Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Board of County Commissi... (4)
RESOLUTION NO. 77- 92 WHEREAS, the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission after holding a public hearing at Which due notice was published at least fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing has recommended to the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie the following amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Resolution for St. Lucie County be adopted, and : WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a P~lic hearing on said amendment on July 26, 1977 after first publishing a notice of said hearing in the News Tribune Published in FOrt Pierce, Florida on the 1st day of July, 1977, said date being at l~ast fifteen (15) days prior to the date of said hearing, and WHEREAs, at the P~'blic hearing on July 26, matter was tabled until August 9,1977 and thereafter again tabled until August 23, 1977. County Commis- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED..by the Board Sioners of St. Lucie County in meeting assembled August, 1977 that the Comprehensive ZOning Reso County be and the same is amended as follows: 1. Amend Section 10 - YARDS by adding Subse "5. Building Spacing. Minimum distance be~ buildings or any building according to the length a and a property line maximum horizontal ~_ ~d height o~ Such hundred (300) feet u~menslon of any ~uilding COvered Walkways.) (including all deck areas The formula regulating the required minimum d~ two buildings (referred to as Building A and follows: 4 The formula regulating the required follows:building (referred to .as Building A)minimumand a dis D= LPL + 2(HA) ~'23rd day of for St. Lucie 5 to read: two be regulated The three ~ and between B) is as .between a · ne is as of extension :y 4 BuildingD= requiredA andminimum horizontal distance of any either) wall of Building B (or the ye: between or between'any Wall of any building line. 595 ATTEST: ST. / Cha STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) COUNTY OF ST LUCIE ) The undersigned, Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of the County and State aforesaid, does hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the said Board of County Commissioners at a meeting held on the 23rd day of August, 1977. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said Board, this the day of August, 1977. ROGER POITRAS By 376506 ° 597 TO: FROM: DATE: MEMORANDUM. C~_unty Administrator ~girector, Building & Zoning Development Coordinator County Attorney August 11, 1977 Attached hereto is the proposed resolution to amend Section 10 of the Comprehensive Zoning Resolution by adding Subsection 5 which provides building spacing. Before furnishing a copy of said resolution to the Commissioners and other interested parties prior to its consideration on August 23rd, I would appreciate your checking to see if there are any additions or deletions necessary. RBW/llb Attachment Ral~hf~ Wilson RESOLUTION NO. 77- WHEREAS, the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Co.mmission after holding a public hearing st which due notice was published at least fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing has recommended to the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lu¢ie'County that the following amendment~ to the Comprehensive Zoning Resolution for St. Lucie County be adopted, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public h~aring on said amendment on July 26~ '1977 after first publiShing a notice of said hearing in the News Tribune published in Fort Pierce, Florida on the lst'day of July, 1977, said date being at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of said hearing, and WHEREAS, at the p~blic hearing on July 26, 1977 said mat%er was tabled un~il August 9,1977 and thereafter again tabled until August 23, 1977 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commis- .sioners of St. Lucie County in meeting assembled this 23rd day_of August, 1977 that the Comprehensive Zoning Resolution for St. Lucie County be and the same is amended as follows: 1. Amend Section 10 - YARDS by adding Subsection 5 to read: "5. Building Spacing. Minimum distance between any two (2) buildings or any building and a property line shall be regulated according to the length and height of such building.. The maximum horizontal dimension of any building shall be three hundred (300) feet (including all deck areas and enclosed and covered walkways.) The formula regulating the required minimum distance between two buildings (referred to as Building A and Building B) is as follows: LA + ~ + 2(HA ~ HB) D= 4 The formula regulating the required minimum distance between a building (referred to as Building A) and a propert line is as follows: LpL + 2(HA) D= 4 D= required minimum horizontal distance between any wall of Building A and any wall of Building B (or the vertical extension of either) or between any wall of any building and a Property line. LA = total length of BUilding A. The total length of Building A is the length of that portion or portions of a wall or walls of Building A from which, when viewed directly from above, lines drawn perpendicular to Building A will intersect any wall of Building B. LB = total length of Building B. The total length of Building B is the length of that portion or portions of a~wall or-walls of Building B from which, when Viewed directly from above, lines drawn perpendicular to Building B will-intersect any wall of Building A. LpL = total length of Property Line. The~toal length of the Property line is the length of that portion or portions of the Property Line from which, when viewed directly from above, lines drawn perpendicular to the Property 'Line will intersect any wall of any building. Length of walls or property lines shall be measured as the horizontal distance from corner to corner. Where walls in continuous general frontage are offset by angles or setbacks of six (6) feet or more, length of each segment so set back shall be measured separately for the purpose of computing D. Wall length of a circular building shall be construed as the diameter or longest chord of the building. The term "wall or walls" shall include porches, balconies, deck areas and enclosed or covered walkways. HA = height of Building A HB = height of Building B These requirements shall apply to all Multiple Family Dwellings, Hotels and Motels and to all accessory uses with two (2) or more floors which are customarily associated with and subordinate to the principal use. These spacing requirements expressly supersede and shall control over the provisions of Paragraph No. 6 of "Land and Site Planning Criteria of the Hutchinson Island Plan" (Ordinance No. 74-7) and the "Minimum Yard Requirements" established in the District Regulations for R-4 Districts and P-1 Districts." 2. This resolution shall become effective thirty (30) days after Its adoption. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA By Chairman ATTEST: Clerk TELEPHONE (305) 461-2500 GERALD S. J AMES ATTORNEY AT LAW 208 SOUTH SECOND STREET FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA 33450 August 22, 1977' P. o. BOX 3089 St. Lucie Couny Co~nissioners Re: Spacing ordinance - Hutchinson Island I .... ~o-,~ r0~=etinq- at which ....... Tuesday, Augus~ z~, -,-:,-- ..... :be re-heard. I think the issues have been previously raised and I re-affirm my objection this type of ordinance is unneeded and will only serve to expand county at additional cost to the tax payer. Alternatively, if this ordinance passes, I request two things for your consider- ation: 1. That this Spacing Ordinance specifically supersede the proposed plan for Hutchinson Island; and, 2. That all pending Petitions for site approval approved by f_he staff prior to the 23rd ~f August., 1977, be exempt frc~ any future Spacing Ordinance. The undersigned, in association with Bob PAgel, has pending the site approval application for Oceanrise of ~otchinson Island and public hearing is set for September 13, 1977. Failure of the Conmission to exempt this pending project would undo many man hours and cause serious economic loss. Thanking you for your consideration. Very truly yours, ~S. James, GSJ:med cc: Mr. Edward Enns Mr. W. R. }~Cain Mr. Everett Green Mr. John Park Mr. George Price Mr. WeldonLewis MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Cou~%y Administrator ~ County Development Coordinator March 4-, 1977 Background Information for Proposed Building Spacing Regul ati on As directed, I have prepared a report concerning existing conditions on the coastal islands and the amount of area which might be affected by the proposed building spacing regulation. Factors which were considered are as follows: (1) Total frontage on both sides of S.R. A-1-A (with the exception of 36/34/40 where only Atlantic Ocean frontage was considered relevant); (2) Approved Site Plans and existing development in the frontage areas; (3) Publicly owned land in the frontage areas; (4) "Unbuildable" land in the frontage areas ("unbuildable" is defined as areas with less than 200 feet between either S.R. A-1-A and the Coastal Construction Setback Line or S.R. A-1-A and the Indian River); and (5) FP&L land in the frontage areas Mangrove areas were not specifically included in this analysis because of the variability in use or non-use requirements. For example, mangrove areas have been planned and approved for development e.., Bear Point Cove, Windmill Village, etc. in certain areas, gconsideration of mangrove areas would only be Consequently, valid applicable on a case basis. In actuality, p~eservation of mangrove and other environmentally sensitive areas would probably be aided by enactment of some type of building spacing regulation where these areas could be utilized to achieve the required percentage of open space. The attached table presents a breakdown which reflects the factors considered in this study. The attached map graphically portrays areas in public ownership and areas which are currently developed or which have Site Plans approved. A total of 64.8 percent of the frontage west and east of S.R.. A-1-A in the study area is private buildable land. This percentage is based solely on the. five (5) factors previously described. [] DEV. COO,RD [] For comparison purpose~, the data in the following table reflects unbuilt ocean frontage for