Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Height topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends raising height limit to 65 feet for certain fitness facilities
Summary
The Providence Planning Commission voted to recommend a code amendment (PCC 10-8-1) to the city council that would allow indoor commercial recreation or fitness centers to reach a maximum exterior height of 65 feet in Commercial Highway and Commercial General districts, provided any portion above 50 feet does not exceed 35% of the building footprint.
The Providence Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve a proposed amendment (PCC 10-8-1) to raise the maximum building height for the specific use of indoor commercial recreation or fitness centers from 50 feet to 65 feet in the Commercial Highway and Commercial General districts.
Scarlett Miller, planning staff, told commissioners the change "isn't just increasing it to a straight 65 feet" but instead allows a 65-foot maximum only for certain uses and only where "any portion of the building structure exceeding the standard 50 foot height shall not encompass more than 35% of the total building footprint." Miller emphasized the amendment is use-specific rather than a blanket height increase.
Commissioners asked about safety and construction constraints. A staff representative responded that emergency services reviewed the proposal and "they were fine" with 65 feet and that the department would evaluate specific projects during later review. Commissioners also discussed typical construction approaches for buildings taller than three stories and noted additional systems (HVAC, lighting and roof structure) can reduce interior climbing or ceiling heights relative to exterior height.
Alex Berenson of Black River Development, who had asked during the public hearing whether mixed-use zones should also be considered, said he would pursue a separate study item for mixed-use applications. Miller suggested a new public hearing would be appropriate if the commission wished to materially change the scope of the current amendment.
Michael (S2) moved that the commission recommend approval of the amendment as written; John Peterson (S7) seconded. The commission approved the motion by voice vote; no opposition was recorded.
The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the city council for final action. Staff said commissioners could request a future study item to evaluate whether similar height adjustments should apply in mixed-use zones.
