4/19/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

jurisdictional agency permitting regulations that relate to docks but not piers. For example, waterfront lots in St. Andrew's Island subdivision (Grand Harbor) cannot have docks, but could have private piers if the LDRs specified such a use. Also, there are instances where a landowner may want a small private fishing pier on a stormwater tract/pond within a subdivision, whereby the alternative of a boat dock would not be appropriate. A good case can be made for prohibiting "docks" in areas of the Indian River Lagoon (IRL) that have shallow depths, such as the area of the IRL near St. Andrew's Island subdivision. Such a prohibition is based on scientific studies proving that "prop dredging" by boats, which is detrimental to seagrass beds, occurs when boats are moored and used in shallow areas. However, there is less evidence to indicate that an overwater structure not used for mooring boats (such as a pier) adversely impacts environmentally sensitive resources when designed (to deter mooring) in accordance with Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and County regulations. Such was the reasoning when the FDEP permitted fishinglobservation piers in the Orchid Isle Estates subdivision. Also, public piers, which are usually larger than private piers_ , are permitted by the FDEP in shallow areas where docks are not permitted. Under the proposed amendment, "private piers" would be allowed as an accessory structure to a single-family residence, mobile home or multiple family dwellings) under this proposed definition. Due to the similar designs of docks and piers, "private piers" would be subject to the same county criteria as single-family docks (LDR Section 932.07 - Piers, docks and boatslips). Also, "private piers" would be permitted in the same zoning districts as single-family docks, which include: A-1, A-2, A-3, RFD, RS -1, RS -2, RS -3, RS -6, RT -6, RM -3, RM -4, RM -6, RM -8, RM -10, RMH-6, RMH-8, R-BCID, (Blue Cypress Improvement District), ROSE -4 (Roseland Residential District) and PD (Planned Development). The proposed amendments also create a definition for a "public pier", in accordance with conservation regulation allowances regarding submerged bottomlands and wildlife observation. Staff Recommendation: Approve the proposed amendment PSAC Recommendation: Voted (6-0) for the same recommendation as staff PZC Recommendation: Voted (5-2) for the same recommendation as staff 5. Height of Buildings with Multiple Roof Structures For many years, the county's current definition of "Building, height of has been used to apply the county's height limitations ( which are specified in the Chapter 911 Zoning Regulations) to all proposed buildings. The definition adequately specifies the beginning (low) and ending (high) points for measuring the height of a flat roof building and a building with a single sloped roof. This definition has served the county well by drawing a simple height threshold for "flat-topped", box -like buildings and by allowing portions of a sloped roof building to be above the height limit if a compensating amount of the roof mass is below the height limit (see attachment #I). This compensating balance is allowed via the existing definition's use of the mean height (eave to ridge) of a sloped roof building to meet the height limit. Such an allowance is necessary to allow 3 -story (35) buildings with sloped roofs as well as 3 -story flat-topped, box -like buildings. The provision for sloped roofs has allowed architectural variety and aesthetic improvements beyond "box buildings" while at the same time ensuring that the overall mass of a 3 story sloped roof building is no greater than the mass of a 3 story box -like building. Under the current building height definition, however, dealing with the roof height for a single building with multiple sloped roof structures involves some interpretation. Over the years, staff has applied an interpretation to proposed buildings with multiple sloped roof structures that has allowed a weighted roof height average of sloped roof structures. According to previous planning staff, the county's Planning and Zoning Commission approved use of such a formula for a multiple roof April 19,1999 5 BOOK h PAGE 07