7/18/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BACKGROUND At the direction of the Board of County Commissioners, staff held a workshop on May 18, 2000 for input and discussion of a proposed amendment of the county's building height regulations. The workshop was attended by members of the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC), the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) Chairman, and interested citizens. At the conchision of the workshop, a consensus was reached on specific changes to the existing land development regulations (LDRs). Those changes restructure the county's building height definition as a modified version of the City of Vero Beach's building height definition, in addition to other specific building height regulations. PSAC and PZC Consideration The PSAC considered this amendment at its June 15, 2000 meeting and voted to recommend that the Board adopt the amendment with certain modifications. The modifications recommended by the PSAC are detailed in the analysis section of this report. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the "Post -workshop" building height LDR amendments and recommended that the Board adopt the LDR amendments as proposed by staff. Based upon discussion at the PZC meeting, staff has revised the proposed ordinance to define "building height" with the modification recommended by the PSAC. The Need to Revisit Building Height Regulations 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 budding with a single sloped roof. This definition has served the county well by drawing a simple height threshold for "flat-topped", box -bike buildings and by allowing portions of a sloped roof budding to project above the height limit if a compensating amount of the roof mass is glow the height limit (see attachment #2). 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 -like buildings while at the same time ensuring that the overall mass of a 3 -story sloped roof building is similar to the mass of a 3 -story box-hke building. Under the current budding 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 use of a weighted roof height average of sloped roof structures. According to former county planning staff, the county's Planning and Zoning Commission approved the use of such a formula for a multiple roof building in the early 1980s. Over the years, staff has applied that interpretation to about a dozen buildings, including buildings in Windsor and Grand harbor, some single-family residences, the Indian River Mall, and Disney's Inn. Because there seems to be a greater interest in using multiple roof structures and because of the importance of building height regulations, staff initiated an amendment to the LDRs to clarify and specify the county's treatment of multiple roof structures. July 18, 2000 54