existing projects or projects which have been approved by the County Commission. Ocean Fr~ Developmen~ Leng-th~ % Open La Sagra (existing) 950 38 Oceana (existing) Hutchinson Island Club(existing) 430 Hutchinson Inn (existing) 135 370 Atlantis (app. valid) Trails End ('app. valid) 100 Dunes Inn (app. valid) 530 Ocean Palms (~PP- exp.) 1130 Moontide (app. exp.) 920 211 Atlantis (app. exp.) Compass Bay (app.exp.) 2510 Bear Point Cove (app. exp.) 685 20 63 24 35 23 62 60 53 43 43 James (app. exp.) 335 17 In recent weeks, public interest (both pro and con) in proposed building spacing regulations for Hutchinson Island has become evident. As a result of this public interest, many objections to the proposed 50 percent requNremen have been voiced Unfortunately, no one has seen fit to present any alternate proposals. If the Board feels that some type of guidelines are necessary to avoid end-to-end buildings on the islands and if the Board feels that problems associated with the proposed "50 percent requirement" are insurmountable, the following procedure might merit serious consideration: (1) Continue the public hearing for two (2) to four (4) weeks; (2) Request specific alternate proposals designed to prevent continuous buildings which would ruin the open space.. nature of the islands; (3) These alternate proposals could either be reviewed by staff prior to additional County Commission discussion or could be referred to staff after initial presentation to the Commission; (4) At the same time, county staff could report again on alternate Proposals which were discussed by the Planning and Zoning Commission; (5) The Commission could then make a decision based upon specific alternate courses of action. JGA/ja Attachment IOCl) ~" ~--' LEONARD Id WOLF SAMUEL FRANK SCHONINGER STEVEN M. SIEGFF~IED pENTHOUSE SUITE DADELAND TOWERS 9300 SOUTH DADELAND E~OULEVARD [305) ~61-333A February 24, 1977 Edward 'G. Enns, Chairman Board of County Commisioners St. Lucie County~ Florida Gent lemen: Please Ge ~nformed that~ our office represents three different owners of property located within the area referred to in your no~ice, photocopy of .which is attached for reference purposes. Our clients are Sea Wolf, Snorkel and Columbus Properties, Inc. On behalf of these owners we wish to strongly protest the building spacing concept you are proposing in the comprehensive resolution which we feel is arbitrary and is tmntamount to confiscation of property and we trust that said section 5 dealing with building space would be deleted as presently proposed. Should another provision be substituted it seems that the public should have the right to receive notice. S in cer ely, WOLF and SCHONINGER, P .'A. For the Firm /my Conservat;on Alliance of ST. LUClE COUNTY FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA 33450 810 t~i~Gterms~ Road ~t. ~ierce, Pla. 33450 S~. ~a~cie ComntY Co;~m;q.issioners ~. Pierce, ~ia. 33450 Dear ~r. ~ns~ The Conservation Alliance cE S$. Lv~cie County is highly i~ Eavor cE ~he amendmen~ to the Comprehensive Zoning Resolution req~irimg a 50/50 spli$ between bmilding Eron~age amd o~en-spaae ~ ~ the ocean, ~he ~0/90 spi±S ~oula nos oP2~ allow ehe ore±nar~ ciSi~en a glimpse of the sea as he drives by~ b~ also a brea~h of ocean - -- ~ habi~a~ £or ~he birds air. Et should aisc allow some remamnmne and anOn.als wb_o ha?oi~tzai!y live along -the shore, it will also help cE the b~ildings, to keep ~he beach mro_ being cast i~ the shadows keeping a£ternoon sunbathers ffrom getting a tan. O~r organization woLzid like to co, end yo~ and ~he commission Eot your adherance to the Hz~tchinson Island ~lan~ which has done so m~ch to keep S~. ~cie County's beach~ron~ ~rom becoming a cemen~ wall. Sinc~re!y 5ace ~. Vit~nac ( ~rs. Walter C. Vi~,nac) En~iro~enta! Action Committee Conservation Alliance cE St. ~ucie Co. pledge myse--lt to foster the ~, - --"ro*ec~-iOnEarth,s°fCreaturesS°il' air,andwater,for survival.native flora and fauna, I upon which all of the 1800 E;.£. ST. i. UCIE, BL~rD. ~.0 ~TUART, FLORIDA 33~94 . -' "":" , February 28, 1977 owner of three oceanfront tracts in St. and want to go on record as ~°pp°sing iection 5 - Building Spacing- regulations over the past few years have from 10% to 25~ for the o an increase ..... ;amilv lot. As .ed ~ t ical slng~=-~ .... ~that housing cost alone of a ~ is ~reat conu=~*,.- _ .... '=~ -5 -= ^f the averag= ~T=-~table to price~ on% u._~n~ cost is a~%i~w~ of this escal~=~ w Ih a year when the building CodeS, etc. is promoting new industry and more jobs proposed zoning amendment will have a effect upon those goalS. purpose of the change is to enable people to :~ View of the ocean from A-1-A I would be ye of it. However, since the dune bloCks the ~ail to see any merit in it. It is my opinion net result of this prop°sal will force land- to build only high-rise structures which, again, i ,rm of economic restraint- The high-rise has been hurt more than any other segment housing industry and most lending institutions are reluctant to finance this type of construction- o .oroduce higher densities .... han~e will als ~ _<~ .... the developer ~nzn9_.~.. ~nht' et if you a~u-- ~ose ~ou .... ~ g ! believe your zoning chitectural freedom. als recently reyLewed a proposed development this was the case'. is great concern in this country about the on of individual ~ropertY rights and Sub Section 5 contribute to the erosf6n-, process! Sincerely, REsOLuTION OF BOARD OF DIRECTOR~ AT ITS MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 16, 1977, THE DIRECTORS OF THE FORT PIERCE BOARD OF REALTORS PASSED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION: BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE FORT PIERCE BOARD OF REALTORS BY MAJORITY VOTE OF ITS DIRECTORS HEREBY OPPOSES THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 10 OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY ZONING REGULATIONS WHICH WOULD ESTABLISH MINIMUM BUILDING SPACING REQUIREMENTS REQUIRING THAT 50 PERCENT OF THE OCEAN FRONTAGE SHALL BE LEFT UNOBSTRUCTED. ATTEST: A. C. SMITH, SECRETARY ... LSON REAL ESTAT£ ~ Office Box 598, 801 East Ocean Boulevard, Stuart, Florida 33494 .......... t~°s~ Telephone 305 /287-3566 m M. RONNY NELSON, Realtor G.R.I. February 18, 1977 Mr. Edward G. Enns, Chairman Board of County Commissioners St. Lucie County, Florida Re: Public Hearing February 28, 1977 Dear Commissioners: · As an owner of ocean property on both North and South beach in ~t. Lucie County, I am very much opposed to your 50% North-South land use proposal. Please ~on't single out Hutchinson Island for more regulations. If your proposal is good for ocean property, why not US~i, Orange Avenue and Indian River properties? You might even consider it for all single family and oommercial. We say it is unfair to apply your proposed zoning to only Hutchinson Island. Your consideration is appreciate~. Best regards~ Sincerely, NM. Ron y Realtor MRN: rn J~:A~E5 J. pARDIC. K February 28, 1977 Dear Commissioner: I am er of three oceanfront tracts in St. on record as opposing Lu¢ and want to go Sub Section 5 - Building Spacing. =nt regulations over the past few years have zed to an increase from 10% to 25% for the cost alone of a .typical single-family lot. As well aware there is great concern that housing priced out of the average person's range uch of this escalating ~ost is attributable to re~ ations, building codes, etc. In a year when the en' e county is promoting new industry and more jobs I : this proposed zoning amendment will have a ire ,effect upon those goals. purpose of the-change is to enable people to a view of the ocean from A-1-A I would be )rtive of it. However, since the dune blocks the I fail to se~ any~-merit in it. It is my opinion net result of'this ~0Posal.~:will force land- to build only high-rise structures which, again, .form of economic restraint- The high-rise has been hurt more than any other segment housing industry and most lending institutions :eluctant to finance this type of construction- zoning change will also produce higher densities those you might get i~ you allow the developer architectural freedom. I believe your zoning cials recently reviewed a proposed development ~where this was_the case. is great concern in this country about the osion of individual property rights and Sub Section 5 Uld contribute to the erosion process! Sincerely, P~rdick MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: County Adminisgrator County Development Coordinator March 25, 1977' Alternate Proposed Building Spacing Regulations Basic Sugary of Alternatives t ~le below presents three simple building site layouts using building footprints. Ail buildings are end to end and lar to property lines. The site layouts are intended merely examples! to illustrate the effect of three basic building ernatives. Building Length -~.0' Building Wid~ TM 7'0' Number of Buildings = 1 Building Height = 40' (4 floors) L aYout #2 Building Length = 270' Building Width = 70' Number of Buildings = 2 Building Height = 70' (7 floors) LAYOUT LAYOUT LAYOUT Building Length = 150' Building Width = 70' Number of Buildings = 3 Building Height = 120' (12 floors) OPEN SPACE % OPEN SPACE PARCEL FRONTAGE #1 #2 #'3 #1 #2 #3 #1 #2 #3 500' 8'---0' 11--'0 ' 5 O' 2"-X' 2"-~' 6--~'0' 58---0' 41---0' 540' 280' 245' 50 34 31 1080' 820' 785' 450' 720' 500' 50 62 55 900' 1170' 950' my opinion, Alternate #3 should be preferred. Basically, it has advantages over the other building spacing proposals: Alternate '~ve to basic site design.considerations and it addresses [3 ZONi IG - DE?I. - ST · L'UU~ COUNT~, " ' -' ~-~ ~::N~' 'DO 'WE, THE U~qDERSIGNED RESiDE~qTS OF ST. LUC:E C~.~Y. , ~ ,, r 'R "OPEM "v~g'' 'IN ~_a~O~ OF THE m~ ~ OU TO VOTE ~T'X 'E H~EB~ PETITION-Y ...... SPACE" AMECDMENT TO HELP US ATTA_NT THE~ .