Loading...
Minutes 10-12-81MINUTES OF THE BOARD 00 ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, MONDAY, OCTOBER 12, ~1981 AT 7-00 P.M. PRESENT Vernon Thompson, Jr., Chairman Theodore Blum Nick Cassandra, Alternate Anthony DiSarli Robert Gordon, Secretary Ben Ridolfi Paul Slavin Carl Zimmerman Ed Winch, Chief Inspector ABSENT Lillian Artis, Alternate (Excused) Chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. He introduced the members of the Board and the Chief Inspector. MINUTES OF AUGUST 10, 1981 Mr. Gordon moved to accept the minutes as presented. seconded and carried 7-0. Motion was PUBLIC HEARING PARCEL #1 A parcel of land in Section 30, Township 45 South, Range 43 East, Palm Beach,.County, Florida, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Section 30; thence N 0 51'37" W, a distance of 40 feet; thence S 88 22'15" W, a distance of 50.00 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence continue S 88 22'15" W, a distance of 445.08 feet; thence N 1 20'08" W, a distance of 774.00 feet; thence along the arc of a curve concave to the Northwest having a central angle of 6 43'40", a radius of 1949.86 feet, a length of 228.96 feet; thence along the arc of a curve concave to the Southeast, having a central angle of 4 52'0" a radius of 1869.86 feet, a distance of 158.82 feet; thence S 3 37'36" E, a distance of 5.00 feet; thence along the arc of a curve concave to the South, having a central angle of 0 46'05", a radius of 1864.86 feet, a distance of 25.00 feet; thence S 46 48'21" E, a distance of 35.00 feet; thence S 0~ 51'37" E, a distance of 25.00 feet; thence S 88 12'32" E, a distance of 14.74 feet; thence S 0 51'37" E, a distance of 744.47 feet to t he Point of Beginning, containing 8.00 acres, more or 'less. - 1 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 12, 1981 Request: Address: Applicant: Relief from 25' height limitation to allow construction of additional 3~' roof mansard for 72 Unit Office ComPlex 1515 South Congress Avenue Congress Ltd., A Florida Ltd. Partnership Robert Gordon, Secretary, read the application, noting that it is presently zoned C-l; formerly zoned C-3. Denial was made upon existing zoning requirements from which relief is required: maxi- mum structure height ~for C-1 zoning is 25' Statement of special conditions, hardships, or reasons'justifying the requested exception or variance: requesting an additional 3~' in mansard height to screen air conditioning units on the roof and to make the building more aesthetic in appearance. Name and address of applicant: Congress, Ltd., A Florida Ltd. Partnership. Mr. Gordon read the signature on the application as Jeff Anderson, General Partner. Chairman Thompson apologized for the accommodat~ions inasmuch as they had to give up their usual meeting place mn the Chambers. He then asked Mr. Anderson to come forward, introduce himself, and offer any information that would shed some light on the property in question. Jeffery Mark Anderson, General Partner, Florida Land Industrial Development, Limited, Partnership, in the State of Florida, intro- duced himself and turned the presentation over to Charles F. McKirahan, Jr., an architect from Ft. Lauderdale. The architect noted that~he was a member of the Planning and Zoning so he understands what the Board is going through here. He explained that the building was designed so that the actual flat portion of the roof is 25' and it is just the mansard portion, as it skirts the outside portion of the buildin~ that would project up 3'6", which would help screen the package units (not shown on-the rendering) on 'the roof'to service the individual condominium units. He noted that the air conditioning package units are to be the linear method, and they would be seen in a row coming down Congress. The architect explained that, if they keep to the 25' as top of the mansard, it starts to get into the design and starts squeezing the element. He felt that the proposed request would help the project from the point of view of Congress and the surrounding buildings. Mr. Thompson questioned 'how many feet this would be back from the street. The architect answered, about 445~' in depth and about 780' along Congress. It was noted that the building is centered on the site', about half way back; it is about 193' to the middle of the building. - 2 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 12, 1981 Mr. Anderson explained that they were trying to achieve an atrium type of office building setting; so they are doing everything they can to achieve a custom professional (doctor/lawyer offices) type of structure. They are seeking this relief to facilitate that end result in the building. Mr. Gordon asked if there was any building construction started; the answer was no. Then the Board asked what would be wrong with putting the air conditioners on the ground. The architect answered that it would not be as convenient as far as the piping is concerned because they have a direct line down. He further noted that, with a condominium ownership, it is a lot easier legally to have them on the roof rather than on adjacent common ground. Mr. Anderson noted that they would have to'come in from the