FULL PACKET_2005-04-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 2 December 18, 2003 Mr. Brady next identified aircraft noise and airspace safety as the potential AELUP issues. Referring to graphic depictions, he described the JW A noise footprint easterly of the proj ect and the actual radar tracks of anivals to Rl.U1way 19R for the 24-hour period of November 1, 2003. He noted that JW A operations data show about 102,000 annual arrivals to 19R primarily by jet/turboprop aircraft, adding that staffhas updated the rw A Airspace Map with the project site and the adjacent high-rise office building. lv1r. Brady next cited the cautionary statement about aircraft noise in the FAA's Detennination of No Hazard for the project, and he explained that the IS-story residential tower will rise from a 3-level parking structure, thus accounting for the unprecedented physical height at that location. He opined that the combination of height and residential use serves to make this project unique and some portion of future residents will be annoyed by aircraft noise. Mr. Brady next reviewed in detail the FAA's Determination, and his follow-up disoussions with FAA staff. He expla.ined the FAA requirement for subsequent filing by the sponsor, with the FAA to use the finished ptoject data for future airspace analyses and chart publishing. Mr. Brady described the FAA's circular search, within a 2-mile radius. that identified 358 prior aeronautical studies with a two page listing of structures at 1east 2501 in height. He noted the FAA finding that the proj ect will penetrate the JW A Horizontal Surface by 81', but will not impact allY current or planned aircraft procedures. He stated that staff does not know whether the numerous structures compiled by FAA are in the approach area or are off to the sides of JW A, and he pointed out the AELUP's recognition of the FAA's expertise and authority on airspace and the requirement for rooftop obstruction Hghting as mitigation by both the FAA and the AELUP. Mr. Brady concluded that the project is technica.lly consistent with the AELUP while beillg less than a desirable use so close to the IVV A approach, and he recommended a Finding of Consistency for the project with conditions requirin,g fillI FAA compliance and Notice of Airport in Vicinity to all future occupants per AELUP Section 3.3.6. He added a brief description of his conversations with FAA staff, his results from searching the FAA's obstruction evaluation Website database, and he noted the presence of the project sponsors and the City's planner who could address questions. Replying to Commissioner H. Beverburg, Mr. Brady explained that Htechnically consistent" is meant to convey the situation where the project is physically extremely high and close to JW A and is a residential use. However, the project is not within the JW A noise footprint and although it penetrates the Horizontal Surface, so do many other buildings to the east and west of the airport, Again replying to the Commissioner, Mr. Brady explained his having learned that "ctitical to flight safety" means that FAA insists on subsequent filing of the btlilding's final, as-built height and location data, which will be added to their airspace database for inclusion in future aeronautical studies and possible depiction on future aeronautical charts. He added that staff does not l<:now how much closer the project could get without becoming a hazard to air navigation. Commissioner H. Beverburg observed that FAA rarely issues Hazard Detemlinations, but rather will gather such information until a dangerous point is reached when the thresholds must be moved and the minimums raised. -,,/S . d L!78 . at..J 7 5eI;1I~~~ 3SIl aNtfl lCJO&IItJ WdpT:T S002'22.~tJW