7/18/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

B. The proposed additional setback for buildings over 25' in height (in single family areas) should be lessened for lots 60' or less in width. (NOTE: this recommended change is NOT included in the proposed ordinance). At its June 22, 2000 meeting, the PZC voted 6-0 to recommend that the Board adopt the ordinance proposed by staff, with a minor wording change regarding parapet walls (see attachment #9). The proposed ordinance contains that recommended wording change. ANALYSIS & ALTERNATIVES There are numerous ways to apply height limitations (see attachment #2). For example, the county's existing regulations allow portions of sloped roofs and certain architectural embellishments and roof- top structures to project above the county's 35' and 45' building height limitations. Such projections accommodate good architectural designs, and building articulation and can be allowed in a manner that does not compromise the intent of the building height limitation. It should be noted that some absolute height limitation for sloped roofs should be specified in the county's regulations since the current county budding height regulations could potentially allow for an "A -frame" building that has a roof peak 70' above ground level that technically meets the 35' height limitation. For comparison purposes, the City of Vero Beach's height definition is attached (see attachment #1). The city and county definitions are the same in regard to the starting (low) point of where to measure building height from. These starting points (average natural grade or required minimum flood elevation, whichever is higher) are fair and rational, are site specific, and should not be changed. Unlike the existing county regulations, the city's definition establishes the high point of the building height measurement at the "...inside ceiling of the highest useable space...", and establishes an absolute roof peak limit by allowing sloped roof and roof -top structures to project up to 15' beyond the city's building height limitations. The city's definition has proved workable by providing absolute limits while allowing more flexibility for three story designs and some flexibility for sloped roofs and roof -top architectural embellishments such as dormers and cupolas (see attachment #2). ■ Proposed Building Height Definition County staff has incorporated a modified version of the city's definition into the proposed LDR amendment. Certain types of roof -top structures not referenced in the city's definition (roof -top enclosures for equipment and stairways) have been incorporated into the proposed LDR amendment. Although no local architects were able to attend the May 181° workshop, staff again coordinated with the local American Institute of Architects (AIA) chapter via its president Peter Jones. The AIA has discussed the proposed building height regulations and is in agreement with the use of the city's definition and has affirmed the need for the definition's 15' allowance for roof -top equipment and enclosures such as is still needed for elevator equipment and enclosures (see attachment #7). At the June 15, 2000 PSAC meeting, there was considerable discussion regarding the proposed definition's requirement to measure building height to the "...inside ceiling of the highest useable space...". Specifically, questions were raised about the term "useable space" and if attic storage would be considered `wseable space". Questions were also raised about applying the proposed definition to structures such as atriums and skylights that do not seem to have finished ceilings. In an attempt to address these issues, the PSAC voted 7-1 to recommend that the Board adopt the proposed definition but change the term "...inside ceiling of the highest useable space..." to "...inside intersection of the vertical wall and highest finished ceiling...". The proposed amendment (see attachment #8) does not incorporate the PSAC's suggested modifications. July 18, 2000 FA