~GOALEOFLiviNGTH' ~iD ' HUTCHINSON Is~ND P~M, k CkREFuLLY DE~LOP~D RECREATIONAL AREA WITH ALL THE POTENTIALS TO BEGOME, "THE -- ~ /~~~ .... ....: < .................. ...............................t~ ~ The Fort Pierce Beach Association PETITION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COmmISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLA. WE, THE UNDERSI~qNED, RESIDENTS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, DO HEREBY PETITION YOU TO VOTE "YES" IN FAVOR OF THE "OPEN SPACE" AMENDNENT TO HELP Us ATTAIN THE GOAL OF THE HUTCHINSON ISLAND PLAN, A CAREFULLY DEVELOPED LIVING AND RECREATIONAL AREA WITH ALL THE POTENTIALS TO BECOME, "THE OF FLORIDAI" RD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JULY 26, 197'7 Petition to Amend Section 10 of the Comprehensive Zoning Resolution by adding Subsection 5, re "Building Spacing". The Planning & Zoning Commission held a publih hearing on the petition on June 23, 1977. There was no one in the audience to support or oppose the petition. Mr. Ament explained that Alternative #1 is related strictly to the height of the structure; Alternative #2 combines the dimensions of the buildings and their heights. He stated that he had devised a table which could be used without using~-the formula. He further stated that for low- rise buildings, Alternative #2 would be more restrictive; for high-rise buildings, it would be less restrictive. After further discussion, Mr. Scott asked Mr. Ament which alterna- tive he personally favored. Mr. Ament replied that he was in favor of #2 because it could be applied fairly, on a county--wide basis. Moved by Mr. Tiernan, seconded by Mr. Davis, to recommend approval ~of Alternative #2 to the Board of County Commissioners. Vote was polled and carried unanimously. CHECK LIST BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISS~,~NERS Da~e of Meeting Time of Meeting - 9:00 A. M. Place of Meeting- Rm. 203 Courthouse NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners in and for St. Lucie County, Florida, will at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday~ July 26, 1977, hold a public hearing on: Petition of the Board of County Commissioners to amend Section 10 by adding Subsection 5~to the Comprehensive Zoning Resolution for St. Lucie County, Florida, as follows: Amend SeCtion 10: Comprehensive Zoning Resolution, by adding SUbsection 5, to read: _ · .'Alternate "5. Building Spacing. HorizontaL spacing between Structures .shall, at a minimum, be equivalient to the total height 'of the two (2) structures. Horizontal spacing between a structure. and a property line shall, at a minimum, 'be. equivalent to the 'height of the structure.' ~nere buildings are tiered or stepped, the heights of the corresponding elevations must meet the:aboWe spacing requirements, f' .These requirements shall apply to all structures except: : A. Single-family detached residenc6s; B. single level accessory uses and structures customarily associated with' and subordinate to the principal ~use." Alternate ~2: "5. Building Spacing. Minimum distance between any two (2)- buildings or any building and a property lin~ shall be' 'regulated ~qcording t° the length and height of such build-- · any g shall be three hundred (300) feet (including all deck areas and enclosed and covered walkways). The formula regulating the required minimum distance between two buildings (referred to as Building A and Building B) is as follows:i -- _ The formuld regulating the required minimum distance bctwccn a building and a property line {referred to as Building ~) is as follows: LA+IpL+2{HA) D = 4 D = required minimumhorizontal distance between any wail of Building ^ and any wall of Building B (or the vertical extension of--either) or between an7 wail of any building and a Property Line. LA= total length of Building A. The total length of Building A is the length of tha--t portion or portions of a wall or--wails of Building A' from which, when viewed directly from above, lines d~awn perpemticular to Building A will intersect any wall of Building [ or a;Property Line. L'g = total length of Building B. The total length of Building B is the length of that portion or portions of a wall or--walls of Building B from which, when viewed directly from above, lines d~aWn perpendicular to Building. B will intersect any wall of Building [. LpL = total length of Property Line. The total length of the Property Line is the length of that portion or portions of theProperty Line from which, when viewed directly from above,-lines drawn Perpendicular to the Property Line will intersect any wail of any building. HA= height of Building ~ HB = height of Building B_. These requirements shall apply to ail buildings except: A. Single-family residences} B. Single level accessory uses and structures customarily associated with'and subordinate to the principal use." Ail interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at this time. Dated this 28th day of June, 1977. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY Edward G. Enns Edward G. Enns, Chairman Publish: July 1, 1977 PUBLIC HEARING: Petition of the Board of County Commissioners to amend Section 10, -Comprehensive Zoning Resolution, by adding Subsection 5, re "Building Spacing". ' · ~ There was no one in the audience to support or oppose the petition. The Commission discussed the various alternatives presented in the petition. Fir. Ament explained that Alternate #1 is related Strictly to the height of the structures, whereas, Alternate #2 combines the dimensions of the' buildings and their heights. He stated that he had devised a table which could be used for Alternate #2 without the mathematical computations involVed in the formula. He further stated that when talking about Alternate #2 ~ for low-rise buildings it would be more restrictive, for high-rise buildings ~ it would be .~less.' ~estrictive. The best thing about Alternate #2 is that it can be applied'fairly on a county-wide basis. After further discussion, Mr. Scott asked Mr. Ament which alternative he personally favored. -.Mr..Ament replied that he was in favor of Alternate #2. Moved by Mr. Tiernan, seconded by Mr. Davis, to recommend approv&l of Alternate #2 to the Board of County Commissioners. The vote was polled and car~ie d unanimous ly. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 237 1977 COUNTY COORDINATOR'$ C0~TS {4) ZONING RESOLUTION AS~NDb~NT - BUILDING SPACING Recommendation: Alternate #2 appears to be the preferred alternate. As in -'Alternate #1, required horizontal spacing between structures is related to structure height. However, Alternate #2 also takes into account the shape of buildings, building location, and building overlap. In essence, Alternate ': #2 averages several factors to determine a minimum realistic distance, among buildings and between buildings and property lines. In summary, Alternate #2 is realistic and 'is responsive to basic site design considerations and it addresses actual building configmration. Alternate #2 can also be applied countywider - next page Comparison of Alternatives: The table and diagram on the~ompare the building spacing effects of Alternative #1, Alternative #2 and existing regulations on three building configurations. For the sake of simplicity, all buildings are assumed to be located parallel to the ocean and building footprint is assumed to be rectangular. 'Please keep in mind that both alternatives can just as easily be applied to any building configuration. Alternative #2 Detail: The diagram which is attached to this Memorandum illustrates how each of the factors considered in the Alternate #2 formulas is to be measured. As an example, I have worked out below how Alternate #2 would be:~pplied to the previously described Building Configuration #2. ATLANTIC OCEAN P.E. Y A (HA = 70') ..! Dy B (HB = 70') . Dg -DX LpL =. 70' LA = 70' HA = 70' DX= 70+70+2 [,70) 4 %: 4 DX= 280 Dy= 420 4 4 S.R. A-1-A LA = 70' LB = 70' HA+HB = 140 ' 70+ 70+2 (140) LB = 70' HB = 70' 70+70+2(70) Dg= 4 DZ= 280 4 DX= 70' Dy= 105' Dg= 70' DXp .Dy + Dg = 70' + 105' + 70' = 245' = TOTAL OPEN SPACE t p .' .,> P.L.- 0 II II II II '-,,..lo o o o Often, at firS~c' glance, formulas appear much m6re complicated than they really are The fo~r~la~ ~u~se~! f~o r Alternate #2 s~mply state a fixed relationship bet~een several factors or variables, e g-, building hei ht and bu~l.dxn~ overlap .In order ~o eliminate th.e need to perform separ which agte computations for each d~stance ( ) to be determ, ned, tables can be re ared P P reflect the distance (O) for various combinations of building height and building OVerlap. The attached table illustrates how to estimate Dy in the. above without going through a mathematical calculation process JGA/bm - cc: County Building and Zoning Director Rose Kohler x I 0 0 f. FI I--4 t-4 H 1-~ I,-4 0 "4 I-4 I--~ i,~ ~ I-4 .- Crl Cf] PUBLIC HEARING: Petition to-Amend Section lO, Comprehensive Zoning Resolution, by adding Subsec- tion 5, re "Building Spacing". This Petition was tabled because of the.~bsence of the Director of Building and Zoning, Mr. A1 Thomas, and Gary Ament, County Development Coordinator. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 26, 1977 COUNTY COORDINATOR'S COMMENTS (6) ZONING P~SOLUTI~ 9N AMENDMENT _ BUILDING SPACING Recommendation: Alternate #2. · ~ ~ ~ur~zon~a~ spacing between structures is related to structure height. However Alternate #2 also takes into account the shape of buildings, building loc~tion~ and building overlap. #2 averages several factors to determine a minimum realiIn essence, Alternate buildings and between buildings and property lines, stic distance among In summary, Alternate #2 is realistic and is responsive to basic site design considerations and it addresses actual building configuration. Alternate #2 can also be applied countywide. Planning and Zoning Commission May 19, 1977 Page Four next page ~omparison of Alternatives: The table and diagram on the~ompare the building spacing effects of Alternative #1, Alternative #2 and existing regulations on three building configurations. For the sake of simplicity, all buildings are assumed to be located parallel to the ocean and building footprint is assumed to be rectangular. Please keep in mind that both alternatives can just as easily be applied to any building configuration. Alternative ~2 Detail: The diagram which is attached to this Memorandum illustrates how each of the factors considered in the Alternate #2 formulas is to be measured. As an example, I have worked out below how Alternate #2 would be applied to the previously described Building Configuration #2. ATLANTIC OCEAN A (HA = 70') Dy B (HB = 70') LB LpL DZ S.R. A-1-A ID.L, LpL = 70' LA = 70' LpL = 70' LA = 70' 'LB = 70' 'LB = 70' HA = 70' HA+HB = 140' HB = 70' DX= 70+70+2(70) 70+70+2(140) 4 Dy= 4 DZ= 70+70+2(70)-- 4 DX= :?80 Dy= 420 DZ= 280 - 4 4 4 DX= 70' Dy= 10S' DZ= 70' DX + Dy + Dg = 70' + 105' + 70' = 245' = TOTAL OPEN SPACE 