Agenda 05/08/2018 Item #9B05/08/2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the
Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the
unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section
Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code,
more specifically amending the following: Chapter Four - Site Design and Development Standards,
including section 4.02.06 Standards for Development in Airport Zones, to exempt the Mini-Triangle
Subdistrict of the Urban Designation, Urban Mixed Use District of the Growth Management Plan
from the Height Standards for Development in Airport Zones; Section Four, Conflict and
Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section
Six, Effective Date. (This is a companion to Agenda Items 9.A and 9.C).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
OBJECTIVE: To have the Board review staff’s analysis and recommendations along with the
recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) regarding the above referenced
petition and to render a decision regarding the petition.
CONSIDERATIONS: The proposed LDC Amendment establishes an exemption from the horizontal
zone height standards for Development in Airport Zones for the proposed Mini -Triangle Mixed Use
Subdistrict in order to support the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Plan for a
catalyst project in the Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Area. The companion Mixed Use Planned Unit
Development (MPUD) petition establishes maximum building heights which exceed the standards in
LDC section 4.02.06 and the applicant seeks to add this exemption in the LDC to ensure there is no
confusion regarding allowable building height for the project in the future.
While there are no specific criteria applicable to LDC Amendments, Zoning staff considers a variety of
legal issues, planning principles, internal consistency of the LDC, and other guidance when evaluating
LDC Amendment requests. Staff considered issues related to building height and land use restrictions as
described in the following sections, when reviewing the proposed LDC Amendment.
Building height
LDC Sections 4.02.06 A-K establish the maximum height for structures or obstructions within several
“imaginary surfaces.” The proposed LDC Amendment eliminates the horizontal zone height limitations in
these sections for the Mini-Triangle project. The proposed LDC Amendment seeks to clarify that once
adopted, the MPUD will be the controlling regulation regarding maximum building height for the project.
Additionally, all development within the County’s Airport Zones is required to notify the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA). In response, the FAA has issued a “Determination of No Hazard” for
three proposed structures in the Mini-Triangle project. The “Determination of No Hazard” letters identify
that the structures “would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the
navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not be a hazard to air
navigation.”
Finally, the proposed amendment limits the scope of the exemption to the h orizontal zone height in LDC
sections 4.02.06 E and F to allow buildings up to 160 feet in height from the established elevation of the
Naples Airport, consistent with the maximum height allowed in the proposed MPUD. This exemption is
further limited to development that complies with the FAA’s “Determination of No Hazard” or any
subsequent letters.
Given that the maximum height for the project is established in the MPUD, the LDC Amendment is not
9.B
Packet Pg. 157
05/08/2018
necessary to achieve the applicant’s stated goal of allowing buildings taller than 150 feet. However, the
Applicant desires to go forward with the amendment despite staff’s opinion that it is not needed. The
inclusion of this exemption from LDC Sections 4.02.06 E and F does not create any conflict with any
other LDC provision, and may provide additional clarity regarding the applicable standards throughout
the life of the project. Therefore, staff has no objection to the proposed exemption.
Land use restrictions
LDC Section 4.02.06 M includes land use restrictions applicable to development within airport zones.
Given that the requested exemption is limited to the height requirements within the section, the land use
restrictions in LDC Section 4.02.06 M will still apply to the Mini-Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The
Development Services Advisory Committee-Land Development Review (DSAC-LDR) Subcommittee
reviewed the petition on November 13, 2017, and unanimously recommended approval of the amendment
(with one abstention).
The full DSAC reviewed the petition on December 6, 2017, and unanimously recommended approval of
the amendment (with one abstention).
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC
heard petition LDCA-PL200160003642, Mini-Triangle, on February 15, March 1, and April 5, 2018. The
CCPC voted 3-2 to recommend approval of the petition and its companion items.
The dissenting votes were cast by Edwin Fryer and Diane Ebert. Commissioner Fryer, who did not have
an issue with the greater density, intensity, and anticipated traffic, felt the project did not strike the proper
balance between a reasonable need on the part of the developer for flexibility and the reasonable
expectations of those in the County for a high -end, first-class development. Commissioner Ebert opined
that the project, as proposed by the applicant, allowed for too much variation and characterized the PUD
language as providing no reliability to produce a project in how it was described to the community.
Commissioner Ebert also had an issue with the proposed height, because she felt it would set a precedent.
The proposed ordinance recommended for approval by the CCPC is provided in Attachment 1.
FISCAL IMPACT: There are no fiscal impacts associated with this action.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: LDC section 10.02.09 establishes that, “the
LDC may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the consistency of the LDC with the Growth
Management Plan.” Comprehensive Planning staff has found the proposed LDC Amendment to be
consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County GMP, contingent upon the companion
GMP Amendment being adopted and in effect. Accordingly, the LDC Amendment ordinance should have
an effective date linked to the effective date of the GMP Amendment.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality. An affirmative vote of
four is needed for Board approval. (HFAC)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the CCPC’s recommendation of approval and further
recommends that the Board approves the request for LDCA-PL20160003642, Mini-Triangle, as described
in the attached Ordinance.
Prepared By: Jeremy Frantz, AICP, Land Development Code Manager, Zoning Division
9.B
Packet Pg. 158
05/08/2018
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. DRAFT LDC amendment - MiniTriangle LDCA - 4.9.18 (PDF)
2. CCPC staff report with attachments (PDF)
3. [Linked] FAA No Hazard Letters (PDF)
4. Legal Ad - Agenda ID 4895 (PDF)
9.B
Packet Pg. 159
05/08/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 9.B
Doc ID: 4895
Item Summary: Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as
amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land
regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section One,
Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land
Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter Four - Site Design and
Development Standards, including section 4.02.06 Standards for Development in Airport Zones, to
exempt the Mini-Triangle Subdistrict of the Urban Designation, Urban Mixed Use District of the Growth
Management Plan from the Height Standards for Development in Airport Zones; Section Four, Conflict
and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six,
Effective Date. (This is a companion to Agenda Items 9.A and 9.C).
Meeting Date: 05/08/2018
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Senior – Zoning
Name: Jeremy Frantz
02/20/2018 1:38 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning
Name: Michael Bosi
02/20/2018 1:38 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Zoning Michael Bosi Additional Reviewer Completed 02/21/2018 9:00 AM
Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 1 Reviewer Completed 02/21/2018 4:15 PM
Growth Management Department James French Deputy Department Head Review Completed 04/10/2018 11:24 AM
Growth Management Department Thaddeus Cohen Department Head Review Completed 04/10/2018 1:51 PM
County Attorney's Office Heidi Ashton-Cicko Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Completed 04/12/2018 10:07 AM
County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 04/16/2018 7:50 AM
Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 04/19/2018 2:09 PM
Budget and Management Office Mark Isackson Additional Reviewer Completed 04/20/2018 10:08 AM
County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 04/29/2018 8:50 PM
Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 05/08/2018 9:00 AM
9.B
Packet Pg. 160
DRAFT
4/9/18
Page 1 of 6
Words struck through are deleted, words underlined are added
ORDINANCE NO. 18 - ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-
41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS;
SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE, ADOPTION
OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE
SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: CHAPTER FOUR –
SITE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDING
SECTION 4.02.06 STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN AIRPORT
ZONES, TO EXEMPT THE MINI-TRIANGLE SUBDISTRICT OF THE
URBAN DESIGNATION, URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT OF THE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FROM THE HEIGHT STANDARDS
FOR DEVELOPMENT IN AIRPORT ZONES; SECTION FOUR,
CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTION SIX,
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Recitals
WHEREAS, on October 30, 1991, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
adopted Ordinance No. 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code (hereinafter LDC),
which was subsequently amended; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (Board) on June 22,
2004, adopted Ordinance No. 04-41, which repealed and superseded Ordinance No. 91-102, as
amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which had an effective date of October
18, 2004; and
WHEREAS, on March 18, 1997, the Board adopted Resolution 97-177 establishing local
requirements and procedures for amending the LDC; and
WHEREAS, all requirements of Resolution 97-177 have been met; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, sitting as the land planning
agency, did hold advertised public hearings on February 15, 2018, and on March 1, 2018, and
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: DRAFT LDC amendment - MiniTriangle LDCA - 4.9.18 (4895 : Mini-Triangle LDC Amendment Request)
DRAFT
4/9/18
Page 2 of 6
Words struck through are deleted, words underlined are added
on April 5, 2018, and reviewed the proposed amendments for consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan and recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, in a manner prescribed by law, did
hold advertised public hearings on May 8, 2018, and did take action concerning these
amendments to the LDC; and
WHEREAS, the subject amendments to the LDC are hereby determined by this Board to
be consistent with and to implement the Collier County Growth Management Plan as required
by Subsections 163.3194 (1) and 163.3202 (1), Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance is adopted in compliance with and pursuant to the
Community Planning Act (F.S. § 163.3161 et seq.), and F.S. § 125.01(1)(t) and (1)(w); and
WHEREAS, this ordinance is adopted pursuant to the constitutional and home rule
powers of Fla. Const. Art. VIII, § 1(g); and
WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of the law have
otherwise been met.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida, that:
SECTION ONE: RECITALS
The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and incorporated by reference herein as if
fully set forth.
SECTION TWO: FINDINGS OF FACT
The Board of Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, hereby makes the following
findings of fact:
1. Collier County, pursuant to § 163.3161, et seq., F.S., the Florida Community
Planning Act (herein after the “Act”), is required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan.
2. After adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the Act and in particular §
163.3202(1). F.S., mandates that Collier County adopt land development regulations that are
consistent with and implement the adopted comprehensive plan.
3. Section 163.3201, F.S., provides that it is the intent of the Act that the adoption
and enforcement by Collier County of land development regulations for the total unincorporated
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: DRAFT LDC amendment - MiniTriangle LDCA - 4.9.18 (4895 : Mini-Triangle LDC Amendment Request)
DRAFT
4/9/18
Page 3 of 6
Words struck through are deleted, words underlined are added
area shall be based on, be related to, and be a means of implementation for, the adopted
comprehensive plan.
4. Section 163.3194(1)(b), F.S., requires that all land development regulations
enacted or amended by Collier County be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan, or
element or portion thereof, and any land regulations existing at the time of adoption which are
not consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, shall be
amended so as to be consistent.
5. Section 163.3202(3), F.S., states that the Act shall be construed to encourage
the use of innovative land development regulations.
6. On January 10, 1989, Collier County adopted the Collier County Growth
Management Plan (hereinafter the “Growth Management Plan” or “GMP”) as its comprehensive
plan pursuant to the requirements of § 163.3161 et seq., F.S.
