Beach: Let's Talk Building Height

This has been a while in coming, but do you recall back to the City Commission meeting of June 5, 2007? That's the one that the Commission considered the three ordinances that are part of the current (?) petition drive. Those in attendance were treated to a lengthy presentation by Commissioner Jennings regarding the placement of the building 75 feet from the seawall/east side of the sidewalk and her concept of "managed retreat" and how much of building on the Greater Bay illustrated site plan was east of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL). I have covered the intricacies of the CCCL in a previous post.

Prior to the Commission's discussion, I spoke about how construction is possible eastward of the CCCL (one only needs to look at the large condo development south of the City's beach property, in the Town of Palm Beach, to see the possibility). The Department of Environmental Protection administers the program. Please refer to the previous post for the applicable links.

One of Commissioner Jennings other "beefs" was about building height. She graciously provided her Power Point presentation to me and this post addresses her concerns graphically - using some of her same images. You would think that an elected official would try to stay true to the facts, but her slant on reality comes through clearly in her presentation.

The conclusion here is that the height of the building can go up to 50 feet, with architectural elements (a tower similar to the original 1920s structure) and the impact of the height depends on the type of roof - something that Commissioner Jennings failed to mention. Hmmmmm.

So, below is how our Commissioner from District 2 presented her version of the zoning change impact:



Of course, she shows the building as being all 60 feet tall. Not the architectural features- the whole building. And, she includes, subtly, an indication of a possibility of additional height by her use of a "+" as an alternative to the "-". She also assumes a FLAT roof design - the worst of the alternatives in terms of height impact. See image below - this would NOT be allowed by the Beach and Casino zoning district:


Below is an excerpt from the actual wording as contained in the Beach and Casino zoning district. Note that it clearly indicates a difference between "two habitable stories" being limited to 50 feet and architectural features (non-habitable space - but perhaps an area to hide mechanical equipment) limited to a maximum height of 60 feet. This is done to allow a tower architectural feature as found on the original version of the Casino building.


The last sentence above refers to the definition section of the Zoning Code for an explanation of how height is measured. The defininition below appears in that section:


Note that the definition identifies a number of alternative roof styles and different ways of measurement applied to each. The point of measurement for the likely style of roof that will be used for the Casino building will be either a gable or a hip style. The graphic below illustrates the common sorts of roof styles.


So, according to the definition, the height for a flat roof would be measured to the highest point of the roof - the top of the parapet. What would be allowed for a flat roof is indicated below. Remember, that architectural features could add another 10 feet in height, in the form of a tower or similar device.


Now, what is being discussed for the new Casino building is that the roof will be a hip or gable design - not a flat roof. So that means that the average height between the peak and the eave of the roof is the maximum height - 50 feet. Which means that the exterior wall will be less than 40 feet. Maybe between 40 and 45 feet?? We will see with the final design which will be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board. So the apparent height of the building will be less than the MAXIMUM of 50 feet. Again, architectural elements would be allowed 1o feet in additional height and be subject to the same measurement standards.

But, anyone that is automatically against this project would project another reality.


Remember, elections for the District #2 Commission seat will be in November of 2008.