11 II I! Planning and Zoning Commission May 19, 1977 Page Five Often, at first glance, formulas appear much more complicated than they really are. The formulas used for Alternate #2 simply state a fixed relationship between several factors or variables, e. g., building height and building overlap. In order to eliminate the need to perform separate computations for each distance (D) to be determined, tables can be prepared which reflect the distance (D) for various combinations of building height and building overlap. The attached table illustrates how to estimate Dy in the above without going through a mathematical calculation process. JGA/bm cc: County Building and Zoning Director Rose Kohler C~ ~-~ 0 OD. 0 0 0 ~-~ ~ 0 ~0 OD NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE AFFECTING OWNERS OF PROPERTY ZONED FOR MULTI-FAMILY USE LOCATED IN UNINCORPORATED AREA OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY~ FLORIDA~ WILL BE :HELD BY THE PLANNING ANO ZONING COi~ISSION FOR ST. LUCIE COUNT¥~ PLORIDA, AT 7:30 p. M., ON THURSDAY~ MAY 26~ !977~ IN ROOM 2:03, COgRTHOUSE ~ AT FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA. PUBLISH: NOTE: May !0, 1977, in some part of the paper OTHER TH OR CLASSIFIED ADS. PLEASE MAKE 'THIS A THREE COLU Word NOTICE at top mn ~ inch heavy black type_. COMPLETE AD IN BLACK. EDI NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Zoning Commission for St. Lucie County, Florida~ will at 7:30 P. M. on Thursday, May 26~ 1977, in Room 203, Courthouse, au Fort Pierce, Florida, hold a public hearing, on: Petition of Board of County Commissioners to amend Section 10 by adding Subsection $ to the Comprehensive Zoning Resolution for St. Lucie County, Florida, a.s follows: Amend Section i0, Comprehensive Zoning ResOlution by adding SUbsection 5, to read: ' Alternate #1: '"S. Building Spacing. Horizontal spacing between structures shall, at a minimum, be equivalent to the total height of the two (2) structures. Horizontal spacing between a structure and m property line shall, at a minimum, -be equivalent to the height of the structure. ~/here buildings are tiered or stepped, the heights of the corresponding elevations must meet the above sp_ ac~g_requi_rements. -- .... -- These requirements shall apply to all structures except: A. Single-family detached residences; B. Single level accessory uses and structures customaril7 associated with and subordinate to the principal use." Alternate #2: "5. Building Spacing. Minimum distance between any two build~-~gs.or any'building and a. property lin~ shall be- ' regulated according to the~ngth and height of such build- ings. .~ ...... maximum hor}zont~I dimension of any building shalI be three hundred (500) f~-e't"(ih~iuding ail deck areas and enclosed and covered walkways). The formula regulating the required minimum distance between two buildings (referred to as Building A and Buiiding B) is as follows: -- _ IA +LB +2 (HA+HB) D ~ The formula regulating the required minimum distance between a buildingfollows: and a property line (referred to as Building ~) is as D = LA+LpL+2(HA) 4 -- D = required minimum horizontal distance between any wall of Building ^ and any wall of Building B (or the vertical extension o~either) or b~tween any waI~- of any building and a Property Line. LA = total length of Building A. The total length of Building A is the length of tha--t portion or portions of a wall or--walls of Building A from which, when viewed directly from above, lines d~awn perpendicular to Building A will intersect any wall of Building B or a;-' Property Line. L~B = total length of Building B. The total length of Building B is the length of that portion or portions of a wall or--walls of Building B from which, when viewed directly from above, lines d~awn perpendicular to Building. _B will intersect any wail of Building B. LpL =.total length of Property Line. The total length of the .Property Line is the length of that portion or portions of the Property Line from which, when viewed directly from above, lines drawn Perp~adicular to the Propert7 Line will intersect any wall of any building. HA = height of Building A HB = height of Building B. These requirements shall apply to all buildings except: A, Single-family residences} B. Single level accessory uses and structures customarily associated with,~and subordinate to the principal use. Ail interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at this time. Dated this 22~ day of April, 1977. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA Publish- April 2~ 1977 BY _ . L~rry McIver Larry~ve~ ~-- __ W. R. McCAIN, District No '1 · E. E. GREEN, District No. 2 · JOHN B. PARK, District No. 3 33450 EDWARD G. ENN$, District No. 4 · GEORGE D. PRICE District April 12, 1977 ~-w~',~=~DUM TO WELDON LEWIS RE: BUILDING SPACING Attached is a draft of proposed ad to be placed in the paper concerning pet~'tion_ for "BuiTd~ng[_ - Spacing". ! would appreciate your reviewing this draft m~kin~ any corrections you fee! necessary~ and authorize publishing. T ~ han~ you. BUILDING 8 ZONING DEPARTMENT ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA A~f: rk A c u achmenz By A'~. ThomaS, Dir~cvor PU~LIC~R HEARING CONCERNING PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE AFFECTING OWNERS OF PROPERTY ZONED FOR MULTT-~rTTv USE LOCATED IN UNINCORPORATED AREA OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. ~.~/[ ( ~ NC :';~'. i: -'£- '~':-~' '. .....-'- --'-" ~ Plannin~o and ~ _~ ~7on~n- Commission for St. Lucie County, Florida,-q~l, at 7:30 p.m., on Thursday, May_.~. 26, 1977, in Room 203, Courthouse,_ at Ft. Pierce, Florida, t~ oTB 'on amend/con Pe on °ard of/~untyymmissi eT/ tO ti t0 by-add~.g ~ub~ctiOn 5 ythe ~.~rehensive /Zoning ResOlution' f St. 7cxe CoUnty, Floriqa, as/ollows: (,// or" "AmendSubsectionSecti'°ns, ToiO'Read:C°mprehens~ve Zoning Resolution~ By Adding '5. Building Spacin -- ~-----_zzJl- Horizontal spacing between structures shall, at a minimum, be equivalent to the total height of the two (2) structures. Horizontal spacing between a structure and a property line shall, at a minimum, be equivalent to t'he height of the structure. Where buildings are tiered or stepped, the heights of the corresponding elevations must meet the above spacing requirements. These building spacing requirements shall apply on both north and south Hutchinson Island. These requirements shall apply to all structures except: Aa Alternate #2: Single-zam~ty de~aehed residences; Singel level accessory uses and structures customarily associated with and subordinate to the principal use.' - Amend Section 10, Comprehensive Zoning Resolution, ~y Adding Subsection 5, To Read: '5. Buit~xng'' ..... S~aci~__g_._~ Minimum distance between any two (2) buildings or any building and a prop- erty line shall be regulated according to the length and height of such buildings. These spacing requirements shall apply on north and south Hutchin- son Island. The maximum horizontal dimension of any building shall be three hundred (300) feet NOTICE (cont. (including all deck areas and enclosed covered walkways). and The formula regulating the required minimum distance between two buildings (referred to as Building j and Building B) is a follows: L L -- D =~+ B + 2(~^ +~_B_) Publish: NOTE: Run 3 days beginning May i, 1977, in some part of paper other than legal or classified ad= PLEASE THIS A THREE ---- ' COLUMN AD. -m Word NOTICE at top in ~ inch heavy black t ~ PLETE AD iN BLACK. -~-------~' tY~P~. EDGE C W. R. McCAIN, District No. I · E.E. GREEN, District No. 2 · JOHN B. PARK, District No. 3 · EDWARD G. ENNS, District No. 4 · P. O. BOX 700 334§0~ GEORGE D. PRICE, District No. 5 April 12 M~MORANDUM TO WELDON LEWIS RE: BUILDIN~G SPACING Attached is a draft of proposed ad to be placed in the paper concerning petition for "Building Spacing". I would appreciate your reviewing this draft making any corrections you feel necessary, and authorize publishing. Th ank you. BUILDING $ ZONING DEPARTMENT ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA A. M homas , Director AMT: rk Attachment / / ..... OTICE 'PUBLIC MEETINGS TO BE ~'~LD:CONCERNING:PRoPOSED ZONING CHANGE AFFECTING OWNERS OF PROPERTY ZONED FOR MULTI-FAMIL-Y USE LOCATED '-ON NORTH AND SOUTH BEACH, ST. LUCI E COUNTY, FLORIDA. . . , : Petition of Board of Couhfy CommissiOners 'fO amend section 10 by adding Subsection 5' , to.the Comprehensive Zoning Resolution for St. Lucie County, Florida, as follows: "5. BUILDING SPACING: Minimum building spacing requirements are hereby established. These mini mum building spacing require,menfs shall apply on the coastal islands in all areas between SR A-1-A and the Atlantic Ocean Mean High Wafer (MHW). line and within fha area between the west right-of-way line of SR A-1-Aand a line ,320 feet west of and parallel fo said west r!ghf-of-way line. ' Fifty per cent (50%) of the dimension, measured generally parallel to SR. A-l-A, shall be left unobstructed by principal buildings or structures on any lot or parcel. These ~:equirements shall apply to ail buildings except: .... '' ~: : . (at Single family, single level de{ached residences; - .~ ' . -. (b')' Single level ai~cessory use_s,,and structures customarily associated with and subordinate fo the principal use. - This Amendment will be discussed by the Board of'CmJnty Commissioners af work Session in Room 203, St. Lucie County Courthouse, at 1:30 P.M., February 28, 1977. Final ac- lion will be taken in Room 203, 9:00 A.M., Tuesday, N[arch 8, 1977. ~IOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ' ' ' ' ST-LUCIECOUNTY, FLORIDA /s/EDWARD G. ENNS, Chairman , Moved by a Python 357 t~1 call was · een to authorize a pistol ~oermit for Dona~ld Coe~%-o ~a~ a~ ~ Ayes: : /ice, Green,~ain' & ?~ Nayes: Park ZONING - AMENDMENT TO ZONING RESOLUTION - BUILDING SPACING CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC f~E~ARING FROM MARCH 8, 1977 Gary Ament presented three alternatives to be considered for the building spacing amendment, they being: Alt. $1 - 50% to be left un~structed; Alt. $2 - Horizontal spacing between structures to be equivalent to total height of both buildings; Alt. $3 - For every foot of building overlap and for every ½' of build- ing height, buildings shall be separated by a min. of 1'. None of the above would apply to single family residences and while it only applies to North and South Hutchinson Island, it could be applicable Countywide. Architec~.