7. Section 163.3194(1)(a), F.S., mandates that after a comprehensive plan, or
element or portion thereof, has been adopted in conformity with the Act, all development
undertaken by, and all actions taken in regard to development orders by, governmental
agencies in regard to land covered by such comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof
shall be consistent with such comprehensive plan or element or portion thereof.
8. Pursuant to § 163.3194(3)(a), F.S., a development order or land development
regulation shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities or
intensities, capacity or size, timing, and other aspects of development are compatible with, and
further the objectives, policies, land uses, densities, or intensities in the comprehensive plan
and if it meets all other criteria enumerated by the local government.
9. Section 163.3194(3)(b), F.S., states that a development approved or undertaken
by a local government shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan if the land uses,
densities or intensities, capacity or size, timing, and other aspects of development are
compatible with, and further the objectives, policies, land uses, densities, or intensities in the
comprehensive plan and if it meets all other criteria enumerated by the local government.
10. On October 30, 1991, Collier County adopted the Collier County Land
Development Code, which became effective on November 13, 1991. The Land Development
Code adopted in Ordinance 91-102 was recodified and superseded by Ordinance 04-41.
11. Collier County finds that the Land Development Code is intended and necessary
to preserve and enhance the present advantages that exist in Collier County; to encourage the
most appropriate use of land, water and resources consistent with the public interest; to
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: DRAFT LDC amendment - MiniTriangle LDCA - 4.9.18 (4895 : Mini-Triangle LDC Amendment Request)
DRAFT
4/9/18
Page 4 of 6
Words struck through are deleted, words underlined are added
overcome present handicaps; and to deal effectively with future problems that may result from
the use and development of land within the total unincorporated area of Collier County and it is
intended that this Land Development Code preserve, promote, protect and improve the public
health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience and general welfare of Collier
County; to prevent the overcrowding of land and avoid the undue concentration of population; to
facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools,
parks, recreational facilities, housing and other requirements and services; to conserve,
develop, utilize and protect natural resources within the jurisdiction of Collier County; to protect
human, environmental, social and economic resources; and to maintain through orderly growth
and development, the character and stability of present and future land uses and development
in Collier County.
12. It is the intent of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County to
implement the Land Development Code in accordance with the provisions of the Collier County
Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 125, Fla. Stat., and Chapter 163, Fla. Stat., and through these
amendments to the Code.
SECTION THREE: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
Section 4.02.06 Standards for Development in Airport Zones, of Ordinance 04-41, as amended,
the Collier County Land Development Code, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 4.02.06 Standards for Development in Airport Zones
* * * * * * * * * * * *
L. Exemptions.
1. Development of the Marco Shores Golf Course Community that comports with
the location and height requirements of Ordinance No. 81-6, as amended by
Ordinance No. 85-56 and Ordinance No. 94-41, is exempted from the provisions
of section 4.02.06 only to the following extent:
a. 1. The agreement between Johnson Bay Development Corporation Collier
County Airport Authority and the BCC, dated August 8, 1995.
b. 2. Prior issuance of a Federal Aviation Administration “Determination Of No
Hazard To Air Navigation.”
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: DRAFT LDC amendment - MiniTriangle LDCA - 4.9.18 (4895 : Mini-Triangle LDC Amendment Request)
DRAFT
4/9/18
Page 5 of 6
Words struck through are deleted, words underlined are added
2. Development of the Mini-Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Urban
Designation, Urban Mixed Use District of the Growth Management Plan that
comports with height requirements of Ordinance 2018- _____, is exempted from
the maximum allowable horizontal zone height of 150 feet from the established
elevation of the Naples Airport, as established in LDC Sections 4.02.06.E. and
4.02.06.F. Buildings are allowed up to 160 feet in height from the established
elevation of the Naples Airport. Development within the Mini-Triangle Mixed Use
Subdistrict shall comply with the conditions set forth in the Federal Aviation
Administration letters of "Determination Of No Hazard To Air Navigation", dated
January 17, 2017, or any subsequent letters or extensions thereof.
M. Airport land use restrictions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this LDC, no use
may be made of land or water within any zones established by this LDC in such a
manner as to interfere with the operation of an airborne aircraft. The following special
requirements shall apply to each permitted use:
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
SECTION FOUR: CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY
In the event that any provisions of this ordinance should result in an unresolved conflict
with the provisions of the Land Development Code (LDC) or Growth Management Plan (GMP),
the applicable provisions of the LDC or GMP shall prevail. In the event this Ordinance conflicts
with any other Ordinance of Collier County or other applicable law, the more restrictive shall
apply. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court
of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion.
SECTION FIVE: INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE
The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Land
Development Code of Collier County, Florida. The sections of the Ordinance may be
renumbered or re-lettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to
"section," "article," or any other appropriate word.
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: DRAFT LDC amendment - MiniTriangle LDCA - 4.9.18 (4895 : Mini-Triangle LDC Amendment Request)
DRAFT
4/9/18
Page 6 of 6
Words struck through are deleted, words underlined are added
SECTION SIX: EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Florida Department of State.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, this ____ day of ________, 2018.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:__________________________ By:_____________________________
, Deputy Clerk ANDY SOLIS, Chairman
Approved as to form and legality:
__________________________
Heidi F. Ashton-Cicko
Managing Assistant County Attorney
04-CMD-01077/______ (4/9/18)
9.B.1
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: DRAFT LDC amendment - MiniTriangle LDCA - 4.9.18 (4895 : Mini-Triangle LDC Amendment Request)
9.B.2
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: CCPC staff report with attachments (4895 : Mini-Triangle LDC Amendment Request)
9.B.2
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: CCPC staff report with attachments (4895 : Mini-Triangle LDC Amendment Request)
9.B.2
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: CCPC staff report with attachments (4895 : Mini-Triangle LDC Amendment Request)
9.B.2
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: CCPC staff report with attachments (4895 : Mini-Triangle LDC Amendment Request)
9.B.2
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: CCPC staff report with attachments (4895 : Mini-Triangle LDC Amendment Request)
9.B.2
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: CCPC staff report with attachments (4895 : Mini-Triangle LDC Amendment Request)
9.B.2
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: CCPC staff report with attachments (4895 : Mini-Triangle LDC Amendment Request)
9.B.2
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: CCPC staff report with attachments (4895 : Mini-Triangle LDC Amendment Request)
9.B.2
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: CCPC staff report with attachments (4895 : Mini-Triangle LDC Amendment Request)
9.B.2
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: CCPC staff report with attachments (4895 : Mini-Triangle LDC Amendment Request)
9.B.2
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: CCPC staff report with attachments (4895 : Mini-Triangle LDC Amendment Request)
9.B.2Packet Pg. 178Attachment: CCPC staff report with attachments (4895 : Mini-Triangle LDC Amendment Request)
9.B.2Packet Pg. 179Attachment: CCPC staff report with attachments (4895 : Mini-Triangle LDC Amendment Request)
9.B.4
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Legal Ad - Agenda ID 4895 (4895 : Mini-Triangle LDC Amendment Request)
Mail Processing Center
Federal Aviation Administration
Southwest Regional Office
Obstruction Evaluation Group
10101 Hillwood Parkway
Fort Worth, TX 76177
Issued Date: 01/20/2017
Jerry Starkey
Real Estate Partners International, Inc
1415 Panther Lane
Naples, FL 34109
Aeronautical Study No.
2016 -ASO -25239 -OE
Prior Study No.
2016 -ASO -15837 -OE
** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **
The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.,
Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning:
Structure: Building NE Corner -Davis Triangle Development Collier
Location: Naples, FL
Latitude: 26-08-17.05N NAD 83
Longitude: 81-46-46.69W
Heights: 8 feet site elevation (SE)
160 feet above ground level (AGL)
168 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)
This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe
and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities.
Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a
hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met:
As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory
circular 70/7460-1 L Change 1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights - Chapters 4,5(Red),&12.
Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction
light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen
(NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number.
It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed any time the
project is abandoned or:
At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1)
X Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2)
See attachment for additional condition(s) or information.
The structure considered under this study lies in proximity to an airport and occupants may be subjected to
noise from aircraft operating to and from the airport.
Pagel of 8
This determination expires on 07/20/2018 unless:
(a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual
Constriction or Alteration, is received by this office.
(b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office.
(c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within
6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date
prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.
NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST
BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION
OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO
SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE
ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD.
This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on
or before February 19, 2017. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the
basis upon which it is made and be submitted to the Manager, Airspace Policy & Regulation, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Room 423, Washington, DC 20591.
This determination becomes final on March 01, 2017 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this
determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the
grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Airspace Regulations & ATC
Procedures Group via telephone -- 202-267-8783 - or facsimile 202-267-9328.
This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights,
frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will
void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the
addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.
This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be
used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as
indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the
FAA.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace
by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and
en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact
on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative
impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed
structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air
navigation.
An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the
basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s).
Page 2 of 8
If we can be of further assistance, please contact Michael Blaich, at (404) 305-6462. On any future
correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2016 -ASO -25239 -OE.
Signature Control No: 305918335-318678168
Mike Helvey
Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group
Attachment(s)
Additional Information
Map(s)
Page 3 of 8
(DNH)
Additional information for ASN 2016 -ASO -25239 -OE
APF =
Naples Municipal Airport
ASN
= Aeronautical Study Number
AGL
= Above Ground Level
AMSL
= Above Mean Sea Level
NM =
Nautical Miles
ARP = Airport Reference Point
RWY
= Runway
IFR =
Instrument Flight Rule
RPZ =
Runway Protection Zone
The proposed project was originally submitted for two Buildings, represented by 8 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25239 -
OE through 25246), representing the four corners of each structure. A third building, represented by 4 ASNs
(2016 -ASO -25247 -OE through 25250), was added later to the project, at the same AGL and AMSL heights
as the other two buildings, with no greater effect. The three buildings are proposed at a height of 160 feet
AGL/168 feet AMSL and will be located approximately 0.89 NM south of the APF ARP and extends to
approximately 0.97 NM south of the APF ARP and from 192.49 degrees azimuth clockwise to 197.78 degrees
azimuth.
The proposal would exceed the Obstruction Standards of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part
77 as follows:
Section 77.19 (a) APF: Horizontal Surface --- > Exceeds by 10 feet.
No IFR Effect.
Details of the proposed project were circularized to the aeronautical public for comment. There were four
letters of objection received during the comment period.
The letters of objection can be summarized as the following: proposal exceeds Part 77 Obstruction Standards,
proposal exceeds APF traffic pattern, proposal would be an issue for landing and takeoff procedures for RWY
05/23, concern about future development, concern about flight training schools with inexperienced pilots,
potential aviation accident involving an entertainment area in project, a local county land development zoning
restriction of 112 feet.
