A rewritten ordinance will forbid rooftop bars, dance floors, lounges, or any other public uses on 35-foot-high buildings in Flagler Beach, with the notable exception of the Margaritaville Hotel’s rooftop lounge, whose height city officials permitted by mistake even though it exceeds limits set out in the city charter.
The Flagler Beach City Commission last week sharply rejected a recommendation by its own Planning and Architectural Review Board to approve an ordinance that would have allowed some features on buildings to go as high as 49 feet. Those features in turn would have allowed public uses of rooftops on certain commercial buildings such as hotels and restaurants. (See: “After Flagler Beach’s Margaritaville Hotel Rose Higher Than It Should Have, the City Rewrites Height Ordinance.”)
Commissioners objected.
“This isn’t anti business. This is anti Miami,” said Commissioner Eric Cooley, who led the charge against the planning board’s recommendation. “This is, let’s hold on to what we are, and let’s keep what we’ve done being consistent to avoid that. Because basically there’s no in between.”
The proposed ordinance had architectural and mechanical feature exceptions, and allowances for screening of mechanical elements on roofs, all of which had different maximum heights rising potentially to 49 feet. Certain elements would have had to be set back so that they would not be visible from street level at a 45-degree angle. There were exceptions, as with elevator or stairwell bulkheads, which could be as high as 49 feet, though the bulkhead would have to be screened by some form of architectural feature to make it more aesthetically pleasing.
The proposal surprised members of the commission, who thought they were getting a document that would prevent a repeat of the Margaritaville Hotel mistake, not enshrine the mistake into allowances in the future.
“How did we create a new document or new language that’s going to prevent this from ever happening again?” Mayor Patti King asked. “I don’t understand what we’ve just done, other than make some pretty language.” Commissioner James Sherman also didn’t understand how the 49-foot height got back into the document. “We know that’s not going to be okay,” he said.
“All of this is tied to rooftop use,” City Attorney Drew Smith said. “So if you do not allow rooftop uses, you do not need an elevator bulkhead on the roof. You do not need a stairwell bulkhead on the roof. What’s driving the elevator and stairwell to the roof is public access to the roof. If you allow public access to a roof, you have to allow ADA access to the roof, which means you’re putting an elevator.” (ADA is the Americans with Disabilities Act’s requirements.) To avoid all that means getting away from public rooftop uses.
That’s what Sherman favored, with Cooley spelling out the inadmissibility of the 49-foot proposal.
“Absolutely not okay with the direction that this is heading,” Cooley said. “The polling that I have from hundreds upon hundreds of citizens, almost on a daily basis, is they don’t want four-story buildings that are 50 feet tall. And so we have an ordinance here that’s basically crafting on how to do that.” There may be some allowance to screen certain rooftop elements such as air conditioning units, he said, but going to 49 feet is too high. As written, Cooley said, the ordinance “essentially amounts to a fourth story on top of your roof. This is like dancing around how to get around what the intent of what our citizens want it to be. We’re doing partial walls. We’re doing decorative fencing and gathering spaces and recreational areas.”
Cooley is not opposed to public uses of roofs. He has a flat roof of his own on his house and uses it as a deck, he said. It’s below 35 feet. There are existing businesses that have roof access to the public, but in compliance with the 35-foot rule. Stressing that his stance was not anti-business, he mentioned Johnny D’s, Oceanside Bar and Grill, Golden Lion, Finn’s.
The problem, Smith said, is when commercial buildings allow public access to rooftops. If they do, they have to make access accessible for the disabled, which means they have to have an elevator, which means eliminating rising elements well beyond the 35-foot limits is not realistic–unless public rooftop use is itself eliminated. That, in effect, is what the city commission will codify in its ordinance. “If saying you can’t build over a certain height means you can’t have public access up there, then so be it,” Cooley said.
So the only things that may exceed the 35-foot limit on a roof may be a few architectural elements and utilities such as air conditioning units that may reach 45 feet. If there is an architectural feature that exceeds the 35-foot limit and rises to 45 feet, it is limited to just 15 percent of the facade. How will anyone get to the roof, such as workers who need to service a mechanical unit, or roofers? Ladders, Smith said.
The planning board’s chair, Joseph Pozzuoli, an architect, was in the audience as an emissary for the board, which thought it ought to have a voice at the commission meeting should defending its recommendation be necessary. The commission did not call on Pozzuoli to speak nor did Pozzuoli volunteer to speak. It is generally understood that advisory boards’ role stops with their recommendation: commissions are not usually thrilled when members of their advisory boards press beyond that role, though advisory board members can sometimes be miffed when their recommendations are dismissed or overruled.