~ Dick Davis from Orlando said he found Alt. $1 too restricti~ but thought Alt. ~3 was something one could live with and showed a plan usin( Alt. $3 formula. However, Architect Hank Riegler thought .the alternates too complicated - that the'County had enough restrictions already. There was discussion on the advisability of having the Planning & zoning Commission study the alternatives and send back their reaction, or eliminate the 50% open space requirement for consideration, since this publi~ hearing is directed to the 50% open space regulation. Com. Price moved to deny consideration of the 50% open space requiremes and send alternates $ 2 and $3 to the Planning & Zoning Commission for their consideration and for them to also consider this county wide~t~hseconded by Com. Green. Mrs. Cree~,Beach Club Colony, objected to the withdrawal of Alt. $1 but was told that while the County was denying Alt. $1 today, the Planning & Zoning Commission could still see fit to consider it on their own. Com. Park sa~d he doubted the Conservationalists realize that with the present regulations as set by the Board of County Commissioners there is no way development on Hutchinson Island can~duplicate that in Broward County . and now feared that restrictions here would become sol,technical no architect would work with them. ~ Roll call on the motion carried ~unanimously. Two petitions~re presented, in favor of 50% bpen .space, one from the Ft. Pierce Beach Assn. and the other from residents in general. Also a lett~ .was received from Surfside Private Beach, Inc. It was also directed to schedule a'work session to study alterantes ~2 and ~3. ~. ~~ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: County Adminis.trator County Development Coordinator March 25, 1977' Alternate Proposed Building Spacing Regulations Basic Summary of Alternatives The table below presents three simple building site layouts using rectangular building footprints. 'Ail buildings are end to end and perpindicular to property lines. The 'site layouts are intended merely as comparative examples to illustrate the effect of three basic building spacing alternatives. Layout #1 Layout #2 Layout #3 - Building Length = 300' Building Width = 70' Number of Buildings. = 1 Building Height = 40' (4 floors) Building Length = 270' Building Width = -70' Number of Buildings = 2 Building'Height = 70' (7 floors) Building Length = 1S0' Building Width = 70' Number of Buildings = 3 Building Height = 120' (12 floors) OPEN SPACE % OPEN SPACE PARCEL FRONTAGE ~t #2 #g #1 #2 ~ #l #2 #3 LAYOUT #1 300' 8---0' 11--0, S0 ~1 ~ 60---0' '380' ~10' -LAYOUT #2 540' 280, 245, 'SO 34 3I 1080' 820' 785' LAYOUT #3 450' 720' 500' SO 62 S3 900' 1170' 950' In my opinion, Alternate #3 should be preferred. 'Basically, it has two {2) advantages over the other building spacing proposals: Alternate #3 is responsiVe to basic site design.considerations and it addresses ~COI'~MlaS]ONER' 'Fl ZONING [] f~TTOR~]~/ Fl FINANCE ~,.,o,..'~l~r~ ~ H.~AD DEPT. ~.EV ~O~RD '~ R/W P. O. BOX 700 33450 W. R. McCAIN, District No. I E.E. GREEN, Dislricl No. 2 - JOHN B. PARK, District bio. 3 - EDWARD G. ENNS, District No. 4 .. GEORGE D. PRICE. District No. 5 June 24, 1977 MEMORANDUM TO: Weldon Lewis, County Administrator FROM: RE: Albert M. Thomas, Director., Building & Zoning Request for permission to advertise petitions for hearing on dates set forth Please place on the agenda for Tuesday 28, 1977, request for permission to advertise the following petitions for-. hearing on the dates set forth. Thank you. July 19, 1977 July 26, 1977 -Petition of Henry Washington and Donald Willems for a change in zoning classifi- cation from R-lC (residential single- family) to A-1 (agriculture) Petition of John W. and ~ene S. Hebb for a change in.zoning classification from R-lC (reSidential single-family) to. A-1 (agriculture) Petition of Robert O. Brown for a .change in zoning classification from R-lC (resi- dential single-family) to A-1 (agriculture) Petition to Amend Section 10, Comprehensive Zoning Resolution, by Adding Subsection 5, ~e "Build'ing Spacing". kbs Brd. of Co. Comm. 1/4/77 Petition of Board of County. Commissioners to amend Section 10 by adding Subsection 5 to the Comprehensive Zoning Re~olut{ons for St. Lucie County, Florida~ as follows: -- "5. Building Spaci.ng: Minimum building spacing requirements are hereby established. These minimnm buiidi.ng spacing requirments shail apply on the coastal islands in all areas between SR A-!-A and the Atlantic Ocean Mean High Water (MHW) line and within the area between the west right-of-way line of SR A-1-A and a line 1~320 feet west of and parallel to said west right-of-way-line. Fifty percent (50%) of the dimension~ measured generally parallel to SR A-I-A, shall be left unobstructed by principal buildings or structures on any lot or parcel. These requirements shall apply' to al! buildings except: Single family single level detached residences; (b) Single level accessory uses and structures customarily associated with and subordinate to the principal use." The Planning and Zoning C©~umission held a public hearing on 12/2/76. This petition had been brought before the Planning and Zoning Board on September 23~ 1976~ however, through a misunderstanding, it had not been advertised, therefore, it had to be advertised and put before the Planning and Zoning Board on December 2~ 1976.There was no discussion regarding this petition since it had been thoroughly discussed on September 23~ 1976. The Planning and Zoning Board then voted to recommend approval of this petition to the Board of County Commissioners. NOT I CE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners in and for St. Lucie County, Florida~ will at 9:00 A. M. on Tuesday, January 4, 197~ in Room 203~ Courthouse, at Fort Pierced Florida, hold a public hearing on: Petition of Board of County Commissioners to amend Section 10 by adding Subsection 5 to the Comprehensive Zoning Resolutions for St. Lucie County, Florida~ as follows: "5. Building Spaci.ng: Minimum building spacing requirements are hereby established. These minimum bui%di.ng spacing requirments shall apply on the coastal islands in all areas between SR A-1-A and the Atlantic Ocean Mean High Water (MHW) line and within the area between the west right-of-way line of SR A-1-A and a line 1,320 feet west of and parallel to said west right-of-way-line. Fifty percent (50%) of the dimension~ measured generally parallel to SR A-i-A, shall be left unobstructed by principal buildings or structures on any lot or parcel.. These requirements shall apply-to all buildings except: (b) Si.ng!e family single level detached residences; -~ Single level accessory uses and structures customarily associated with and subordinate to the principal use." Ail interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at this time. Dated this 14th day of December, 1976. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA Publish: December 17~ 1976 MINUTES PLANNINq~ ZONING COMMISSION 12/2/~ PUBLIC HEARING: Petition of Board of County Commissioners to amend Section 10 by adding Subsection 5 to the Comprehensive Zoning Regulations for St. Lucie County~ Florida~ as follows: "5. Building Spacing: Minimum building spacing requirements are ~ ' ' d minimum building spacing requirments hereby es ~abllshe · These . shall apply on the coastal islands in all areas b~tween SR A-1-A and the Atlantic Ocean Mean High Water (MHW) line and Within the ~ n area be Lwee the west right-of-way line of SR A-1-A and a line 1~20 feet west of and parallel to said west right-of-way line. Fifty percent (50%) of the dimension, measured generally parallel to SR A-l-A, shall be left. unobstructed by principal buildings or structures on any lot or parcel. These requirements shall apply to all buildings except: (a) Single family single level detached residences; (b) Single level accessory uses and structures customarily associated with and subordinate to the principal use. Thi.s~.~,~t-~tion had been brought before the Boamd on September 23, 1~976, howe~z.ea~:~ through a misunderstanding, it had not been advertised~ therefore, it had to be advertised and brought before this Board again. Since everyone was well advised regarding this petition to amend Section 10 by adding Subsection 5 to the Gomprehensive Zoning Regulations,there was no discussion. Moved by Betty Kiessel~ seconded by Trent Ebner~ to recommend approval of this petition to the Board of County Commissioners. Vote was polled and carried unanimously. COUNTY COORDINATOR'S COMMENTS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 1976 (1) AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE ZONING RESOLUTION PurP09~. The purpose of this amendment is to provide for additional protection and aesthetic enhancement of the county's significant water bodies and their asso- ciated valuable natural assets by establishment of building spacing require- ments for all zoning districts in specified areas of the coastal'islands. The occurrence of small-scale weather modifications and building shadow problems will also be minimized by provision of "flow space" between ~d among structures. This proposed amendment i.s one of the most significant recommendations of the adopted Plan for Hutchinson Island. Histor_ y (a) May 26, 1974 Planning and Zoning Commission - Representatives of RMBR and county staff explain6d!the county planning program in general and the Hutch- inson Island Plan in particular. The details of the proposed building spac- ing recommendation of the Hutchinson Island Plan were explained. (b) June 27, 1974 - Planning and Zoning Commission Discussion and action on 'proposed amendment regarding building spacing. Specifically, the amendment would amend Section 10 of the Comprehensive Zoning Resolution by adding sub- section 5 to read: "5. Building Spacing All multi-family dwellings and hotels and motels shall meet the following spacing requirements where such re- quirements exceed those stipulated in district regula- tions permitting said uses: A. The cumulative height of all primary structures shall not exceed the cumulative horizontal dis- tance as measured from other structures on the same parcel, the property lines, and line of mean high water; B. Said measurements shall be made in both prime directions, i. e., length and width, of