Part 77 Obstruction Standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those
which warrant further aeronautical study in order to determine if they would have significant adverse effect
on protected aeronautical operations. While the obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study,
including circularization, they do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air
navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds an obstruction standard of Part 77 does not
provide a basis for a determination that the structure would constitute a hazard to air navigation.
The proposal does not exceed the APF Traffic Pattern Altitude.
The proposal has No IFR Effects. There would not be any increase to minimums on any arrival or departure
procedure. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival,
departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight
Page 4 of 8
rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities;
and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other
existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial
adverse effect on air navigation.
Any future development would be evaluated on a case by case basis and would require a proposal to be filed
with the FAA.
Flight training schools and inexperienced pilots are not under the scope of this aeronautical study.
The potential for an aviation accident is greater if structures, which will result in the congregation of people
within an RPZ, are strongly discouraged in the interest of protecting people and property on the ground. In
cases where the airport owner can control the use of the property, such structures are prohibited. In cases
where the airport owner exercises no such control, advisory recommendations are issued to inform the sponsor
of the inadvisability of the proposal from the standpoint of safety to personnel and property. The proposed
project is not located in the RPZ.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace
by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED
THE FOLLOWING:
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes,
operations, or procedures.
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or
procedures.
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes.
AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE
FOLLOWING:
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes,
operations or procedures.
> The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern
operations at any known public use or military airports.
> The proposed structure would not penetrate those altitudes that are normally considered available to airmen
for VFR en route flight.
> The proposed structure will be appropriately obstruction marked and lighted to make it more conspicuous to
airmen flying in VFR weather conditions at night.
The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not
considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public -use or military
Page 5 of 8
airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned
public -use or military airport.
Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the
safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not
be a hazard to air navigation.
Page 6 of 8
TOPO Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25239 -OE
Page 7 of 8
Sectional Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25239 -OE
Page of
Mail Processing Center
Federal Aviation Administration
Southwest Regional Office
Obstruction Evaluation Group
10101 Hillwood Parkway
Fort Worth, TX 76177
Issued Date: 01/20/2017
Jeriy Starkey
Real Estate Partners International, Inc
1415 Panther Lane
Naples, FL 34109
Aeronautical Study No.
2016 -ASO -25240 -OE
Prior Study No.
2016 -ASO -15988 -OE
** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **
The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.,
Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning:
Structure:
Building NW Corner -Davis Triangle Development Collier
Location:
Naples, FL
Latitude:
26-08-17.03N NAD 83
Longitude:
81-46-49.45W
Heights:
8 feet site elevation (SE)
160 feet above ground level (AGL)
168 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)
This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe
and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities.
Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a
hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met:
As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory
circular 70/7460-1 L Change 1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights - Chapters 4,5(Red),&12.
Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction
light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen
(NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number.
It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed any time the
project is abandoned or:
At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1)
X_ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2)
See attachment for additional condition(s) or information.
The structure considered under this study lies in proximity to an airport and occupants may be subjected to
noise from aircraft operating to and from the airport.
Pagel of 8
This determination expires on 07/20/2018 unless:
(a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual
Construction or Alteration, is received by this office.
(b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office.
(c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within
6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date
prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.
NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST
BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE, AFTER RE-EVALUATION
OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO
SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE
ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD.
This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on
or before February 19, 2017. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the
basis upon which it is made and be submitted to the Manager, Airspace Policy & Regulation, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Room 423, Washington, DC 20591.
This determination becomes final on March 01, 2017 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this
determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the
grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Airspace Regulations & ATC
Procedures Group via telephone -- 202-267-8783 - or facsimile 202-267-9328.
This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights,
frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will
void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the
addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.
This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be
used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as
indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the
FAA.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace
by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and
en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact
on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative
impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed
structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air
navigation.
An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the
basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s).
Page 2 of 8
If we can be of further assistance, please contact Michael Blaich, at (404) 305-6462. On any future
correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2016 -ASO -25240 -OE.
Signature Control No: 305918336-318676303
Mike Helvey
Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group
Attachment(s)
Additional Information
Map(s)
Page 3 of 8
(DNH)
Additional information for ASN 2016 -ASO -25240 -OE
APF =
Naples Municipal Airport
ASN
= Aeronautical Study Number
AGL
= Above Ground Level
AMSL = Above Mean Sea Level
NM =
Nautical Miles
ARP =
Airport Reference Point
RWY
= Runway
IFR =
Instrument Flight Rule
RPZ =
Runway Protection Zone
The proposed project was originally submitted for two Buildings, represented by 8 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25239 -
OE through 25246), representing the four corners of each structure. A third building, represented by 4 ASNs
(2016 -ASO -25247 -OE through 25250), was added later to the project, at the same AGL and AMSL heights
as the other two buildings, with no greater effect. The three buildings are proposed at a height of 160 feet
AGL/168 feet AMSL and will be located approximately 0.89 NM south of the APF ARP and extends to
approximately 0.97 NM south of the APF ARP and from 192.49 degrees azimuth clockwise to 197.78 degrees
azimuth.
The proposal would exceed the Obstruction Standards of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part
77 as follows:
Section 77.19 (a) APF: Horizontal Surface --- > Exceeds by 10 feet.
No IFR Effect.
Details of the proposed project were circularized to the aeronautical public for comment. There were four
letters of objection received during the comment period.
The letters of objection can be summarized as the following: proposal exceeds Part 77 Obstruction Standards,
proposal exceeds APF traffic pattern, proposal would be an issue for landing and takeoff procedures for RWY
05/23, concern about future development, concern about flight training schools with inexperienced pilots,
potential aviation accident involving an entertainment area in project, a local county land development zoning
restriction of 112 feet.
Part 77 Obstruction Standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those
which warrant further aeronautical study in order to determine if they would have significant adverse effect
on protected aeronautical operations. While the obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study,
including circularization, they do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air
navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds an obstruction standard of Part 77 does not
provide a basis for a determination that the structure would constitute a hazard to air navigation.
The proposal does not exceed the APF Traffic Pattern Altitude.
The proposal has No IFR Effects. There would not be any increase to minimums on any arrival or departure
procedure. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival,
departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight
Page 4 of 8
rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities;
and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other
existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial
adverse effect on air navigation.
Any future development would be evaluated on a case by case basis and would require a proposal to be filed
with the FAA.
Flight training schools and inexperienced pilots are not under the scope of this aeronautical study.
The potential for an aviation accident is greater if structures, which will result in the congregation of people
within an RPZ, are strongly discouraged in the interest of protecting people and property on the ground. In
cases where the airport owner can control the use of the property, such structures are prohibited. In cases
where the airport owner exercises no such control, advisory recommendations are issued to inform the sponsor
of the inadvisability of the proposal from the standpoint of safety to personnel and property. The proposed
project is not located in the RPZ.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace
by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED
THE FOLLOWING:
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes,
operations, or procedures.
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or
procedures.
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes.
AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE
FOLLOWING:
> The proposed structure Would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes,
operations or procedures.
> The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern
operations at any known public use or military airports.
> The proposed structure would not penetrate those altitudes that are normally considered available to airmen
for VFR en route flight.
> The proposed structure will be appropriately obstruction marked and lighted to make it more conspicuous to
airmen flying in VFR weather conditions at night.
The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not
considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public -use or military
Page 5 of 8
airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned
public -use or military airport.
Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the
safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not
be a hazard to air navigation.
Page 6 of 8
TOPO Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25240 -OE
Page 7 of 8
23 CYY
ipo
Sectional Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25240 -OE
Page 8 of 8
Mail Processing Center
Federal Aviation Administration
Southwest Regional Office
Obstruction Evaluation Group
10101 Hillwood Parkway
Fort Worth, TX 76177
Issued Date: 01/20/2017
Jerry Starkey
Real Estate Partners International, Inc
1415 Panther Lane
Naples, FL 34109
Aeronautical Study No.
2016 -ASO -25241 -OE
Prior Study No.
2016 -ASO -15989 -OE
** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **
The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.,
Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning:
Structure:
Building SW Corner -Davis Triangle Development Collier
Location:
Naples, FL
Latitude:
26-08-15.43N NAD 83
Longitude:
81-46-49.23W
Heights:
8 feet site elevation (SE)
160 feet above ground level (AGL)
168 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)
This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe
and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities.
Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a
hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met:
As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory
circular 70/7460-1 L Change 1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights - Chapters 4,5(Red),&12.
Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction
light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen
(NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number.
It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed any time the
project is abandoned or:
At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1)
_X_ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2)
See attachment for additional condition(s) or information.
The structure considered under this study lies in proximity to an airport and occupants may be subjected to
noise from aircraft operating to and from the airport.
Page 1 of 8
This determination expires on 07/20/2018 unless:
(a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual
Construction or Alteration, is received by this office.
(b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office.
(c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within
6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date
prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.
NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST
BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION
OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO
SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE
ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD.
This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on
or before February 19, 2017. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the
basis upon which it is made and be submitted to the Manager, Airspace Policy & Regulation, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Room 423, Washington, DC 20591.
This determination becomes final on March 01, 2017 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this
determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the
grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Airspace Regulations & ATC
Procedures Group via telephone -- 202-267-8783 - or facsimile 202-267-9328.
This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights,
frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will
void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the
addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.
This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be
used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as
indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the
FAA.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace
by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and
en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact
on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative
impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed
structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air
navigation.
An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the
basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s).
Page 2 of 8
If we can be of further assistance, please contact Michael Blaich, at (404) 305-6462. On any future
correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2016 -ASO -25241 -OE.
Signature Control No: 305918337-318678163
Mike Helvey
Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group
Attachment(s)
Additional Information
Map(s)
Page 3 of 8
(DNH)
Additional information for ASN 2016 -ASO -25241 -OE
APF =
Naples Municipal Airport
ASN
= Aeronautical Study Number
AGL
= Above Ground Level
AMSL = Above Mean Sea Level
NM =
Nautical Miles
ARP
= Airport Reference Point
RWY
= Runway
IFR =
Instrument Flight Rule
RPZ =
Runway Protection Zone
The proposed project was originally submitted for two Buildings, represented by 8 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25239 -
OE through 25246), representing the four corners of each structure. A third building, represented by 4 ASNs
(2016 -ASO -25247 -OE through 25250), was added later to the project, at the same AGL and AMSL heights
as the other two buildings, with no greater effect. The three buildings are proposed at a height of 160 feet
AGL/168 feet AMSL and will be located approximately 0.89 NM south of the APF ARP and extends to
approximately 0.97 NM south of the APF ARP and from 192.49 degrees azimuth clockwise to 197.78 degrees
azimuth.
The proposal would exceed the Obstruction Standards of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part
77 as follows:
Section 77.19 (a) APF: Horizontal Surface --- > Exceeds by 10 feet.
