by SC Reporter Emilie Alfino
The Land Development Code Review Subcommittee of the Planning Commission met Tuesday to review three things: Height limitations in the Resort Housing District, nonresidential parking standards, and open bodies of water.
City Council requested staff to review whether the height limitations within the resort housing district are sufficient to accommodate redevelopment given the required 100-year storm elevations of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for buildings seaward of the state’s coastal construction control line. The Planning Commission had also asked to revisit the requirement for a pitched roof for new multifamily buildings in the Resort Housing District.
The Subcommittee was asked:
1. Are any amendments necessary to height limitations in the resort housing district?
2. Are any clarifications warranted to architectural standards that require a pitched roof for multifamily buildings within the resort housing district?
There are three different scenarios for damaged properties post-storm:
• Repair – available for buildings that have not received substantial damage (50% rule) – no resulting change in height;
• Build back – for buildings that were substantially damaged or destroyed – can build back exactly what existed at the time of the disaster in the same footprint, but to current building codes, including to required base flood elevations – height increased – previous building height plus required flood elevation – not evaluated for compliance with height limit; and
• Redevelopment – for buildings substantially damaged or destroyed or for voluntary redevelopment – requires removal of all buildings from Gulf Beach zone (if applicable) – height may be increased but must meet height limits in the code.
On the island there are 54 three-story condos, 10 four-story condos, 286 multifamily buildings seaward of the 1991 Coastal Construction Control Line, and 50 multifamily buildings seaward of the 1978 Coastal Construction Control Line.
Of the four-story condos: All 10 are being repaired (not substantially damaged). Of the three-story condos, two are being built back, one has not submitted for permits, and 51 are being repaired (not substantially damaged). None of the three- or four-story condos have requested to “redevelop,” which is the only scenario that requires compliance with the height limits.
Currently no building in the Resort Housing District can exceed a height greater than 49.8 feet NAVD (North American Vertical Datum – a reference system used to measure elevations and relate them to the Earth’s surface; it’s used by engineers, surveyors, and mapping professionals to consistently measure elevations and compare them across different maps and surveys).
In addition, the maximum height of the required sloped roof shall not exceed a height greater than 8.3 feet above the established maximum building height of 49.8 feet NAVD.
The Land Development Code currently prohibits a flat roof unless it is incorporated as resort recreational open space. Compliant roof types include hip, gable, and mansard.
Is the height limitation sufficient to accommodate redevelopment of three- and four-story buildings in the Resort Housing District given the required first floor elevations set by FDEP for properties seaward of the 1991 CCCL? In the Resort Housing District, is the prohibition on flat roofs and the requirement for pitched roofs still desired?
Commissioner Erika Steiner said the original idea was not to have “ square boxes” on the island. “I think we need some standards to stay away from these boxes.”
Commission Chair Roger Grogman said, “This places architectural features above safety. We have got a fundamental problem of prioritization – the safety factor of keeping your head above water. This is a community. Put people over other things.”
Joyce Owens, architect, mentioned the variety of building styles, from tropical modern style to mid-Century, citing Shalimar as an example. “As professionals we would like to assist interpreting the Code and make it more flexible. How do buildings actually respond to the weather?”
Sanibel Citizen Larry Schopp said, “Many of us had believed that flat roofs were inherently unattractive but Joyce Owens has persuaded me that is not the case. A well designed building with a flat roof can be attractive. The construction of box-like some buildings in the Resort Housing District led to the adoption of mandatory architectural and design standards now in place, making the requirement of pitched roofs unnecessary.”
“This doesn’t apply to new buildings anyway,” Subcommittee Chair Eric Pfeifer clarified. “Simplify. Encourage redevelopment. Straight 35 feet, pitched roof 8.3 feet on top of that. We may get newer, more resilient buildings because of it. Do away with the pitched roof requirement.”
A motion to present this to the Planning Commission passed unanimously, with Commissioner Kate Sergeant absent. It was further recommended that facilities on roofs be allowed but not required, and that mansard roofs cannot get the extra footage because they are not sloped.
Leave a Comment