the parcel; C. AccesSory uses and structures customarily associated with, and subordinate to, the-above uses, parking areas, access-ways, and other facilities may be in- cluded in the required horizontal distance." This amendment was recommended unanimously to the County Commission. July 25, 1974 - Planning and Zoning Commission - General discussion was had concerning building spacing amendment which'was previously approved on June 27, 1974. It was generally the opinion of the Planning and Zoning Commission that the amendment as passed was not administratively feasible. The proposed building spacing amendment was tabled in an attempt to try to come up with a more universal solution to the problem. (~d) August 20, 1974 - Board of'County Commissioners At the request of the Planning and Zoni~ng Commission, the County Commission took no action on the proposed building spacing amendment. The proposed amendment was referred back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further study at the request of the Planning and Zoning Commission. (e) September 26, 1974- Planning and Zoning CommisSion - General discussion was had on a new proposed building spacing regulation. The proposed change was determined to be even more complicated than the original and further discussion was tabled until the meeting of October 24th. (f) October 24, 1974 - Planning and Zoning Commission - No discussion was had on the tabled'building spacing amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Resolu- tion. No future date was set for discussion on the tabled amendment. Current Situation Recent Site Plans considered by the County Commission pointed out the need for a minimum building spacing requirement. Consequently, the proposed building spacing requirement would implement a portion of the Plan for Hutchinson Island by virtue of an amendment to the Comprehensize Zoning Resolution. In the two (2) years since adopiton of .the Plan for Hutchinson Island, the County Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission have closely followed the guidelines and recom- mendations of the Plan. For comparison purposes, the data in the following table reflects unbuilt ocean frontage for existing or proposed projects in St. Lucie County: DEVELOPMENT LA SAGRA (Existing) OCEANA (Existing) HUTCHINSON ISLAND CLUB (Existing) OCEAN PALMS (Site Plan Approval) MOONTIDE (Site Plan Approval) ATLANTIS (Site Plan Approval) COMPASS BAY (Site Plan Approval) BEAR POINT COVE (Site Plan Approval) JAMES (Site Plan Approval) OCEAN FRONTAGE APPROX. LENGTH(FT.) 52O 95O 430 1130 920 211 2509 -683 335 % OPEN 48 38 20 62 60 53 43 43 17 2 DEVELOPMENT ATLANTIS (Proposed) OCEAN FRONTAGE APPROX. LENGTH(FT.) % OPEN 370 24 ~r~posed Amendment Amend Section 10, Comprehensive Zoning Resolution, by adding Subsection 5 to read: "5. Buildin~' Sp~c~ng. Minimum building spacing requirements are hereby established. These minimum building spacing requirements shall apply on the coastal islands in all areas between S. R. A-1-A and the Atlantic Ocean Mean High Water (MHW) line and within the area between the west right-of-way line of S. R. A-1-A and a line 1,320 west of and parallel to said west right- of-way line. Fifty percent (50%) of the dimension, measured generally parallel to S. R. A-l-A, shall be left unobstructed by principal buildings or structures on any lot or parcel. These requirements shall apply to all buildings except: (a) single-family single level detached residences; (b) single level accessory uses and structures customarily a~.~ed~b and subordinate...~__th.e_~p_r~n~l ~se~.!i~ THURSDAY AGENDA - PLANNING :$ ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2 ,1976 7:30 P. M. Petition of Board of County Commissioners to amend Section 10 by adding Subsection 5 to the Comprehensive Zoning Regulations for St. Lucie County, Florida, as follows: "5. Building Spacing: Minimum building spacing- requirements are here- by established. These minimum building spacing requirements shall apply on the coastal islands in all areas between S. R. A-1-A and the Atlantic Ocean Mean High Water(MHW) line and within the amea between the wes~ rieht-of-way line of S.R. A-1-A and a line 1,320 feet west of and oa~allel to said west right-of-way line. Fift.v percent (50%) of the dimension,-measu~d generally oaral!e! to S.R.-A-I-A, shall be left unobstructed by principal buildings or struc- tures on any lot or parcel.. These requirements Shall apply to all buildings except: (a) Single f.amily single level detached residences; (b) Single level accessory uses and structures customari!~, ~associated with and subordinate to the Principal use. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: County Administrator County Commission County Development Coordinator October 12, 1976 October 19, 1976 Proposed Zoning Resolution ~mendment AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSt~'!ZONING RESOLUTION Purpose The purpose of this amendment is to provid~ for additional protection and aesthetic enhancement of the county's significant water bodies and their associated valuable natural assets by establishment of building spacing requirements for all zoning districts in specified areas of the coastal islands. The occurrence of small-scale weather modifications and building shadow problems will also be minimized by provision of "flow space" between 'and among structures. This proposed amendment is one of the most signifi- cant recommendations of the adopted.Plan for Hutchinson Island. History (a) MAy 26, 1-974 Planning and Zoning Commission - Representatives Of ~%~BR &nd county staff explained the county planning program in general and the Hutchinson Island Plan in particular. The details of the proposed building spacing recommendation of the Hutchinson island Plan were ex- plained. , .~ (b) June 27, 197~ -Planning and Zoning Co~nission - Discussion and action on proposed amendment regarding building spacing. Specificalty, the amendment would amend Section 10 of the Co~rehensive Zoning Resolution by adding subsection 5 to read: "5. Building Spacing All multi-family dwellings ~nd hotels and motels shall meet the following spacing requirements Where such re- quirements exceed those stipulated in district regula- tions permitting said uses: The cumulative height of all primary structures shall not exceed the cumulative horizontal dis- tance as measured from other structures on the same parcel, the property lines, ~nd line of mean high water; Said measurements shall be made in both prime directions, i. e., length and width, of the parcel; Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with, and subordinate to, the above uses, parking areas, access-ways, and other facilities may be in- cluded in the required horizontal distance.'" (c) This amendment was recommended unanimously to the County Commission. July 25, 1974 - Planning and Zoning Commission - General ~iscussion was had concerning building spacing amendment which was previously approved on June 27, 1974. It was generally the opinion of the Planning and Zoning Commission that the amendment as Passed was not administratively feasible. The proposed building spacing amendment was tabled in an attempt to try to come up with a more universal solution to the problem. (d) Augus~ 20, 1974 - Board of County Commissioners - At the request of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the County Commission took no action on the proposed building spacing amendment. The proposed amendment was re- ferred back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further study at the request of the Pla~ming and Zoning Commission. September 26, 1974 Planning and Zoning Commission - General discussion .was had on a new proposed building spacing regulation. The proposed.change was determined to be even more complicated than the original and further discussion was tabled until the meeting of October 24th. (f) October 24, 1974 - Planning and Zoning Commission - No discussion was had on the tabled building spacing amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Reso- lution. No future date was set for discussion on the tabled amendment. Current Situation Recent Site Plans considered by the County Commission pointed out t~e need for a minimum building spacing requirement. Consequently, the proposed building spacing requirement would implement a portion of the Plan for Hutchinson Island by virtue of an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Resolution. In the two (2) years since adoption of the Plan for Hutchinson Island, the County COnmlission and the Planning and Zoning Commission have attempted to follow closely the guidelines and recommendations of the Plan. For comparison purposes, the data in the following table reflects unbuilt ocean frontage for existing or proposed projects in St. Lucie county. DEVELOPMENT OCEAN FRONTAGE APPROX. LENGTH (FT.) % OPEN LA SAGRA (Existing) 520 48 OCEANA (Existing) 95O 38 DEVELOPMENT HUTCHINSON ISLAND CLUB (Existing) OCEAN PALMS (Site Plan Approval) MOONTIDE (Site Plan Approval) ATLANTIS (Site Plan Approval) COMPASS BAY (Site Plan Approval) BEAR POINT COVE (Site Plan Approval) JA~S (Site Plan Approval) ATLANTIS (Proposed) OCEAN FRONTAGE APPROX. LENGTH .(FT.) % OPEN 430 20 liS0 62 920 60 211 SS 2509 43 683 43 335 17 370 24 ~rgposed Amendment Amend Section 10, Comprehensive Zoning Resolution, by adding Subsection S to read: Building Spacing. Minimum building spacing requirements are hereby established. These minimum building spacing require- ments shall apply on the coastal islands in all areas between S. R. A-1-A and the Atlantic Ocean Mean High Water (b~Bq) line and within the area bounded by the west right-of-way line of S. R. A-t-A and a line 1,520 feet west of and parallel to said west right-of-way line. Fifty percent (50%) of_ the dimension, measured .ov.