No IFR Effect.
Details of the proposed project were circularized to the aeronautical public for comment. There were four
letters of objection received during the comment period.
The letters of objection can be summarized as the following: proposal exceeds Part 77 Obstruction Standards,
proposal exceeds APF traffic pattern, proposal would be an issue for landing and takeoff procedures for RWY
05/23, concern about future development, concern about flight training schools with inexperienced pilots,
potential aviation accident involving an entertainment area in project, a local county land development zoning
restriction of 112 feet.
Part 77 Obstruction Standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those
which warrant further aeronautical study in order to determine if they would have significant adverse effect
on protected aeronautical operations. While the obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study,
including circularization, they do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air
navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds an obstruction standard of Part 77 does not
provide a basis for a determination that the structure would constitute a hazard to air navigation.
The proposal does not exceed the APF Traffic Pattern Altitude.
The proposal has No IFR Effects. There would not be any increase to minimums on any arrival or departure
procedure. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival,
departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight
Page 4 of 8
rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities;
and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other
existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial
adverse effect on air navigation.
Any future development would be evaluated on a case by case basis and would require a proposal to be filed
with the FAA.
Flight training schools and inexperienced pilots are not under the scope of this aeronautical study.
The potential for an aviation accident is greater if structures, which will result in the congregation of people
within an RPZ, are strongly discouraged in the interest of protecting people and property on the ground. In
cases where the airport owner can control the use of the property, such structures are prohibited. In cases
where the airport owner exercises no such control, advisory recommendations are issued to inform the sponsor
of the inadvisability of the proposal from the standpoint of safety to personnel and property. The proposed
project is not located in the RPZ.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace
by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED
THE FOLLOWING:
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes,
operations, or procedures.
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or
procedures.
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes.
AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE
FOLLOWING:
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes,
operations or procedures.
> The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern
operations at any known public use or military airports.
> The proposed structure would not penetrate those altitudes that are normally considered available to airmen
for VFR en route flight.
> The proposed structure will be appropriately obstruction marked and lighted to make it more conspicuous to
airmen flying in VFR weather conditions at night.
The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not
considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public -use or military
Page 5 of 8
airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned
public -use or military airport.
Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the
safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not
be a hazard to air navigation.
Page 6 of 8
TOPO Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25241 -OE
Page 7 of 8
Sectional Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25241 -OE
NP-10-m-
mmm
r ' 3�
W i�T s/Supple en Na
Glass D/E {sfc}-off hr
,m NAPLES {APF}
CT -1
V,OR-D r ATIS 134.225
yeRESS66
i 23WON
0 r R Pts, 14
Page 8 of 8
Mail Processing Center
Federal Aviation Administration
Southwest Regional Office
Obstruction Evaluation Group
10101 Hillwood Parkway
Fort Worth, TX 76177
Issued Date: 01/20/2017
Jerry Starkey
Real Estate Partners International, Inc
1415 Panther Lane
Naples, FL 34109
Aeronautical Study No.
2016 -ASO -25242 -OE
Prior Study No.
2016 -ASO -15987 -OE
** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **
The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.,
Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning:
Structure:
Building SE Corner -Davis Triangle Development Collier
Location:
Naples, FL
Latitude:
26-08-14.58N NAD 83
Longitude:
81-46-46.68W
Heights:
8 feet site elevation (SE)
160 feet above ground level (AGL)
168 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)
This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe
and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities.
Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a
hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met:
As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory
circular 70/7460-1 L Change 1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights - Chapters 4,5(Red),&12.
Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (3 0) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction
light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen
(NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number.
It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed any time the
project is abandoned or:
At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1)
_X_ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2)
See attachment for additional condition(s) or information.
The structure considered under this study lies in proximity to an airport and occupants may be subjected to
noise from aircraft operating to and from the airport.
Page 1 of 8
This determination expires on 07/20/2018 unless:
(a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual
Construction or Alteration, is received by this office.
(b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office.
(c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within
6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date
prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.
NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST
BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION
OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO
SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE
ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD.
This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on
or before February 19, 2017. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the
basis upon which it is made and be submitted to the Manager, Airspace Policy & Regulation, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Room 423, Washington, DC 20591.
This determination becomes final on March 01, 2017 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this
determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the
grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Airspace Regulations & ATC
Procedures Group via telephone -- 202-267-8783 - or facsimile 202-267-9328.
This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights,
frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will
void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the
addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.
This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be
used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as
indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the
FAA.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace
by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and
en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact
on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative
impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed
structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air
navigation.
An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the
basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s).
Page 2 of 8
If we can be of further assistance, please contact Michael Blaich, at (404) 305-6462. On any future
correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2016 -ASO -25242 -OE.
Signature Control No: 305918338-318678171
Mike Helvey
Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group
Attachment(s)
Additional Information
Map(s)
Page 3 of 8
(DNH)
Additional information for ASN 2016 -ASO -25242 -OE
APF = Naples Municipal Airport
ASN = Aeronautical Study Number
AGL = Above Ground Level
AMSL = Above Mean Sea Level
NM = Nautical Miles
ARP = Airport Reference Point
RWY = Runway
IFR = Instrument Flight Rule
RPZ = Runway Protection Zone
The proposed project was originally submitted for two Buildings, represented by 8 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25239 -
OE through 25246), representing the four corners of each structure. A third building, represented by 4 ASNs
(2016 -ASO -25247 -OE through 25250), was added later to the project, at the same AGL and AMSL heights
as the other two buildings, with no greater effect. The three buildings are proposed at a height of 160 feet
AGL/168 feet AMSL and will be located approximately 0.89 NM south of the APF ARP and extends to
approximately 0.97 NM south of the APF ARP and from 192.49 degrees azimuth clockwise to 197.78 degrees
azimuth.
The proposal would exceed the Obstruction Standards of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part
77 as follows:
Section 77.19 (a) APF: Horizontal Surface --- > Exceeds by 10 feet.
No IFR Effect.
Details of the proposed project were circularized to the aeronautical public for comment. There were four
letters of objection received during the comment period.
The letters of objection can be summarized as the following: proposal exceeds Part 77 Obstruction Standards,
proposal exceeds APF traffic pattern, proposal would be an issue for landing and takeoff procedures for RWY
05/23, concern about future development, concern about flight training schools with inexperienced pilots,
potential aviation accident involving an entertainment area in project, a local county land development zoning
restriction of 112 feet.
Part 77 Obstruction Standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those
which warrant further aeronautical study in order to determine if they would have significant adverse effect
on protected aeronautical operations. While the obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study,
including circularization, they do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air
navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds an obstruction standard of Part 77 does not
provide a basis for a determination that the structure would constitute a hazard to air navigation.
The proposal does not exceed the APF Traffic Pattern Altitude.
The proposal has No IFR Effects. There would not be any increase to minimums on any arrival or departure
procedure. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival,
departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight
Page 4 of 8
rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities;
and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other
existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial
adverse effect on air navigation.
Any future development would be evaluated on a case by case basis and would require a proposal to be filed
with the FAA.
Flight training schools and inexperienced pilots are not under the scope of this aeronautical study.
The potential for an aviation accident is greater if structures, which will result in the congregation of people
within an RPZ, are strongly discouraged in the interest of protecting people and property on the ground. In
cases where the airport owner can control the use of the property, such structures are prohibited. In cases
where the airport owner exercises no such control, advisory recommendations are issued to inform the sponsor
of the inadvisability of the proposal from the standpoint of safety to personnel and property. The proposed
project is not located in the RPZ.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace
by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED
THE FOLLOWING:
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes,
operations, or procedures.
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or
procedures.
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes.
AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE
FOLLOWING:
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes,
operations or procedures.
> The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern
operations at any known public use or military airports.
> The proposed structure would not penetrate those altitudes that are normally considered available to airmen
for VFR en route flight.
> The proposed structure will be appropriately obstruction marked and lighted to make it more conspicuous to
airmen flying in VFR weather conditions at night.
The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not
considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public -use or military
Page 5 of 8
airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned
public -use or military airport.
Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the
safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not
be a hazard to air navigation.
Page 6 of 8
TOPO Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25242 -OE
Page 7 of 8
Sectional Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25242 -OE
Page 8 of 8
Mail Processing Center
Federal Aviation Administration
Southwest Regional Office
Obstruction Evaluation Group
10101 Hillwood Parkway
Fort Worth, TX 76177
Issued Date: 01/20/2017
Jerry Starkey
Real Estate Partners International, Inc
1415 Panther Lane
Naples, FL 34109
Aeronautical Study No.
2016 -ASO -25243 -OE
Prior Study No.
2016 -ASO -16235 -OE
** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **
The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.,
Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning:
Structure:
Building N Corner Davis Triangle Development Collier
Location:
Naples, FL
Latitude:
26-08-14.25N NAD 83
Longitude:
81-46-47.37W
Heights:
8 feet site elevation (SE)
160 feet above ground level (AGL)
168 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)
This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe
and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities.
Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a
hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met:
As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory
circular 70/7460-1 L Change 1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights - Chapters 4,5(Red),&12.
Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction
light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen
(NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number.
It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed any time the
project is abandoned or:
At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1)
_X_ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2)
See attachment for additional condition(s) or information.
The structure considered under this study lies in proximity to an airport and occupants may be subjected to
noise from aircraft operating to and from the airport.
Pagel of 8
This determination expires on 07/20/2018 unless:
(a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual
Construction or Alteration, is received by this office.
(b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office.
(c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within
6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date
prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.
NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST
BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION
OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO
SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE
ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD.
This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on
or before February 19, 2017. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the
basis upon which it is made and be submitted to the Manager, Airspace Policy & Regulation, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Room 423, Washington, DC 20591.
This determination becomes final on March 01, 2017 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this
determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the
grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Airspace Regulations & ATC
Procedures Group via telephone -- 202-267-8783 - or facsimile 202-267-9328.
This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights,
frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will
void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the
addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.
This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be
used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as
indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the
FAA.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace
by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and
en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact
on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative
impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed
structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air
navigation.
An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the
basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s).
Page 2 of 8
If we can be of further assistance, please contact Michael Blaich, at (404) 305-6462. On any future
correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2016 -ASO -25243 -OE.
