4/15/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

NORTH COUNTY TOWER SITE PROPOSED BY STATE DOT - RE- ADDRESS The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 3, 1997: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator D SI HEAD CONCURRENCE: Ro drt MT KeAtinQ AlC Community Development rector FROM: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director DATE: April 3, 1997 SUBJECT: Request to Re -address the State's Proposed North County Tower Site It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of April 15, 1997. On March 11, 1997 the Board of County Commissioners agreed to allow the state to construct a 1350' multi-user communications (lattice) tower at a site on 102nd Terrace, in lieu of the "original" I-95/CR 512 interchange location. At the end of March, planning staff was notified by state staff that the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) had reviewed the state's aeronautical study for the 102nd Terrace site and had restricted tower height at that location to 103 feet. Recently, the state wrote Commissioner Adams a letter stating that, due to FAA's severe restriction on the site, the 102nd Terrace site is not useable (see attachment #2). The letter requests that the Board now send the state a letter indicating the Board's approval of locating the tower at the original I-95/CR 512 interchange site. The state's letter further indicates that the state would be willing to beautify the interchange site with landscaping. The Board must now consider the state's request for county "approval" of the original interchange site for construction of a ±3501 multi-user lattice tower. During initial county/state discussions, state staff indicated that there were no apparent problems with the FAA review of the 102nd Terrace site. However, after learning of the FAA's determination, county staff contacted FDOT staff who regularly comment on development and tower impacts on airport operations. The FDOT staff then contacted FAA staff and learned that the FAA's 102nd Terrace site determination was based on FAA's future plans to install, an instrument approach at an affected Sebastian airport runway. Thus, FAA's restriction is based on a planned Sebastian airport improvement that state staff were not initially aware of. State staff have also confirmed that an FAA authorization for the original interchange tower location, that was obtained 2 years ago, is still valid. Thus, state staff are of the opinion that the original interchange site is useable, and that construction of the tower needs to proceed quickly to accommodate the proposed users, including FDOT's need for a tower spot to implement its I-95 call box system. Although there are no publicly owned alternative tower sites immediately available that could be•authorized by the FAA, the Carson Platt property could include a feasible tower site and could be acquired by the public in a fairly short time period. Even though the state has indicated that it could landscape and upgrade BOOK 1.0i PAGE 1� APRIL 15, 1997 17