There will not be yet another ordinance rewrite, nor will the ordinance go before the planning board again. “We’re not making changes that roll it back to square one if it’s simply subtraction,” Smith said. The ordinance was tabled last week to give Smith time to edit it, it will return before commissioners next week for approval with the new limitations.
“You get it,” a resident told Cooley during public comment. “You get it, and I appreciate that.” She the recalled the days when the Aliki high rise was built to the consternation of residents at North 16th Street between North central and North Daytona Avenue. “Everybody in town turned out and said, No more. This is a one time deal.” That goes for commercial buildings too: “We don’t want to be overwhelmed as citizens by commercial buildings that really don’t belong here.”
Mike says
How convenient this really turned out. When the right people are paid off is when zoning rules become somehow a mistake. Money definitely talks. What’s good for one is good for all!
Greg says
Mistake my ass. Never, ever trust a politician.
James says
I bet the hotel wins that battle.
Shark says
They will probably using the 12″ ruler to measure the pier. I’ve never seen such a circus act. Don’t know which more incompetent – Palm Coast or Flagler Beach!!!
oldtimer says
Oops, wonder how everyone missed that? Except those of us who saw it going up.
Ray Flieger says
Hi there apparently no one knows how to read a blue print. The city members knew what they were doing. There should be no exception for anybody to exceed the limit including commercial properties.
Celia Pugliese says
Ray is called “selective enforcement” runs rampant in developer controlled Florida! Look at what DeSantis and his DEP appointed dude wnat to do in our states parks to ruin them!:https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/state-parks-plan-includes-some-in-south-florida-with-golf-and-pickleball-possible/3397790/
Eileen S Araujo says
money talks…….
Flagler Frank says
Commercial properties, especially those smack in the middle of town, should be scrutinized under a microscope, not given a free pass. These projects, which so drastically and carelessly alter the character and essence of our unique town, are a disgrace. It’s infuriating that not a single person bothered to carry out a proper assessment. This kind of negligence reeks of incompetence or, worse, deliberate disregard. What’s the point of preserving our town’s identity if it’s going to be sold out to the highest bidder without a second thought?
BOB says
Money Talks, and Bull Shit Walks, and I hear footsteps.
Joe D says
Okay…how did architectural drawings get approved “by mistake.” This is not a fence that 1-2 ft above neighborhood standards. This is a MAJOR commercial building that has been on the planning books, and in construction phase for SEVERAL years now. Who “signs off” on the blue prints…on the City side? Are they QUALIFIED to read and approve architectural drawings…the measurements of the design elements are USUALLY marked On the DESIGN! Someone needs to be held accountable for this error.
I seriously don’t think the City can just say to the hotel group “Opps”…we made a mistake in the approval…too bad for you!
So …at taxpayers expense (AGAIN), I can now anticipate Flagler Beach fighting a lawsuit brought on by the hotel group, because it technically wasn’t THEIR (the Hotel’s) mistake, and at this late stage SERIOUSLY affects their design, and probably their actual intended use for the rooftop area.
I’m sorry, but “OPPS” is not an appropriate defense in this day and age…REALLY !?!
As I’ve been driving by the construction site, I kept saying to myself…”Wow, that looks pretty high for being only 35 ft high.” I remember the Hotel group that attended the pre-construction public meetings said they would follow all local regulations, when DIRECTLY asked by a local resident, whether they were going to abide by the 35 ft height limit.
So HERE we are…AGAIN! Now what? The City Commission might have to approve a one time VARIANCE, due to the City’s mistake and make allowances for the resulting height or have to spend TENS of THOUSANDS (or MORE) of taxpayer dollars to settle the lawsuit.
I’m not amused!
L. M. says
Yep! Follow the money!
Dennis C Rathsam says
THE BUILDING IS AN EYE SORE! ITS SO OUT OF PLACE!
Mike Franks says
Funny how none of the powers-that-be noticed the height violation until it was too late to do anything about it, even though half the citizens of Flagler Beach were screaming it.
I’m sure the people in charge were compensated for their inattentiveness.
Celia Pugliese says
Good enough reason to boot them all in next election? A la Palm Coast style?
Webster says
Celia,
And replace them with WHAT?
Kola says
City Council got unlimited stays for their lifetime. “Overlooked mistake,” lol.
