4/19/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

F' BOOK 109 FAGS 08 building in the early 1980s. Over the years, that interpretation has applied to fewer than a dozen buildings, and is now reflected in the proposed LDR amendment. In practice, this interpretation has resulted in more articulated and architecturally interesting building designs, especially for larger buildings. There are numerous ways to apply height limitations. In staff s opinion, the county should not significantly alter its current and long-standing definition and policy which seems to have worked well. For comparison purposes, the City of Vero Beach's height definition is attached (see attachment #2). The city and county definitions are the same in regard to the starting (low) point of where to measure building height from. However, the city's definition establishes the high point of the height measurement at the "...inside ceiling of the highest useable space...", and allows sloped roof structures another 15' beyond the height limitation. In regard to flat roofed buildings, the county definition sets the high point for measurement at the deck line rather than the inside of the highest ceiling. Thus, the city's definition would allow for a slightly taller flat -roofed building. In regard to sloped roof buildings, the county's definition requires an averaging of roof height (and thus, roof mass) that results in an average roof mass at or below the height limitation. Thus, the county's definition ensures that, on average, a building's mass will not exceed the height limitation. The city's definition, however, does allow for a building mass, on average, to exceed the height limitation. Unlike the county's definition, the city's definition does set an absolute limit on any portion of a roof structure. That limit is 15' above the height limitation. Final Proposal At the March 11, 1999 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, staff presented recommended changes and alternative changes to the county's building height definition. At the meeting, discussion on the issue boiled -down to three basic options: (1) Apply the weighted mean roof height average and set absolute limits on the number of habitable stories (i.e. 3 stories for 35' height limit areas, 4 stories for 45' height limit areas). (2) Apply the mean roof height to the highest sloped roof structure. (3) Apply the weighted mean roof height average and set an absolute height limit on roof peaks, (similar to the method used by the City of Vero Beach which allows sloped roof elements and architectural embellishments to extend 15' above the maximum building height). At the conclusion of its discussion, the Planning and Zoning Commission directed staffto come back with an amendment that incorporates an'absolute roof peak height limitation (Option 3 described above). Staff then revisited the proposed amendment and incorporated Option 3 into the proposal. The weighted mean roof height average was retained to keep in balance the mass and vertical scale of overall building structures. The absolute height threshold for roof peaks that is now proposed is based upon a similar allowance in the City of Vero Beach building height definition. Thus, the proposed amendment would allow roof peaks no higher than 50' in all areas of the county controlled by a building height maximum of 351. It should be noted that this roof peak limitation would apply to buildings with single as well as multiple roof slopes. There is one location in the unincorporated area of the county where the building height limitation is 45'. That location is the site of the Disney Resort main building. The proposed ordinance addresses this 45' height area, and provides a 20' absolute limit above the 45' building height (top April 19,1999