Laserfiche WebLink
TO: The Honorable Members ®ATE: October 24, 1986 FILE: <br />of the Board of County <br />Commissioners <br />DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: <br />SUBJECT: <br />Robert M Ke tin AICP <br />Planning & Development Director <br />PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVID- <br />ING FOR ADDITIONAL HEIGHT <br />EXCEPTIONS FOR HOTELS, <br />MOTELS AND RESORT DEVELOP- <br />MENTS LOCATED EAST OF <br />STATE ROAD A -1-A <br />,. <br />FROM: Art Challacombe REFERENCES: Height Except. <br />Chief, Environmental Planning DIS:ARTCHA <br />It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal <br />consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their <br />regular meeting of November 4, 1986. <br />DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: <br />On May 21, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners directed <br />planning staff to review and amend, the County ordinance relat- <br />ing to maximum height exceptions for hotels, motels and resort <br />developments located east of State Road A -I -A.• The purpose of <br />this amendment is to allow tourist commercial building struc- <br />tures -to exceed the current thirty-five foot height limitation <br />if the structure is set back an additional distance from the <br />Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL). Currently, this <br />amendment would only be applicable to the Gordon Nutt property <br />located just south of Wabasso Beach Park. The property is <br />currently zoned CG, General Commercial District. <br />On October 23, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission, by a 3 <br />to 2 vote, recommended that the Board of County Commissioners <br />not adopt the proposed ordinance. The reasons given by the <br />Commission for the recommendation of denial were that the <br />ordinance would apply to only one parcel in the County; that <br />the current 35 foot height limitation is adequate; that <br />--appreving- thi-s exception would lead to additional exceptions; <br />that an additional 1-0 foot coastal setback would not provide <br />significant environmental or flood protection benefits; and <br />that no incentive should be necessary for a developer to locate <br />his building in a more secure location more landward of the <br />coast. <br />ALTERNATIVES &ANALYSIS: <br />The proposed ordinance will only apply to tourist commercial <br />building structures located east of S.R. AIA. As proposed, the <br />ordinance will allow those structures to exceed the height <br />limitation under the following conditions: <br />1) One foot of additional setback from the CCCL shall be <br />provided for each foot in height exceeding thirty-five <br />feet. <br />2) Once the additional setback is established, all structures <br />exceeding six feet in height shall be prohibited within ^ <br />the designated additional setback area. <br />3) In no case shall any building structure be allowed to <br />exceed forty-five feet in height. <br />The primary public benefit resulting from adoption of this <br />ordinance is that tourist commercial building structures will <br />be given an incentive to locate further back from the Atlantic <br />Ocean, and those structures then will be afforded greater <br />protection against flooding .and storm surge. The ordinance <br />change should also enhance dune protection. <br />21 BOOK f"6Fq,E ¢�0e� <br />