Signature Control No: 305918339-318678167
Mike Helvey
Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group
Attachment(s)
Additional Information
Map(s)
Page 3 of 8
(DNH)
Additional information for ASN 2016 -ASO -25243 -OE
APF =
Naples Municipal Airport
ASN
= Aeronautical Study Number
AGL
= Above Ground Level
AMSL = Above Mean Sea Level
NM =
Nautical Miles
ARP
= Airport Reference Point
RWY
= Runway
IFR =
Instrument Flight Rule
RPZ =
Runway Protection Zone
The proposed project was originally submitted for two Buildings, represented by 8 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25239 -
OE through 25246), representing the four corners of each structure. A third building, represented by 4 ASNs
(2016 -ASO -25247 -OE through 25250), was added later to the project, at the same AGL and AMSL heights
as the other two buildings, with no greater effect. The three buildings are proposed at a height of 160 feet
AGL/168 feet AMSL and will be located approximately 0.89 NM south of the APF ARP and extends to
approximately 0.97 NM south of the APF ARP and from 192.49 degrees azimuth clockwise to 197.78 degrees
azimuth.
The proposal would exceed the Obstruction Standards of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part
77 as follows:
Section 77.19 (a) APF: Horizontal Surface --- > Exceeds by 10 feet.
No IFR Effect.
Details of the proposed project were circularized to the aeronautical public for comment. There were four
letters of objection received during the comment period.
The letters of objection can be summarized as the following: proposal exceeds Part 77 Obstruction Standards,
proposal exceeds APF traffic pattern, proposal would be an issue for landing and takeoff procedures for RWY
05/23, concern about future development, concern about flight training schools with inexperienced pilots,
potential aviation accident involving an entertainment area in project, a local county land development zoning
restriction of 112 feet.
Part 77 Obstruction Standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those
which warrant further aeronautical study in order to determine if they would have significant adverse effect
on protected aeronautical operations. While the obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study,
including circularization, they do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air
navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds an obstruction standard of Part 77 does not
provide a basis for a determination that the structure would constitute a hazard to air navigation.
The proposal does not exceed the APF Traffic Pattern Altitude.
The proposal has No IFR Effects. There would not be any increase to minimums on any arrival or departure
procedure. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival,
departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight
Page 4 of 8
rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities;
and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other
existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial
adverse effect on air navigation.
Any future development would be evaluated on a case by case basis and would require a proposal to be filed
with the FAA.
Flight training schools and inexperienced pilots are not under the scope of this aeronautical study.
The potential for an aviation accident is greater if structures, which will result in the congregation of people
within an RPZ, are strongly discouraged in the interest of protecting people and property on the ground. In
cases where the airport owner can control the use of the property, such structures are prohibited. In cases
where the airport owner exercises no such control, advisory recommendations are issued to inform the sponsor
of the inadvisability of the proposal from the standpoint of safety to personnel and property. The proposed
project is not located in the RPZ.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace
by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED
THE FOLLOWING:
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes,
operations, or procedures.
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or
procedures.
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes.
AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE
FOLLOWING:
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes,
operations or procedures.
> The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern
operations at any known public use or military airports.
> The proposed structure would not penetrate those altitudes that are normally considered available to airmen
for VFR en route flight.
> The proposed structure will be appropriately obstruction marked and lighted to make it more conspicuous to
airmen flying in VFR weather conditions at night.
The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not
considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public -use or military
Page 5 of 8
airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned
public -use or military airport.
Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the
safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not
be a hazard to air navigation.
Page 6 of 8
TOPO Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25243 -OE
Page 7 of 8
V,OR-DME
°Y RRES
123
Sectional Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25243 -OE
Page 8 of 8
Mail Processing Center
Federal Aviation Administration
Southwest Regional Office
Obstruction Evaluation Group
10101 Hillwood Parkway
Fort Worth, TX 76177
Issued Date: 01/20/2017
Jerry Starkey
Real Estate Partners International, Inc
1415 Panther Lane
Naples, FL 34109
Aeronautical Study No.
2016 -ASO -25244 -OE
Prior Study No.
2016 -ASO -16236 -OE
** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **
The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.,
Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning:
Structure:
Building E Corner -Davis Triangle Development Collier
Location:
Naples, FL
Latitude:
26-08-13.16N NAD 83
Longitude:
81-46-46.03W
Heights:
8 feet site elevation (SE)
160 feet above ground level (AGL)
168 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)
This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe
and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities.
Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a
hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met:
As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory
circular 70/7460-1 L Change 1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights - Chapters 4,5(Red),&12.
Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction
light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen
(NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number.
It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed any time the
project is abandoned or:
At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1)
X_ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2)
See attachment for additional condition(s) or information.
The structure considered under this study lies in proximity to an airport and occupants may be subjected to
noise from aircraft operating to and from the airport.
Pagel of 8
This determination expires on 07/20/2018 unless:
(a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual
Construction or Alteration, is received by this office.
(b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office.
(c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within
6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date
prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.
NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST
BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION
OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO
SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE
ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD.
This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on
or before February 19, 2017. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the
basis upon which it is made and be submitted to the Manager, Airspace Policy & Regulation, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Room 423, Washington, DC 20591.
This determination becomes final on March 01, 2017 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this
determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the
grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Airspace Regulations & ATC
Procedures Group via telephone -- 202-267-8783 - or facsimile 202-267-9328.
This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights,
frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will
void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the
addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.
This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be
used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as
indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the
FAA.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace
by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and
en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact
on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative
impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed
structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air
navigation.
An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the
basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s).
Page 2 of 8
If we can be of further assistance, please contact Michael Blaich, at (404) 305-6462. On any future
correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2016 -ASO -25244 -OE.
Signature Control No: 305918340-318678164
Mike Helvey
Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group
Attachment(s)
Additional Information
Map(s)
Page 3 of 8
(DNH)
Additional information for ASN 2016 -ASO -25244 -OE
APF =
Naples Municipal Airport
ASN
= Aeronautical Study Number
AGL
= Above Ground Level
AMSL = Above Mean Sea Level
NM =
Nautical Miles
ARP
= Airport Reference Point
RWY
= Runway
IFR =
Instrument Flight Rule
RPZ =
Runway Protection Zone
The proposed project was originally submitted for two Buildings, represented by 8 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25239 -
OE through 25246), representing the four corners of each structure. A third building, represented by 4 ASNs
(2016 -ASO -25247 -OE through 25250), was added later to the project, at the same AGL and AMSL heights
as the other two buildings, with no greater effect. The three buildings are proposed at a height of 160 feet
AGL/168 feet AMSL and will be located approximately 0.89 NM south of the APF ARP and extends to
approximately 0.97 NM south of the APF ARP and from 192.49 degrees azimuth clockwise to 197.78 degrees
azimuth.
The proposal would exceed the Obstruction Standards of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part
77 as follows:
Section 77.19 (a) APF: Horizontal Surface --- > Exceeds by 10 feet.
No IFR Effect.
Details of the proposed project were circularized to the aeronautical public for comment. There were four
letters of objection received during the comment period.
The letters of objection can be summarized as the following: proposal exceeds Part 77 Obstruction Standards,
proposal exceeds APF traffic pattern, proposal would be an issue for landing and takeoff procedures for RWY
05/23, concern about future development, concern about flight training schools with inexperienced pilots,
potential aviation accident involving an entertainment area in project, a local county land development zoning
restriction of 112 feet.
Part 77 Obstruction Standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those
which warrant further aeronautical study in order to determine if they would have significant adverse effect
on protected aeronautical operations. While the obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study,
including circularization, they do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air
navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds an obstruction standard of Part 77 does not
provide a basis for a determination that the structure would constitute a hazard to air navigation.
The proposal does not exceed the APF Traffic Pattern Altitude.
The proposal has No IFR Effects. There would not be any increase to minimums on any arrival or departure
procedure. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival,
departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight
Page 4 of 8
rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities;
and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other
existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial
adverse effect on air navigation.
Any future development would be evaluated on a case by case basis and would require a proposal to be filed
with the FAA.
Flight training schools and inexperienced pilots are not under the scope of this aeronautical study.
The potential for an aviation accident is greater if structures, which will result in the congregation of people
within an RPZ, are strongly discouraged in the interest of protecting people and property on the ground. In
cases where the airport owner can control the use of the property, such structures are prohibited. In cases
where the airport owner exercises no such control, advisory recommendations are issued to inform the sponsor
of the inadvisability of the proposal from the standpoint of safety to personnel and property. The proposed
project is not located in the RPZ.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace
by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED
THE FOLLOWING:
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes,
operations, or procedures.
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or
procedures.
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes.
AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE
FOLLOWING:
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes,
operations or procedures.
> The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern
operations at any known public use or military airports.
> The proposed structure would not penetrate those altitudes that are normally considered available to airmen
for VFR en route flight.
> The proposed structure will be appropriately obstruction marked and lighted to make it more conspicuous to
airmen flying in VFR weather conditions at night.
The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not
considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public -use or military
Page 5 of 8
airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned
public -use or military airport.
Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the
safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not
be a hazard to air navigation.
Page 6 of 8
TOPO Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25244 -OE
Page 7 of 8
Sectional Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25244 -OE
Page 8 of 8
Mail Processing Center
Federal Aviation Administration
Southwest Regional Office
Obstruction Evaluation Group
10101 Hillwood Parkway
Fort Worth, TX 76177
Issued Date: 01/20/2017
Jerry Starkey
Real Estate Partners International, Inc
1415 Panther Lane
Naples, FL 34109
Aeronautical Study No.
2016 -ASO -25245 -OE
Prior Study No.
2016 -ASO -16237 -OE
** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **
The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.,
Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning:
Structure:
Building W Corner -Davis Triangle Development Collier
Location:
Naples, FL
Latitude:
26-08-12.96N NAD 83
Longitude:
81-46-48.53W
Heights:
8 feet site elevation (SE)
160 feet above ground level (AGL)
168 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)
This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe
and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities.
Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a
hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met:
As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory
circular 70/7460-1 L Change 1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights - Chapters 4,5(Red),&12.
Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction
light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen
(NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number.
It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed any time the
project is abandoned or:
At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1)
_X_ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2)
See attachment for additional condition(s) or information.
The structure considered under this study lies in proximity to an airport and occupants may be subjected to
noise from aircraft operating to and from the airport.
Page 1 of 8
This determination expires on 07/20/2018 unless:
(a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual
Construction or Alteration, is received by this office.
(b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office.
(c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within
6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date
prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.
NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST
BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION
OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO
SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE
ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD.
This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on
or before February 19, 2017. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the
basis upon which it is made and be submitted to the Manager, Airspace Policy & Regulation, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Room 423, Washington, DC 20591.
This determination becomes final on March 01, 2017 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this
determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the
grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Airspace Regulations & ATC
Procedures Group via telephone -- 202-267-8783 - or facsimile 202-267-9328.
This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights,
frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will
void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the
addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.
This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be
used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as
indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the
FAA.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace
by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and
en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact
on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative
impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed
structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air
navigation.
