and _ #8. Planning staff's conclusion is that the conceptual plan design reviewed by the Technical Review Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission would congregate people in the overflight zone. Therefore, in planning staff's opinion, the "old" concept plan design reviewed by the Technical Review Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission should not be approved for the proposed school use. Subsequent to the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting and the denial recommendation, the applicant applied the criteria in item #1 above to determine the location of the overflight zone with respect to the subject property. As shown in attachment #2, the overflight zone encompasses most of the north half of the site. Since various accessory uses associated with the proposed use (particularly parking, stormwater management and buffering) do not involve congregations of people, the applicant proceeded to redesign the project to use the overflight zone area for non -congregation uses and to limit assembly areas (buildings and playgrounds) to the portion of the site outside of the overflight zone. On November 12, 1991, the applicant submitted to staff a redesigned conceptual plan which shows all buildings out of the overflight zone, while maintaining the same types of perimeter buffers shown on the "old" plan. The revised plan proposes some parking, buffering and stormwater management NOV 2 6 1991 61 4 29 ROOK fPuCt.�Cr1