Many people in the City of Anna Maria are not pleased that our current building code allows the 37 foot tall, vertically sided ‘shoe-box’ structure where the third level of the structure is the same size as the second level and where the structure covers the maximum allowable lot coverage. Many cities have brought in some form of development regulation to solve the problem of excessive mass or bulk of buildings. If we citizens want the Commission and P &Z to continue to explore ways to reduce the bulk or mass of buildings in our city then we must let them know now.
Under this post topic, let’s talk the large ‘shoe-box’ bulk issue. Do we want the Commission and P&Z to continue their work on this issue? If so, why, what are your concerns, what would you like to see, etc.?
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
3 comments:
PLEASE NOTE: Our Anna Maria Blog invites significant and thoughtful discussion. It is not, however, a democracy. Comments considered offensive or innappropriate may be removed at the discretion of any one of the blog administators without notice. If the removal of your comment may offend you, it is probably best that you not comment at all. After typing in your comment, click on the "Subscribe by email" link (below, right) to have email alerts sent to your computer whenever a new comment is proffered regarding this post.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The problem is we have a the three-way tug-of-war--between owners' desires to maximize the value they can get out of their land, aesthetics, and the requirements imposed by FEMA. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, aesthetics must ride in the back seat.
ReplyDeleteThe City of Anna Maria was not intended to accommodate McMansions. So right off the bat, thanks to plots that were divvied up on the backs of fish wrappers, we are stuck with many small and sometimes odd-shaped parcels. Hey, we’re not a subdivision, are we!?
During the boom, gulf front lots all were going for six figures, and as sure as the tides go in and out, someone spending that kind of cash cannot fathom putting a cottage on a piece of land that cost that much. Their goal is to attain as much square McFootage with the highest possible McCeilings as the law will allow. For example: One of the first challenges to come before the city commission after I was elected involved a height variance to go 7 feet over our 37-foot limit. To get a variance requires the owner demonstrate that the present laws create a hardship. We had to endure three pleas on the same variance: Hardship #1, “We spent $10,000 on plans and don’t want to have to redo them;” #2, “We require ten-foot ceilings, because our antiques are too high for anything less;” #3, “Because we are seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line, you are discriminating against us.” I didn’t make these up, I promise. Variance not granted.
Add to maximization of value FEMA’s requirement that no more than 299 square feet of air-conditioned space can exist on the first level. Voila! We got us a 37-foot high box with a flat roof to boot. How quaint!
Yes, we should examine this issue. All I would suggest is the city not invest in re-inventing the wheel. Have our planner bring before the Planning and Zoning Board and the Commission a compendium of what other communities have done in this regard.
One fact remains: Try as you may, you cannot legislate taste!
Correction to my comment: Gulf front lots during the boom went for 7 figures. They haven't sold for 6 figures since early 90's.
ReplyDeleteThere are a couple of aspects to the ‘megastructure’ issue. One aspect is that humongous building footprints are being created when property owners calculate the 35% allowable lot coverage (40% for commercial) when they own a parcel of 2 or more lots. For example, owners of a 3 lot parcel at the end of Mangrove Ave. were permitted by code to build a footprint of about 5,465 sq. ft. and then we all just saw the big footprint of a ‘house’ go in at the Gulf end of Sycamore. The Commission is looking at some sort of ‘sliding scale’ but I don’t know the details and it isn’t on the current agenda. I think that the Commission will be continuing the footprint issue discussion sometime, though. (I guess, Duke, you’d call it the McFootprint aspect.)
ReplyDeleteThe other aspect is the ‘overshadowing’ by the 3rd level of a structure built to 37 feet with tall vertical walls and practically a flat roof. These structures overshadow the neighbors and the streets resulting in a loss of quality-of-life and loss of that ‘old Florida’ feel. I agree that you can’t legislate taste and talking about aesthetics goes nowhere as everyone has their own ideas about what looks attractive. There are a few ways to remedy the ‘bulk’ problem though, and Duke, you went through the ‘day light plane’ discussions a couple of years ago. A ‘daylight plane ordinance’ wasn’t successful at that time but I think the Commission could resurrect some version of a daylight plane discussion. Heck, if daylight plane ordinances were adopted by Sanibel, Sarasota County, Sarasota, Longboat Key and Holmes Beach then why couldn’t we work out a version that suits our City? Another remedy would be to simply limit the size of the third level to some percentage of the footprint of the structure. The P&Z board recently recommended to the Commission that the third level be 50% of the footprint. The Commission hasn’t taken any action on that recommendation, to date, but received a presentation from Planner Garrett at the May 14th work session meeting on yet a third way of reducing the bulk of a structure. The concept is to chose a ‘floor area ratio’ or FAR (FAR equals gross floor area plus garage area plus accessory structure area, divided by the lot area.) that is smaller than what we allow today and then allow the developer to gain back some square footage if they do certain things, called FAR incentives, - like recess the third level, build balconies on 2 sides of the structure, have different roof angles, have dormers or cupolas or a focal point of a main entrance, etc. At the May 14th meeting the Commission basically decided to hand the issue to the P&Z Board. The P&Z met on May 19th and received the FAR presentation from Planner Garrett. At the end of the meeting 3 out of the 6 P&Z members present agreed that the Commission should continue to look at some combination of third level floor reduction plus some of the above mentioned incentives.
Personally, I would like to see some kind of bulk reduction because the large monolithic type of structures does reduce quality-of-life (loss of light, airflow & space). This not only happens to someone who lives at ground level but it happens to people who live in elevated homes too. There is also an oppressive feel to this kind of construction especially where buildings are only 20 feet apart. I think that the simplest and least extreme solution the better and I agree that Planner Garrett should bring to the Commission & P&Z what other communities have done to ‘reduce the bulk’ without taking away too much floor area.
If people care about this issue then they really should contact the Commissioners & P&Z and let them know that something should be done to reduce the bulk of buildings. I think that the issue will be back on the Commission work session agenda for June 11th. We don’t have to provide the solution but the Commission should know if the bulk of buildings or the ‘overshadowing’ or crowding by the vertically built 3rd level is a concern for the residents.