JimboXYZ says
As long as it’s an airspace violation, I don’t see the big deal ? Make the spec 3 stories, subject to 35 feet +/- say 10 percent for a tolerance. It’s not like a Boeing 757 or whatever is flying over that & the birds are probably landing on the roof top ?
Celia Pugliese says
Aren’t the FIN airport students learning how to fly very low in Flagler Beach too like the do over Palmcoasters? Maybe just to add some lead to spike those cocktails in the FB roof tops bars too?
Doug says
C’mon Jimbo. One gets away with it, more follow and then no written rules apply to future construction height limitations. Flagler Beach set a height restriction on buildings after the Aliki Tower was built and it’s been on the books for decades. This isn’t a “mistake” this is someone who purposely and knowingly did this.
The dude says
Jimbo is just fine with malfeasance, “accidental” or otherwise, as long as it’s “his” tribe.
If this upset him in any way, it would be President Biden’s fault.
Richard says
Let’s just close down Flagler Beach. No one there wants anything except a $2 beer anyways.
Laurel says
The problem is, Richard, that Palm Coast has very little to offer, so the masses they want attract, for financial gain, have nothing to do besides head for little Flagler Beach, ruining it.
Celia Pugliese says
What a charade to little too late. Shows us the bias backing developers in these cities and counties exercising “selective enforcement” by whether elected and or administrators often in collusion to undermine the residents rights. If you hear them they always tell us the “vacant owners lands have rights” so what about our current residents rights? With what the current FB commission and the city administrators have allowed to this hotel owner to build there, in the next election I would boot the commission at the ballot box and with a new commission also the administrators that approved this. Learn from Palmcoasters this time what done at the ballot box to those that ignored our residents pleads and see what will ensue in 2025 when the new council on board. All these lies and pretense of correctness or errors in favor of developers that is destroying our Florida needs to stop and at the ballot box fellows.!
My Opinion says
I’m sure there will be more mistakes on the way. Flagler Beach does not need anymore rooftops there are plenty to choose from. Soon Flagler Beach will look like Dayton Beach. With the possibility of more hotels like this one going up Flagler Beach will become Miami, Daytona, Ft Lauderdale etc….. spring break. Start marking your calendars to stay away during spring break and maybe all summer!!!!!
Tom D Hutson says
Margaritaville Hotel Heights
WOW, OMG, SAY IT’S NOT SO, another “OOPS” in Flagler County only this time in Flagler Beach! Whatever it is, it is contagious. Contracts that do not make sense, lawsuits that can not be won in favor of the public citizens, backing down on easements – time for all of this to stop.
In order for it to stop, voters need to insist that “ALL OOPS” have responsibility and consequences attached. Start at the top with the City Manager and anyone else associated with this debacle. The reading of Flagler Beach Charter was violated, “OOPS” we didn’t read the height restrictions, and those damn blueprints, never could read them. Ok, no problem, is it a who do you know, “OOPS?” We will let it pass now and catch it next time “OOPS”.
It is time for Flagler County Voters and Flagler Beach residents to say enough already with incompetence. How about starting by saying, “YOU ARE FIRED” if you had any part of this “OOPS”. My bet is the “OOPS” will stop!
Mothers worry says
Based on information and belief. The now idle/abandoned 10 unit townhouse development at the corner of A1A and clubhouse drive in south Flagler Beach had roofs that were found to be too high. Anyway, a crane showed up and removed the roof structure and reattached it. I have no idea whether they corrected all ten or just a few.
Fed Up with Stupid People says
Someone who originally approved this, should be held accountable and fired. This should’ve never been a “mistake.” UNACCEPTABLE AND EMBARRASSING.
Doug says
There are a lot of valid comments in this article, such as upset residents who raised concerns about the building’s height issue. The pressing question is, when will the elected City Officials be held accountable for this issue they call a “mistake?” This is not an isolated incident, but a recurring problem in Flagler County and the surrounding municipalities. Yet, many people call for accountability, which is continuously ignored by those who represent us. Why does the media even print this if nothing will happen to those involved? Sweep it under the rug like everything else done illegally and without regard for rules and regulations. It’s the Flagler County, Flagler Beach, and Palm Coast way of dirty business. Again, it is very troubling and disgusting.
Land of no turn signals says says
The land of dumb and dumber.
Joe says
Mistake my ass!! How many people in city hall reviewed the plans. Can’t they read? What about the review board they always seem to stick their nose in everything. The small builder would have to tear it down and rebuild it correctly. All the commissioners should be held accountable.
All should be fired. Flagler bch won’t even process a permit without the building height clearly marked.