7/18/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

■ Parapet Wall Limits and Roof -top Structure Setbacks The proposed LDR amendments address a major concern expressed at the May 18' workshop. That concern was that the 15' a lowance for roofs and roof -top structures located above the building height limitation could be "abused" in such a manner that a tall parapet wall or wall of a roof -top enclosure could extend the vertical face of a "35' building" to a height of 50'. Thus, the LDR amendment would need to limit the height of parapet walls located at roof -top edges. and roof -top enclosures would need be set back from roof -top edges to avoid the appearance of towering vertical building faces. Based upon input from the May 18' workshop and the local AIA chapter, the revised LDR amendment proposes a maximum parapet wall height of Yat the roof -top edge and a setback from the roof -top edge of 1 foot horizontal for every 1 foot vertical rise above the budding height limitation. Staffs analysis indicates that a roof -top edge parapet wall at 5 feet above the building limitation would be of sufficient height to visually screen typical air-conditioning and venting roof -top structures while adding little vertical mass to the building face. It is also staffs analysis that the requirement for a 1 foot horizontal setback from roof -top edge for every 1 foot vertical rise of a stairway enclosure (or similar structure) would relieve the visual effect of a tall vertical building face and would be workable in regard to architectural designs. ■ Additional Setback for Taller Buildings in Single-family Districts At the May 18'" workshop it was determined that, outside of higher density areas in the City of Vero Beach, there are few examples in the county at this time where maximum height buildings were built to the minimum setback lines. Staff noted that, in the unincorporated area of the county, such situations are already addressed for commercial and multi -family buildings. For commercial buildings in the unincorporated county, front yard setbacks are at least 25' (as opposed to Win the City of Vero Beach at SR A 1-A and Beachland Blvd.). Also, where commercial development abuts residential areas, buffer yards are required that have widths exceeding minimum zoning district setbacks. In regard to multi -family buildings in the unincorporated county, the Wits require an additional I foot setback from property lines for every 2 feet in height over 25'. Thus, the existing LDRs require an additional setback for multi -family buildings over 25' in height. However, there are currently no additional setbacks for taller buildings in single-family districts, where taller residences could become more prevalent. It should be noted that although 3 story single-family residences can also be built in agricultural districts, such homes would be constructed on large parcels of land controlled by existing 30 foot minimum setbacks. Therefore, no changes to agricultural district setbacks for tall homes are proposed. To ensure that 3 story homes are not built up against minimum setback lines in the a single-family districts, the proposed LDR amendments contain provisions whereby buildings and portions of buildings constructed in single-family districts must be set back 1 additional foot for every 1 foot over a building height of 25'. For example, in the RS -3 district, the following setbacks would apply under the proposed IDR amendments: Residence with a 25' building height: Front: 25% Sides: 15% Rear: 25' Residence with a 35' building height: Front: 35; Sides: 25% Rear. 35' These additional setbacks would apply only to the portion of a building that exceeds the 25' building height. Thus, under the proposed regulations, shorter portions of buildings could be constructed at minimum setback lines. In staffs opinion, this LDR change would provide some reasonable scale and relationship between horizontal setbacks and vertical mass, while allowing reasonable use and design flexibility on agricultural and residential properties. Recently, staff reviewed building plans for some existing 2 July 18, 2000 58 V