An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the
basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s).
Page 2 of 8
If we can be of further assistance, please contact Michael Blaich, at (404) 305-6462. On any future
correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2016 -ASO -25245 -OE.
Signature Control No: 305918341-318678172
Mike Helvey
Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group
Attachment(s)
Additional Information
Map(s)
Page 3 of 8
(DNH)
Additional information for ASN 2016 -ASO -25245 -OE
APF =
Naples Municipal Airport
ASN
= Aeronautical Study Number
AGL
= Above Ground Level
AMSL = Above Mean Sea Level
NM =
Nautical Miles
ARP
= Airport Reference Point
RWY
= Runway
IFR =
Instrument Flight Rule
RPZ =
Runway Protection Zone
The proposed project was originally submitted for two Buildings, represented by 8 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25239 -
OE through 25246), representing the four corners of each structure. A third building, represented by 4 ASNs
(2016 -ASO -25247 -OE through 25250), was added later to the project, at the same AGL and AMSL heights
as the other two buildings, with no greater effect. The three buildings are proposed at a height of 160 feet
AGL/168 feet AMSL and will be located approximately 0.89 NM south of the APF ARP and extends to
approximately 0.97 NM south of the APF ARP and from 192.49 degrees azimuth clockwise to 197.78 degrees
azimuth.
The proposal would exceed the Obstruction Standards of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part
77 as follows:
Section 77.19 (a) APF: Horizontal Surface --- > Exceeds by 10 feet.
No IFR Effect.
Details of the proposed project were circularized to the aeronautical public for comment. There were four
letters of objection received during the comment period.
The letters of objection can be summarized as the following: proposal exceeds Part 77 Obstruction Standards,
proposal exceeds APF traffic pattern, proposal would be an issue for landing and takeoff procedures for RWY
05/23, concern about future development, concern about flight training schools with inexperienced pilots,
potential aviation accident involving an entertainment area in project, a local county land development zoning
restriction of 112 feet.
Part 77 Obstruction Standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those
which warrant further aeronautical study in order to determine if they would have significant adverse effect
on protected aeronautical operations. While the obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study,
including circularization, they do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air
navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds an obstruction standard of Part 77 does not
provide a basis for a determination that the structure would constitute a hazard to air navigation.
The proposal does not exceed the APF Traffic Pattern Altitude.
The proposal has No IFR Effects. There would not be any increase to minimums on any arrival or departure
procedure. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival,
departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight
Page 4 of 8
rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities;
and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other
existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial
adverse effect on air navigation.
Any future development would be evaluated on a case by case basis and would require a proposal to be filed
with the FAA.
Flight training schools and inexperienced pilots are not under the scope of this aeronautical study.
The potential for an aviation accident is greater if structures, which will result in the congregation of people
within an RPZ, are strongly discouraged in the interest of protecting people and property on the ground. In
cases where the airport owner can control the use of the property, such structures are prohibited. In cases
where the airport owner exercises no such control, advisory recommendations are issued to inform the sponsor
of the inadvisability of the proposal from the standpoint of safety to personnel and property. The proposed
project is not located in the RPZ.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace
by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED
THE FOLLOWING:
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes,
operations, or procedures.
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or
procedures.
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes.
AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE
FOLLOWING:
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes,
operations or procedures.
> The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern
operations at any known public use or military airports.
> The proposed structure would not penetrate those_ altitudes that are normally considered available to airmen
for VFR en route flight.
> The proposed structure will be appropriately obstruction marked and lighted to make it more conspicuous to
airmen flying in VFR weather conditions at night.
The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not
considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public -use or military
Page 5 of 8
airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned
public -use or military airport.
Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the
safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not
be a hazard to air navigation.
Page 6 of 8
TOPO Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25245 -OE
Page 7 of 8
D NOTAMs/Su
�
Class Dl E (sf
a wmw,o,
CyImm 0 Omm "ON
0=0 0 now No=
Sectional Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25245 -OE
Page of
Mail Processing Center
Federal Aviation Administration
Southwest Regional Office
Obstruction Evaluation Group
10101 Hillwood Parkway
Fort Worth, TX 76177
Issued Date: 01/20/2017
Jerry Starkey
Real Estate Partners International, Inc
1415 Panther Lane
Naples, FL 34109
Aeronautical Study No.
2016 -ASO -25246 -OE
Prior Study No.
2016 -ASO -16238 -OE
** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **
The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.,
Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning:
Structure: Building S Corner -Davis Triangle Development Collier
Location: Naples, FL
Latitude: 26-08-11.99N NAD 83
Longitude: 81-46-47.14W
Heights: 8 feet site elevation (SE)
160 feet above ground level (AGL)
168 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)
This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe
and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities.
Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a
hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met:
As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory
circular 70/7460-1 L Change 1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights - Chapters 4,5(Red),&12.
Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction
light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen
(NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number.
It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed any time the
project is abandoned or:
At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1)
X_ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2)
See attachment for additional condition(s) or information.
The structure considered under this study lies in proximity to an airport and occupants may be subjected to
noise from aircraft operating to and from the airport.
Page 1 of 8
This determination expires on 07/20/2018 unless:
(a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual
Construction or Alteration, is received by this office.
(b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office.
(c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within
6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date
prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.
NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST
BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION
OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO
SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE
ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD.
This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on
or before February 19, 2017. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the
basis upon which it is made and be submitted to the Manager, Airspace Policy & Regulation, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Room 423, Washington, DC 20591.
This determination becomes final on March 01, 2017 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this
determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the
grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Airspace Regulations & ATC
Procedures Group via telephone -- 202-267-8783 - or facsimile 202-267-9328.
This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights,
frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will
void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the
addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.
This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be
used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as
indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the
FAA.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace
by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and
en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact
on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative
impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed
structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air
navigation.
An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the
basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s).
Page 2 of 8
If we can be of further assistance, please contact Michael Blaich, at (404) 305-6462. On any future
correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2016 -ASO -25246 -OE.
Signature Control No: 305918342-318678165
Mike Helvey
Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group
Attachment(s)
Additional Information
Map(s)
Page 3 of 8
(DNH)
Additional information for ASN 2016 -ASO -25246 -OE
APF = Naples Municipal Airport
ASN
= Aeronautical Study Number
AGL
= Above Ground Level
AMSL = Above Mean Sea Level
NM =
Nautical Miles
ARP
= Airport Reference Point
RWY
= Runway
IFR =
Instrument Flight Rule
RPZ =
Runway Protection Zone
The proposed project was originally submitted for two Buildings, represented by 8 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25239 -
OE through 25246), representing the four corners of each structure. A third building, represented by 4 ASNs
(2016 -ASO -25247 -OE through 25250), was added later to the project, at the same AGL and AMSL heights
as the other two buildings, with no greater effect. The three buildings are proposed at a height of 160 feet
AGL/168 feet AMSL and will be located approximately 0. 89 NM south of the APF ARP and extends to
approximately 0.97 NM south of the APF ARP and from 192.49 degrees azimuth clockwise to 197.78 degrees
azimuth.
The proposal would exceed the Obstruction Standards of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part
77 as follows:
Section 77.19 (a) APF: Horizontal Surface --- > Exceeds by 10 feet.
No IFR Effect.
Details of the proposed project were circularized to the aeronautical public for comment. There were four
letters of objection received during the comment period.
The letters of objection can be summarized as the following: proposal exceeds Part 77 Obstruction Standards,
proposal exceeds APF traffic pattern, proposal would be an issue for landing and takeoff procedures for RWY
05/23, concern about future development, concern about flight training schools with inexperienced pilots,
potential aviation accident involving an entertainment area in project, a local county land development zoning
restriction of 112 feet.
Part 77 Obstruction Standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those
which warrant further aeronautical study in order to determine if they would have significant adverse effect
on protected aeronautical operations. While the obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study,
including circularization, they do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air
navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds an obstruction standard of Part 77 does not
provide a basis for a determination that the structure would constitute a hazard to air navigation.
The proposal does not exceed the APF Traffic Pattern Altitude.
The proposal has No IFR Effects. There would not be any increase to minimums on any arrival or departure
procedure. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival,
departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight
Page 4 of 8
rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities;
and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other
existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial
adverse effect on air navigation.
Any future development would be evaluated on a case by case basis and would require a proposal to be filed
with the FAA.
Flight training schools and inexperienced pilots are not under the scope of this aeronautical study.
The potential for an aviation accident is greater if structures, which will result in the congregation of people
within an RPZ, are strongly discouraged in the interest of protecting people and property on the ground. In
cases where the airport owner can control the use of the property, such structures are prohibited. In cases
where the airport owner exercises no such control, advisory recommendations are issued to inform the sponsor
of the inadvisability of the proposal from the standpoint of safety to personnel and property. The proposed
project is not located in the RPZ.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace
by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED
THE FOLLOWING:
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes,
operations, or procedures.
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or
procedures.
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes.
AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE
FOLLOWING:
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes,
operations or procedures.
> The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern
operations at any known public use or military airports.
> The proposed structure would not penetrate those altitudes that are normally considered available to airmen
for VFR en route flight.
> The proposed structure will be appropriately obstruction marked and lighted to make it more conspicuous to
airmen flying in VFR weather conditions at night.
The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not
considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public -use or military
Page 5 of 8
airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned
public -use or military airport.
Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the
safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not
be a hazard to air navigation.
Page 6 of 8
TOPO Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25246 -OE
Page 7 of 8
Sectional Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25246 -OE
Page 8 of 8
Mail Processing Center
Federal Aviation Administration
Southwest Regional Office
Obstruction Evaluation Group
10101 Hillwood Parkway
Fort Worth, TX 76177
Issued Date: 01/20/2017
Jerry Starkey
Real Estate Partners International, Inc
1415 Panther Lane
Naples, FL 34109
Aeronautical Study No.
2016 -ASO -25247 -OE
** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **
The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.,
Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning:
Structure: Building RES A Building NW Corner Davis Triangle
Location: Naples, FL
Latitude: 26-08-17.03N NAD 83
Longitude: 81-46-50.79W
Heights: 8 feet site elevation (SE)
160 feet above ground level (AGL)
168 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)
This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe
and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities.
Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a
hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met:
As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory
circular 70/7460-1 L Change 1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights - Chapters 4,5(Red),&12.
Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction
light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen
(NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number.
It is required that FAA Foran 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed any time the
project is abandoned or:
At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1)
_X_ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2)
See attachment for additional condition(s) or information.
The structure considered under this study lies in proximity to an airport and occupants may be subjected to
noise from aircraft operating to and from the airport.