~n~llv~__~ parallel to S. R. A-I-A, shall be left mnobstructed by principal buildings or structures on any lot or parcel in the above defined areas. These requirements shall apply to alt buildings except: (a) single-family single level detached residences; (b) single level accessory uses and structures cus- tomarily associated With and subordinate to ~he principal use." JGA/bm cc: County Attorney County Building and Zoning Director Jo Rice Petition of Board of adding Subsection $ to the Brd. Comm. County Commissioners to Amend Section l0 by County, Florida. On May 26, 1974, representatives of RMBR and the County S~ before the Planning and Zoning Commission and exPlained the Co Program in general and the Hutchinson Island Plan in of the proposed building spacing recommendation of' the HUtehinsor Plan Were eXPlained. On June 27, 1974, the amendment was. the Planning g Zoning Commission for discussion and action as follows Amend Section 10 of the Section_ $ to read: Comprehensive Zoning Regulations for St. Lueie A. The cumulative height of all Primary Structures Shall not exceed the cumulative horizontal distance as measured from Other Structures on the same Parcel, the proper~y lines, and line of mean high water; B. Said measurements Shall be made in both Prime i.e., length and width, of the parcel; C, Accessory Uses and st and s.u~bordinate t _ ' _rUctures eust - _ and Ot~er faei~_.°f the above USes ~.o_,m.a~mly associat~ distance ,, ~es may 'be inc!,,~f~.~m~g areas. ~u noPlzontai en ~t~yas_ ~ eO~ende d - the bui' ' -~rne Plmnin~ 8 7~an~'~°usly to t~ ~ . ~fT~. It was f~en~ent whi lSSlon had a ige[ef~S~or,. 0n t~at the .... ~Y ~'~mmy the o~i- ~s Pmeviousl ~ ~m ~mSeussion . pose~ ~_ .~?~n~ent as na .... ~-'~=~ of the p~ ..... Y ~pproVed on a more ,,~-- ~ g ~en~ent ~ ....... matmvel~,~ ~_ ~ g ~mss~ lannlnE g Zn~ ~al SOlution t _ l~d mn an at~ _l~. The ro- ~o action .... ['~ cO~ssion o the PrOb2em. + + rapt to try to on the , on Au A~ ~e re ~ent was ~-= _pmoposed bu{~== gust 20, 1974_ +~ ~ quest of th ~'=~emmed back to th~m~ng spacing ame~l=~('=, county Co~is~ t the mequest of the Planning g Zoning Co~iss°io~~m ,S~on rom fumth genemal discussion was had on a new PrOposed bui!di ~ the Planning S Zoning Co~ssion' The Proposed eha even mope complicated than the original ~d fumthe~ ~til the meeting of Octobem 2~ ~ 1974: at which time, no futuPe date was set rom discussion on the table te Plans eonsidePed by the County Co~ission building spacing requirement have po: ~ themefo~ the ~ was Presented to the Planning ~ Zoning Co~ 28, 1976~ meeting: d Amendment: Amend Section 10, of the ion $~ to read~- d On September 26~ g re nge wa dete diseu was tab ~o dis -~usSion wa: amendment; Re, nted out the ne~ their Comprehensive Zoning Resolution, by adding Comprehensive Zoning, Resolution by adding Sub- BUilding Spacing Ail mul+~ = .~Ollowing s~a~i ~±~ngs and hot~ those sti~,,~_~=(Jg requzrements ~ce~ in ~z ~Pe such ~ - ~ mee ~rr~et ~e~ T~z__ z'eq~ements ' °u~=uns permitting said us. ~LIC HE~RING: Petition of Boa~d of'~'Coun%y Co issi adding Subsection $ to the Comprehensive Zoning Regulations fob St Lucie County~ Florida. ' nebs to ~nd Section l0 by On ' May 26~ 197~ repmesen · Pmogrambef°re thein EeneraiPiannin~anda~atheV--: tgtmves of ~BR County S ..... ~mn~ C~-= . and the ~aff appeared o ~m~mSSmon and e~laine of the pmoposed bUilding spacing reeo~endation of the tehinson~island ' ' The details Plan Weme e~lained. 0n June 27~ !974~ the ~endment was bmought befome the Planning ~ Zoning Co~ission fob discussion and aet~on as follows: Section.Amend Sections to mead:10 of the Compmehensive Zoning. Resolution ' "5. Building Spacing All mul+i f-~ -. _ ~ - ~mY ~Well' following S~a~_- rangs and hotel t · K ~g mequimem -o ~u motels hose Stipulated in dis+~ts where such menu~ - u~s PePmmttin A. The cumulative height of ail Pmimary Struct exceed the cumulative homizontal distance as mea~ othem st~etumes on the same Pamcel~ the Pmopert~ line of mean high Watem~ B. Said measumements Shall be made in both Prime i.e.~ length and width, of the pareei~ C. Aecessomy Uses and Stmuetumes eUstomamily ass and S~omd~nate to~ the above Uses, Pamking ameas and othem facilities may be included in the requi~ dis tanee. ,, This amendment was meeo~ended unanimously to the County July 25~ 1974~the Pinning ~ Zoning Co~iss~on had a ~enerai the building spacing ~en~ent which was pmevious!y appmoved !974. it was genemaliy the opinion of the Planning ~d Zoni] that the amendment as passed was not administ, matively feasi[ posed building spacing ~en~ent was tabled in an attempt to with a nome univemsal solution to the Problem. At the re Planning ~ Zoning Co~ssion~ on AUgust 20~ 1974~' the no action on the pmOposed building spacing amen~ent. The bent was mefemmed back to the Planning S Zoning Com~sS~on fo at the mequest of the Planning ~ Zoning Co~ission. 0n Sept, a genemal discussion was had on a new PmOposed bu~tding spaci by the Planning ~ Zoning. Co~ssion. The pmoposed change was be even more complicated than the omiginal and fumthem discuss: until the meeting of Octobem 24~ 1974~ at which time, no dis no fUtume date was set fob discussion on the tabled ~en~ Plans eonsidemed by the County Co~ission have pointed minion bUilding spacing mequimement~ themefo~ the follo~ was Pmesented to the Planning ~ Zoning Co~ssion .em 23, 1976~ meeting: )OSed ~endment: Amend5Secti°n~ to read:10' of the Comprehensive Zoning Resolution~ "5. Building Spacing.: Mini:m~ building spacing mequireme by established. These minimum building spacing on the coastal islands in all ameas between S. R. 0eean Me~ H~gh Watem(~W) line and w~thin the a~ea between ~ight-of-way line of S.R. A-1-A and a line 1~320 feet west parallel to said west might_of_way line. Fift~; Percent (50%) of the dimension~ measu~d ~enemallv S.R, A-1-A~ Shall be left unobstmucted by. Principal build tunes on ~y lot om Pamee!. These mequimements Shall apply to all buildings except: COUNTY C00RDINATOR'S COMM~NTS PLANNING g ZONING 00MMISS%0N SEPTEMBER 23 ~ 19 76 AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE ZONING RESOLUTION PFrpos e The purpose of this amendment is to provide for additional protection and aesthetic enhancement of the county,s significant water bodies and their _ ciat6d valuable natural assets by establishment of buildin~ s~-~-- .asso ~ ~ug requ~re~, ments for al/ zoning districts in specified areas of the coastal i~ The occurrence of small-scale weather modifications and building shadow ems will also be minimized by provision of "flow space,, between and among Structures. adoptedThis proposed Plan for amendment Hutchinson is one Island. of the most significant recommendations of the Histor)[_ (a) ~.. ~ 7~4~ [ planning and Zonin Comm' xplained the cou ' ~-- . _ P esentatlv~ of RMBR and ~nson Island Plan in na *~,,~-~Y plannl~g.~rog~am in general and the Hutch- lng recommendation ofr r .... x~ The de~al~s of the proposed building spac- the Hutchinson Island Plan were explained. (b) June 27, 1974 - Planning and Zonin P opos.ed amendment re ar~~~'f~l°n - Discussion g a ~ng spacing. Specifically, would amend Section .10 of the Comprehensive Zoning Resolution section 5 to read: "5. Building Spacing All multi-family dwellings and hotels and motels shall meet the following spacing requirements where such re- quirements exceed those stipulated in district regula- tions permitting said uses: Ao The cumulative height of all primary structures shall not exceed the cumulative horizontal dis- tance as measured from other structures on the same parcel, the property lines, and line of mean high water; B. Said measurements shall be made in both prime directions, i. e., length and width, of the parcel; C. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with, and subordinate to, the above uses, parking areas, access-ways, and other facilities may be in- cluded in the required horizontal distance.,, This amendment was recommended unanimously to theCounty Commission. (c) ~_~19~7~.7 Planning and Zoning Commission _ General discussion concerning building ~p~cing amendment which was previously approved o 27, 1974 It was generally the opinion of the PLanning and Zoning that the amendment as passed was not administ building spacing amendment was t~ · rat~vely feasible. The ~u in an attempt to try to come more universal solution to the problem. (d) ~ 1~7.4 - Board of County Comm~SSlone ningand ~onin~ Co~a~ u~U~_t~ cc ~issiom rs - At the request of .......... ~,, ene county Commi~on took no action on posed building spacing amendment. The proposed amendment was referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further study at the request Planning and Zoning Commission. -2- is h~ only to do wi'~H~'"~H~ "-~i~66~ai~'~ or~t.h~ ~Lan~ J~c~l Scott asked Wh&t d ~.S "sh~il: be iEno~d" . h ms sa d, a'~n builds a lake, sity ~ec~ use he dug this lake. Mr. Becht asked wha~ does eta. mean. his land? the whole lake can be used in den- A man getting a permit to fill in Mr. Thomas said it is illegal to 'fill in the land. A general discussion was had. Foved by Sue Hickman, seconded by Betty Kiessel to accept as it is written. Vote was polled and carried unanimously. 8. Amend Seoti. on 10 by adding Sub~ection 5 to read: "5. BUILDING SPACING Ail multi-family dwellings and hotels and motels shall meet the follow- ing spacing requirements where such requirements exceed those stipulated in District Regulations permitting said uses: - a. The cumulative height of all prima~y structures shall not exceed the cumulative horizontal distance as measured from other structures on the same parcel, the property lines and line of mean high water; b. Said measurements shall be made in.both prime directions i.e length and width, of the parcel; · · c. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with, and subordinate to, the above uses, parking ameas, aceessways, and other facilities may be included in the required horizontal distance. Jack Scott stated how will we know what the denJity is, and how can we figure it. Suppose we have an unusual shaped piece of property. Gary Ament stated on such a ease of an irregular sha~ed piece of property ~ou would measure the main distance. In the case of a ~5 angle you would pro_ ~ect planes o'f vision through it In other words ~Y structures. ' , where yourvmew was broken A general discussion was had and it was moved by Sue Hickman, seconded by Betty 'Kiessel we accept it as is. Vote was polled and carried unanimously. Moved by Mrs. Sue Hickman, seconded by Mrs. Betty Kiessel that the minutes Of May 23, 1974, be approved as mailed. Motion carried unanimously. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS~ JULY 26, 1977 Petition to Amend Section 10 of the Comprehensive Zoning Resolution by adding Subsection 5, re "Building Spacing". The Planning & Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the petition on June 23, 1977. There was no one in the audience to support or oppose the petition. Mr~ Ament explained that Alternative #1 is related Strictly to 'the height of the structure; Alternative #2 combines the dimensions of the buildings and their heights.. He stated that he had-devised a table which could be used without~using--t~e formula. He further stated that for low- rise buildings, Altermative #2 would ~be~-mor~ r.estrSct, ive; for high-rise buildings, St would be less restrictive. After' further discussion, Mr'. Scott asked Mr. Ament which alterna- tive he personally favored. Mr. Ament replied that he was i~ favor of %2 because it could be applied fairly, on a county~wide '.basis. Moved .by Mr. Tiernan, seconded by Mr. Davis, to recommend approval of AlternatiVe #2 to the Board of County Commissioners. .'Vote was polled and carried unanimously. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission F ROM: CoUnty Development Coordinator DATE: June 15, 1977 SUBJECT: June 23, 1977, Rezoning Public Hearings (1) HEBB (R-lC to A-l) Existing Land Use: There is currently a single family dwelling unit on the proposed rezoning with widely scattered low density residential surrounding the proposed rezon- ing. The remainder of the land surrounding the pro- posed rezoning west of Jenkins Road is vacant with citrus to the east across Jenkins Road. Future Land Use: Low/medium density residential and citrus. COMMENTS: The proposed rezoning is not inconsistent with existing land use in the area or future land use plans for the area. {2) WASHINGTON AND WILLEMS (R-lC to A-I) Existing Land Use: Low density residential to the east and citrus, adjacent on all other sides of the proposed rezoning. Future Land Use: Low/medium density residential. COMMENTS: The proposed rezoning is not inconsistent with existing land use or future land use plans in the area. (3) BROWN (R-lC to A-l)' Existing Land Use: The proposed rezoning is currently vacant with low density residential to the north, and south and vacant land to the west. To the east across Jenkins Road, land use is currently citrus. Future Land Use: Low/medium density residential and~vacant. COMMENTS: This rezoning ~m immediately to tRe north .of gnd adjacent to the Hebb petition. Rgafn, the proposed rezoning, is not' in conflict with existing land use in the area ox proposed land use plans for the area. (4) ZONING RESOLUTION Ab~NDMENT - BUILDING SPACING ...... Recommendation: Alternate #2 appears to be the preferred alternate. As in Alternate #1, required horizontal spacing between structures is related to structure height. However, Alternate #2 also takes into account the shape of buildings, building location, and building overlap. In essence., Alternate #2 averages several factors to determine a minimum realistic distance among buildings and between buildings and property lines. In summary,' Alternate #2 is realistic and 'is responsive to basic site design considerations and it addresses actual building configuration. Alternate #2 can also be applied count~vide. ... ' next page ~omparison of Alternatives: The table and diagram on the~ompare the building spacing effects of Alternative #1, Alternative #2 and existing regulations on three building configurations. For the sake of simplicity, ail buildings are assumed to be located parallel to the ocean and building footprint is assumed to be rectangular. Please keep in mind that both alternatives can just as easily be applied to any building configuration. Alternative #2 Detail: The diagram which is attached to this Memorandum illustrates how each of the factors considered in the Alternate #2 formulas is to be measured.. As an example, I have worked out below how Alternate #2 would be:-~pplied to the previously described Building Configuration #2. ATLANTIC OCEAN Pot. · (UA = 70') ! >, B (HB = 70') .s< > Dy DX Dg ILpL 3 P-L- DX= DX= S.R. A-1-A 'DX LpL = 70' LA = 70' LA = 70' LB = 70' HA = 70' HA+HB = 140' 70+70+2(70) 70+70+2(140) 280 Iht,= ~20 4 4 D~ LpL .--. 70' LB = 70' HB = 70' 70+70+2 (70). 280 4 DX= 70' Dy= 105' Dg= 70'' DX ~ Dy +' Dg = 70' + 10S' + 70' = 24S' = TOTAL OPEN SPACE 0 · ,~ oo o o ~ 0o o o II I! Il Il "'.-10 -- ~'-~ 0 0 0 0 Often, at first'glance, formulas appear much m~re complicated than they really are. The formulas used for Alternate #2 simply state a fixed relationship between several factors or variables, e. g., building height and building Overlap. In order to eliminate the need to perform separate computations for each distance (D) to be determined, tables can be prepared ' which reflect the distance {D) for various combinations of building height and building overlap. The attached table, illustrates how to estimate Dy in the~ above without going through a mathematical calculation process. JGA/bm cc: County Building and Zoning Director Rose Kohler B 0 0 0 0 0 0 CZ) NOTICE NOTICE iS HEP~BY GIVE~~[ that the Planning a~:d-Zoning Co~.ission for St. Lucie County, Florida, will at 7:30 P. ~. on Thursday~ May 26, !~77~ in Room 203~ Courthouse, at For-t Pierce, Florida~ hold a oub!ic ' ' F~e&~!n~ oD_: Petition of Boated or County CoT~-isszone'~ to =..~c Se~'= by adding Subsection 5 to the ComDrehensi.ve Zoning S~. Lucie County, F!ori~.~, aq .... ~o~ows: 7. Or.~D.~ R~S~a'2~Op_ Aite r~gte #i: "5. Building Spacing. Horizoata! spacing betwcen structures shall, at a minimum, be equivalent to the total height of the two (2) struct.ures. Horizontal spacing betwec~ a structure and m property line shall, at e minimum, be equivalent to the height of the structure. ?~2nere 'buildings are tiered or stepped, the heights of the corr_esoo=~-g~ .~._ .... elevations mu~t meet the__above spacing requirement s_ . These requirements shall apply to all structures except:.. A. Single-family detached residences; B. Single level accessory uses and s{ructurcs customarily associated with and subordinate to the principal use.''~' A!terp~ate #2: "S. Building Spacing. Minimum distance bet~?en any two {2) buildings or any building and a property line shall be - regulated according tO the length and height of such bui!d- ings. The maxim~ horizontal dimension 'of any b~ilo~ng shall be three hundred (300) feet (including all deck areas and enclosed and covered ~a!kways). The formuSa regulating the required minimum distance between two buildings (referred to as Building A and Building B) is as follows' D : The foriuula regulatU~g thc required minir, u';~ d~stauce between a building and a property line (referred to as Bull ~: '~ A) is as ~ollows: ~~ = 4 D = required minimum horizontal distance between any wall o£ Building A and any wall of Building B (or the vertical extension of--either) or between any wale- of any building and a Property Line. LA = total length o~ Building A. The total length of Building A is the length of that por~ion or portions of a wall orU~'alls of Building A from which, when viewed directly from above, lines dr--awn perpendicular to Building A will intersect any wall of Building B or a:Property Line. LB = total length Of Building B. The total length of Building B is the length of that portion or portions of a wall or-~¢alls of'Building B from which, when viewed directly from above, lines dr--a~m perpendicular to Building. B will intersect any wall of Building B. LpL = total length of Property Line. ~ne total length of the Property Line is tho length of that portion or portions of the Property Line from which, whe.n viewed directly from above, lines, drax,m perpendicular to the Property Line will i~te_rsect any wall .of any building. HA, = height of Buildihg A HB = ~eight of Building B_B_. These requirements shall apply to all ~"~ ~:-.o A. Single-family residences; B. Single level accessory uses ant. strucr_ures_cus~o,,,a~y associated with' andsu[,or~.~e' ":--~ to ",_ne Dri~ci¢al use." ' ' ~ ,=~ opportuninv-~ he Ail inte~sted persons w~!i ~e ~a77. Dated this 22nd day of A~ri!, ~ ~'~":T~ A'~D ~'-:'~w SiON ST. LUCZE ~,.,,v FLORZDA Pub_.,_sn: April 25, 19 77 By La r.r.y F,, cIve r z:c±ve r: Ch & l r-~?,an (4) ZONING RESOL~ - Rec0~endation: Alternate.#2 appears to be the preferred alternate. As in ._ Alternate #1, rgquired horizontal ~pacing between structures is related to structure height. However, Alternate #2 also takes into account the shape of buildings, building location, and building overlap~ In essence, Alternate :#2 averages several factors to determine a minimum realistic distance, among buildings and between buildings and property lines. In summary, Alternate $2 is realistic and 'is responsive to basic site design considerations and it addresses actual building configmration. Alternate #2 can also be applied countD~ide- next page Comparison of Alternatives: The table and diagram on the~ompare the building ~pacing effects of Alternative #1, Alternative #2 and existing regulations on three building configurations. For the sake of simplicity, ail buildings are assumed to be located'parallel to the ocean and building footprint is assumed to be rectangular. Please keep in mind that both alternatives can just as easily be applied to any building configuration. Alternative #2 Detail: The diagram which is attached to this Memorandum illustrates how each of the factors considered in the Alternate #2 formulas is to be measured. As an example, I have worked out below how Alternate #2 would be.-Rpplied to the previously described Building Configuration #2. ATLANTIC 0CERN A (~A = 7o') B 'B .~<' Dg · >tP'L' '"- DX LpL = 70' LA = 70' HA = 70' DX= 70+70+2(70) : Dy= 4' DX= 280 4 DX= 70' S.R. A-1-A LA = 70' 'LB = 70' HA+HB = 140' 70+70+2 (140) Dy= 105' 4 Dg= 4 420 Dg= 280 4 Dg= 70' Dg LpL .-:-.' 70' 'LB = 70' HB = 70' 70+70+2 (70) DX p .Dy +' DZ = 70' + 105' + 70' = 245' = TOTAL OPEN SPACE 0 0 o II 0 :Z ~> Often, at fir<~ .. ance, formulas appear much ,! 'complicated than they really are. The formulas used for Alternate ~#2 simply state a fixed relationship between several factors or variables, e. g., building height and building overlap- In order to eliminate the need to perform separate computations for each distance (D) to be determined, tables can be prepared which reflect the distance (D) for various combinations of building height and building overlap- The attached table illustrates how to estimate Dy in the. above without going through a mathematical calculation process. JGA/bm cc: County Building and Zoning Director Rose Kohler 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ',,3 ~ o ~ ~" i,..a ~ o t,,.3 03 ~rl ° o 0 0 0 0 0 0