Page 1 of 8
This determination expires on 07/20/2018 unless:
(a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual
Construction or Alteration, is received by this office.
(b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office.
(c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within
6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date
prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.
NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST
BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION
OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO
SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE
ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD.
This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on
or before February 19, 2017. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the
basis upon which it is made and be submitted to the Manager, Airspace Policy & Regulation, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Room 423, Washington, DC 20591.
This determination becomes final on March 01, 2017 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this
determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the
grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Airspace Regulations & ATC
Procedures Group via telephone -- 202-267-8783 - or facsimile 202-267-9328.
This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights,
frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will
void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the
addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.
This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be
used during actual constiuction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as
indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the
FAA.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace
by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and
en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact
on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative
impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed
structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air
navigation.
An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the
basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s).
Page 2 of 8
If we can be of further assistance, please contact Michael Blaich, at (404) 305-6462. On any future
correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2016 -ASO -25247 -OE.
Signature Control No: 305918481-318678161
Mike Helvey
Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group
Attachment(s)
Additional Information
Map(s)
Page 3 of 8
(DNH)
Additional information for ASN 2016 -ASO -25247 -OE
APF = Naples Municipal Airport
ASN
= Aeronautical Study Number
AGL
= Above Ground Level
AMSL = Above Mean Sea Level
NM =
Nautical Miles
ARP =
Airport Reference Point
RWY
= Runway
IFR =
Instrument Flight Rule
RPZ =
Runway Protection Zone
The proposed project was originally submitted for two Buildings, represented by 8 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25239 -
OE through 25246), representing the four corners of each structure. A third building, represented by 4 ASNs
(2016 -ASO -25247 -OE through 25250), was added later to the project, at the same AGL and AMSL heights
as the other two buildings, with no greater effect. The three buildings are proposed at a height of 160 feet
AGL/168 feet AMSL and will be located approximately 0.89 NM south of the APF ARP and extends to
approximately 0.97 NM south of the APF ARP and from 192.49 degrees azimuth clockwise to 197.78 degrees
azimuth.
The proposal would exceed the Obstruction Standards of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part
77 as follows:
Section 77.19 (a) APF: Horizontal Surface --- > Exceeds by 10 feet.
No IFR Effect.
Details of the proposed project were circularized to the aeronautical public for comment. There were four
letters of objection received during the comment period.
The letters of objection can be summarized as the following: proposal exceeds Part 77 Obstruction Standards,
proposal exceeds APF traffic pattern, proposal would be an issue for landing and takeoff procedures for RWY
05/23, concern about future development, concern about flight training schools with inexperienced pilots,
potential aviation accident involving an entertainment area in project, a local county land development zoning
restriction of 112 feet.
Part 77 Obstruction Standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those
which warrant further aeronautical study in order to determine if they would have significant adverse effect
on protected aeronautical operations. While the obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study,
including circularization, they do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air
navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds an obstruction standard of Part 77 does not
provide a basis for a determination that the structure would constitute a hazard to air navigation.
The proposal does not exceed the APF Traffic Pattern Altitude.
The proposal has No IFR Effects. There would not be any increase to minimums on any arrival or departure
procedure. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival,
departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight
Page 4 of 8
rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities;
and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other
existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial
adverse effect on air navigation.
Any future development would be evaluated on a case by case basis and would require a proposal to be filed
with the FAA.
Flight training schools and inexperienced pilots are not under the scope of this aeronautical study.
The potential for an aviation accident is greater if structures, which will result in the congregation of people
within an RPZ, are strongly discouraged in the interest of protecting people and property on the ground. In
cases where the airport owner can control the use of the property, such structures are prohibited. In cases
where the airport owner exercises no such control, advisory recommendations are issued to inform the sponsor
of the inadvisability of the proposal from the standpoint of safety to personnel and property. The proposed
project is not located in the RPZ.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace
by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED
THE FOLLOWING:
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes,
operations, or procedures.
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or
procedures.
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes.
AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE
FOLLOWING:
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes,
operations or procedures.
> The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern
operations at any known public use or military airports.
> The proposed structure would not penetrate those altitudes that are normally considered available to airmen
for VFR en route flight.
> The proposed structure will be appropriately obstruction marked and lighted to make it more conspicuous to
airmen flying in VFR weather conditions at night.
The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not
considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public -use or military
Page 5 of 8
airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned
public -use or military airport.
Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the
safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not
be a hazard to air navigation.
Page 6 of 8
TOPO Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25247 -OE
Page 7 of 8
Sectional Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25247 -OE
Page 8 of 8
Mail Processing Center
Federal Aviation Administration
Southwest Regional Office
Obstruction Evaluation Group
10101 Hillwood Parkway
Fort Worth, TX 76177
Issued Date: 01/20/2017
Jerry Starkey
Real Estate Partners International, Inc
1415 Panther Lane
Naples, FL 34109
Aeronautical Study No.
2016 -ASO -25248 -OE
** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **
The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.,
Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning:
Structure: Building RES A Building NE Corner Davis Triangle
Location: Naples, FL
Latitude: 26-08-17.03N NAD 83
Longitude: 81-46-49.59W
Heights: 8 feet site elevation (SE)
160 feet above ground level (AGL)
168 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)
This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe
and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities.
Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a
hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met:
As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory
circular 70/7460-1 L Change 1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights - Chapters 4,5(Red),&12.
Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction
light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen
(NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number.
It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed any time the
project is abandoned or:
At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1)
X_ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2)
See attachment for additional condition(s) or information.
The structure considered under this study lies in proximity to an airport and occupants may be subjected to
noise from aircraft operating to and from the airport.
Pagel of 8
This determination expires on 07/20/2018 unless:
(a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual
Construction or Alteration, is received by this office.
(b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office.
(c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within
6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date
prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.
NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST
BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION
OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO
SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE
ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD.
This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on
or before February 19, 2017. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the
basis upon which it is made and be submitted to the Manager, Airspace Policy & Regulation, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Room 423, Washington, DC 20591.
This determination becomes final on March 01, 2017 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this
determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the
grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Airspace Regulations & ATC
Procedures Group via telephone -- 202-267-8783 - or facsimile 202-267-9328.
This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights,
frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will
void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the
addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.
This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be
used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as
indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the
FAA.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace
by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and
en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact
on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative
impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed
structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air
navigation.
An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the
basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s).
Page 2 of 8
If we can be of further assistance, please contact Michael Blaich, at (404) 305-6462. On any future
correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2016 -ASO -25248 -OE.
Signature Control No: 305918482-318678162
Mike Helvey
Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group
Attachment(s)
Additional Information
Map(s)
Page 3 of 8
(DNH)
Additional information for ASN 2016 -ASO -25248 -OE
APF =
Naples Municipal Airport
ASN
= Aeronautical Study Number
AGL
= Above Ground Level
AMSL = Above Mean Sea Level
NM =
Nautical Miles
ARP =
Airport Reference Point
RWY
= Runway
IFR =
Instrument Flight Rule
RPZ =
Runway Protection Zone
The proposed project was originally submitted for two Buildings, represented by 8 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25239 -
OE through 25246), representing the four corners of each structure. A third building, represented by 4 ASNs
(2016 -ASO -25247 -OE through 25250), was added later to the project, at the same AGL and AMSL heights
as the other two buildings, with no greater effect. The three buildings are proposed at a height of 160 feet
AGL/168 feet AMSL and will be located approximately 0.89 NM south of the APF ARP and extends to
approximately 0.97 NM south of the APF ARP and from 192.49 degrees azimuth clockwise to 197.78 degrees
azimuth.
The proposal would exceed the Obstruction Standards of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part
77 as follows:
Section 77.19 (a) APF: Horizontal Surface --- > Exceeds by 10 feet.
No IFR Effect.
Details of the proposed project were circularized to the aeronautical public for comment. There were four
letters of objection received during the comment period.
The letters of objection can be summarized as the following: proposal exceeds Part 77 Obstruction Standards,
proposal exceeds APF traffic pattern, proposal would be an issue for landing and takeoff procedures for RWY
05/23, concern about future development, concern about flight training schools with inexperienced pilots,
potential aviation accident involving an entertainment area in project, a local county land development zoning
restriction of 112 feet.
Part 77 Obstruction Standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those
which warrant further aeronautical study in order to determine if they would have significant adverse effect
on protected aeronautical operations. While the obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study,
including circularization, they do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air
navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds an obstruction standard of Part 77 does not
provide a basis for a determination that the structure would constitute a hazard to air navigation.
The proposal does not exceed the APF Traffic Pattern Altitude.
The proposal has No IFR Effects. There would not be any increase to minimums on any arrival or departure
procedure. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival,
departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight
Page 4 of 8
rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities;
and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other
existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial
adverse effect on air navigation.
Any future development would be evaluated on a case by case basis and would require a proposal to be filed
with the FAA.
Flight training schools and inexperienced pilots are not under the scope of this aeronautical study.
The potential for an aviation accident is greater if structures, which will result in the congregation of people
within an RPZ, are strongly discouraged in the interest of protecting people and property on the ground. In
cases where the airport owner can control the use of the property, such structures are prohibited. In cases
where the airport owner exercises no such control, advisory recommendations are issued to inform the sponsor
of the inadvisability of the proposal from the standpoint of safety to personnel and property. The proposed
project is not located in the RPZ.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace
by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED
THE FOLLOWING:
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes,
operations, or procedures.
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or
procedures.
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes.
AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE
FOLLOWING:
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes,
operations or procedures.
> The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern
operations at any known public use or military airports.
> The proposed structure would not penetrate those altitudes that are normally considered available to airmen
for VFR en route flight.
> The proposed structure will be appropriately obstruction marked and lighted to make it more conspicuous to
airmen flying in VFR weather conditions at night.
The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not
considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public -use or military
Page 5 of 8
airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned
public -use or military airport.
Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the
safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not
be a hazard to air navigation.
Page 6 of 8
TOPO Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25248 -OE
Page 7 of 8
Sectional Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25248 -OE
Page 8 of 8
Mail Processing Center
Federal Aviation Administration
Southwest Regional Office
Obstruction Evaluation Group
10101 Hillwood Parkway
Fort Worth, TX 76177
Issued Date: 01/20/2017
Jerry Starkey
Real Estate Partners International, Inc
1415 Panther Lane
Naples, FL 34109
Aeronautical Study No.
2016 -ASO -25249 -OE
** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **
The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.,
Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning:
Structure:
Building RES A Building SW Comer Davis Triangle
Location:
Naples, FL
Latitude:
26-08-15.21N NAD 83
Longitude:
81-46-50.79W
Heights:
8 feet site elevation (SE)
160 feet above ground level (AGL)
168 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)
This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe
and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities.
Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a
hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met:
As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory
circular 70/7460-1 L Change 1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights - Chapters 4,5(Red),&12.
Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction
light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen
(NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number.
It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed any time the
project is abandoned or:
At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1)
_X_ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2)
See attachment for additional condition(s) or information.
The structure considered under this study lies in proximity to an airport and occupants may be subjected to
noise from aircraft operating to and from the airport.
Pagel of 8
This determination expires on 07/20/2018 unless:
(a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual
Construction or Alteration, is received by this office.
(b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office.
(c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within
6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date
prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.
NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST
BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE, AFTER RE-EVALUATION
OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO
SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE
ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD.
This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on
or before February 19, 2017. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the
basis upon which it is made and be submitted to the Manager, Airspace Policy & Regulation, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Room 423, Washington, DC 20591.
This determination becomes final on March 01, 2017 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this
determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the
grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Airspace Regulations & ATC
Procedures Group via telephone -- 202-267-8783 - or facsimile 202-267-9328.
This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights,
frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will
void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the
addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.
This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be
used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as
indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the
FAA.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace
by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and
en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact
on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative
impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed
structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air
navigation.
An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the
basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s).
Page 2 of 8
If we can be of further assistance, please contact Michael Blaich, at (404) 305-6462. On any future
correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2016 -ASO -25249 -OE.
Signature Control No: 305918483-318678160
Mike Helvey
Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group
Attachment(s)
Additional Information
Map(s)
Page 3 of 8
(DNH)
Additional information for ASN 2016 -ASO -25249 -OE
APF =
Naples Municipal Airport
ASN
= Aeronautical Study Number
AGL
= Above Ground Level
AMSL = Above Mean Sea Level
NM =
Nautical Miles
ARP
= Airport Reference Point
RWY
= Runway
IFR =
Instrument Flight Rule
RPZ =
Runway Protection Zone
The proposed project was originally submitted for two Buildings, represented by 8 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25239 -
OE through 25246), representing the four corners of each structure. A third building, represented by 4 ASNs
(2016 -ASO -25247 -OE through 25250), was added later to the project, at the same AGL and AMSL heights
as the other two buildings, with no greater effect. The three buildings are proposed at a height of 160 feet
AGL/168 feet AMSL and will be located approximately 0. 89 NM south of the APF ARP and extends to
approximately 0.97 NM south of the APF ARP and from 192.49 degrees azimuth clockwise to 197.78 degrees
azimuth.
The proposal would exceed the Obstruction Standards of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part
77 as follows:
Section 77.19 (a) APF: Horizontal Surface --- > Exceeds by 10 feet.
No IFR Effect.
Details of the proposed project were circularized to the aeronautical public for comment. There were four
letters of objection received during the comment period.
The letters of objection can be summarized as the following: proposal exceeds Part 77 Obstruction Standards,
proposal exceeds APF traffic pattern, proposal would be an issue for landing and takeoff procedures for RWY
05/23, concern about future development, concern about flight training schools with inexperienced pilots,
potential aviation accident involving an entertainment area in project, a local county land development zoning
restriction of 112 feet.
Part 77 Obstruction Standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those
which warrant further aeronautical study in order to determine if they would have significant adverse effect
on protected aeronautical operations. While the obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study,
including circularization, they do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air
navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds an obstruction standard of Part 77 does not
provide a basis for a determination that the structure would constitute a hazard to air navigation.
The proposal does not exceed the APF Traffic Pattern Altitude.
The proposal has No IFR Effects. There would not be any increase to minimums on any arrival or departure
procedure. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival,
departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight
Page 4 of 8
rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities;
and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other
existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial
adverse effect on air navigation.
Any future development would be evaluated on a case by case basis and would require a proposal to be filed
with the FAA.
Flight training schools and inexperienced pilots are not under the scope of this aeronautical study.
The potential for an aviation accident is greater if structures, which will result in the congregation of people
within an RPZ, are strongly discouraged in the interest of protecting people and property on the ground. In
cases where the airport owner can control the use of the property, such structures are prohibited. In cases
where the airport owner exercises no such control, advisory recommendations are issued to inform the sponsor
of the inadvisability of the proposal from the standpoint of safety to personnel and property. The proposed
project is not located in the RPZ.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace
by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED
THE FOLLOWING:
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes,
operations, or procedures.
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or
procedures.
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes.
AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE
FOLLOWING:
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes,
operations or procedures.
> The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern
operations at any known public use or military airports.
> The proposed structure would not penetrate those altitudes that are normally considered available to airmen
for VFR en route flight.
> The proposed structure will be appropriately obstruction marked and lighted to make it more conspicuous to
airmen flying in VFR weather conditions at night.
The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not
considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public -use or military
Page 5 of 8
airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned
public -use or military airport.
Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the
safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not
be a hazard to air navigation.
Page 6 of 8
TOPO Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25249 -OE
Page 7 of 8
Sectional Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25249 -OE
�g rrp TO
Wiftse
Naples Far NO
.i
NAPLES
�
w.
it Little
4
Page 8 of 8
Mail Processing Center
Federal Aviation Administration
Southwest Regional Office
Obstruction Evaluation Group
10101 Hillwood Parkway
Fort Worth, TX 76177
Issued Date: 01 /20/2017
Jerry Starkey
Real Estate Partners International, Inc
1415 Panther Lane
Naples, FL 34109
Aeronautical Study No.
2016 -ASO -25250 -OE
** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **
The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.,
Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning:
Structure:
Building RES A Building SE Coiner Davis Triangle
Location:
Naples, FL
Latitude:
26-08-15.21N NAD 83
Longitude:
81-46-49.57W
Heights:
8 feet site elevation (SE)
160 feet above ground level (AGL)
168 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)
This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe
and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities.
Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a
hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met:
As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory
circular 70/7460-1 L Change 1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights - Chapters 4,5(Red),&12.
Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction
light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen
(NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number.
It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed any time the
project is abandoned or:
At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1)
_X_ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2)
See attachment for additional condition(s) or information.
The structure considered under this study lies in proximity to an airport and occupants may be subjected to
noise from aircraft operating to and from the airport.
Page 1 of 8
This determination expires on 07/20/2018 unless:
(a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual
Construction or Alteration, is received by this office.
(b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office.
(c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within
6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date
prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application.
NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST
BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION
OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO
SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE
ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD.
This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on
or before February 19, 2017. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the
basis upon which it is made and be submitted to the Manager, Airspace Policy, & Regulation, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Room 423, Washington, DC 20591.
This determination becomes final on March 01, 2017 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this
determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the
grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Airspace Regulations & ATC
Procedures Group via telephone -- 202-267-8783 - or facsimile 202-267-9328.
This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights,
frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will
void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the
addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.
This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be
used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as
indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the
FAA.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace
by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and
en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact
on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative
impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed
structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air
navigation.
An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the
basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s).
Page 2 of 8
If we can be of further assistance, please contact Michael Blaich, at (404) 305-6462. On any future
correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2016 -ASO -25250 -OE.
Signature Control No: 305918484-318678173
Mike Helvey
Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group
Attachment(s)
Additional Information
Map(s)
Page 3 of 8
(DNH)
Additional information for ASN 2016 -ASO -25250 -OE
APF =
Naples Municipal Airport
ASN
= Aeronautical Study Number
AGL
= Above Ground Level
AMSL
= Above Mean Sea Level
NM =
Nautical Miles
ARP =
Airport Reference Point
RWY
= Runway
IFR =
Instrument Flight Rule
RPZ =
Runway Protection Zone
The proposed project was originally submitted for two Buildings, represented by 8 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25239 -
OE through 25246), representing the four corners of each structure. A third building, represented by 4 ASNs
(2016 -ASO -25247 -OE through 25250), was added later to the project, at the same AGL and AMSL heights
as the other two buildings, with no greater effect. The three buildings are proposed at a height of 160 feet
AGL/168 feet AMSL and will be located approximately 0.89 NM south of the APF ARP and extends to
approximately 0.97 NM south of the APF ARP and from 192.49 degrees azimuth clockwise to 197.78 degrees
azimuth.
The proposal would exceed the Obstruction Standards of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part
77 as follows:
Section 77.19 (a) APF: Horizontal Surface --- > Exceeds by 10 feet.
No IFR Effect.
Details of the proposed project were circularized to the aeronautical public for comment. There were four
letters of objection received during the comment period.
The letters of objection can be summarized as the following: proposal exceeds Part 77 Obstruction Standards,
proposal exceeds APF traffic pattern, proposal would be an issue for landing and takeoff procedures for RWY
05/23, concern about future development, concern about flight training schools with inexperienced pilots,
potential aviation accident involving an entertainment area in project, a local county land development zoning
restriction of 112 feet.
Part 77 Obstruction Standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those
which warrant further aeronautical study in order to determine if they would have significant adverse effect
on protected aeronautical operations. While the obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study,
including circularization, they do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air
navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds an obstruction standard of Part 77 does not
provide a basis for a determination that the structure would constitute a hazard to air navigation.
The proposal does not exceed the APF Traffic Pattern Altitude.
The proposal has No IFR Effects. There would not be any increase to minimums on any arrival or departure
procedure. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival,
departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight
Page 4 of 8
rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities;
and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other
existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial
adverse effect on air navigation.
Any future development would be evaluated on a case by case basis and would require a proposal to be filed
with the FAA.
Flight training schools and inexperienced pilots are not under the scope of this aeronautical study.
The potential for an aviation accident is greater if structures, which will result in the congregation of people
within an RPZ, are strongly discouraged in the interest of protecting people and property on the ground. In
cases where the airport owner can control the use of the property, such structures are prohibited. In cases
where the airport owner exercises no such control, advisory recommendations are issued to inform the sponsor
of the inadvisability of the proposal from the standpoint of safety to personnel and property. The proposed
project is not located in the RPZ.
This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace
by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or
regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.
AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED
THE FOLLOWING:
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes,
operations, or procedures.
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or
procedures.
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes.
AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE
FOLLOWING:
> The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes,
operations or procedures.
> The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern
operations at any known public use or military airports.
> The proposed structure would not penetrate those altitudes that are normally considered available to airmen
for VFR en route flight.
> The proposed structure will be appropriately obstruction marked and lighted to make it more conspicuous to
airmen flying in VFR weather conditions at night.
The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not
considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public -use or military
Page 5 of 8
airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned
public -use or military airport.
Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the
safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not
be a hazard to air navigation.
Page 6 of 8
TOPO Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25250 -OE
Page 7 of 8
Sectional Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25250 -OE
`tle�ll �
Page 8 of 8