end and down the common element in the center and out; and people would not want others running across each others elements. Also, considering the size of the air conditioning, the proportion of the building would suffer if they had to shrink the mansard down. Because the Code specifically states "two stories, 25'", Mr. Ridolfi questioned that a variance would be required for the air condition- ing to go above the 25' Mr. Winch stated that the air conditioning could go on the roof; it is not considered a physical part of the structure. The architect noted that the actual structure of the roof is 25' The Board asked how tall the air conditioners would be. The answer was: about the same height as a table but they do have to be set on a small eye beam. The mansard was being gauged to the height of the units (about 3½'). Mr. Cassandra asked if the air conditioner would service more than one condominium office. The answer was: each unit has its own. Mr. Cassandra noted that~normally the air conditioning is more efficient when it does not have the sun beating down on it, and he queStioned the point of top versus bottom and plumbing going down. The architect said they found from their Mechanical Engineers that the extra length of flow of the refrigerant would represent a greater loss in efficiency than the solar coefficient; he noted that question had been addressed. Mr. Cassandra asked how many air conditioning units would be on the roof. The answer was: basically, 74 units divided by 4 units. Mr. Cassandra asked about people seeing it, the angle, and how far they would have to be. The architect noted that the Carriage House condominiums in Oakland Park, have exposed~.units on the roof of 2-stories, and that was one of the main things he saw as he drove by. - 3 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 12, 1981 Reviewing a copy of the original prints submitted, Mr. Winch noted that it went through the Technical Review Board on 8/4/81 and the drawing shows the flat portion of the roof only 22' with 2'4" of mansard above that. The architect said that was basically what the engineering and mechanical requirements would be needed for air conditioning ducts but when. they did go with the PSI system, they found that they needed more depth under there than was originally found. That is when it became evident that they needed the 25'. In other words, he said, at this stage theY had not really gone to the mechanical engineers. Then they went to the mechanical engineers and were told they needed more space. They were also told they needed deeper beams going in the east and west dimension so their (engineers') requirements dictated lifting the building up also, to get everything in that was needed. Mr. Anderson said he bought this property and had it zoned from C-3 (which meant restaurants, bars, whatever) down to C-1. He said he is trying to do a good job and thinks good business dictates having a good product. He went to all this expense before he could even talk to the City and now he has gotten to this point before he can get his final building permit. Chairman Thompson asked about the ceiling height. The answer was: a ceiling height to a dropped ceiling of 8'6" with a 2'6" space between the ceiling and floor slab which is indicated as use for mechanical space to run duct work, etc. Mr. Anderson noted that, with office condominium, there is a whole different set of legal problems than regular office building. You have to provide space for water, plumbing, electric, air conditioning duct work, and so forth. Mr? Anderson said the biggest problem was the transfer beams that they had to get under. He pointed it out on the plan with the variance, which showed they went from 8'6" to 9' ceiling height. He cited an experience of a prospective purchaser wanting to buy two. If they were only going to buy one, the beam would not matter; with a situation whereby two or three units would be put together and make the air conditioning common, to facilitate that and facili- tate their electrical and lighting systems working mn unison, extra height had to be provided for. He found that people were not going to buy just a 1500 sq. ft. space, they were going to buy two or three. Mr. Slavin asked if this revised plan with the additional height is approved by this Board, wouldn't it have to come back to the Planning and Zoning Board for site plan approval again. Mr. Winch said yes, it will have to go back through the Boards. Mr. Anderson noted that had been anticipated. - 4 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 12, 1981 Chairman Thompson asked what happened to the 7' The architect answered that the 25' is not taken from the finished slab, it is taking 8" from adjacent'grades; then there is 9' for the equipment to work (X-ray machines and so forth). The Board asked if this is the second set of plans, and they reviewed the difference between the original plans and the plans with the variance. Chairman Thompson noted that they had to determine the hardship is within the guidelines from the State. Mr. Anderson felt, to keep committed to the original set of plans exactly, puts an undue hardship on him. He explained expenditures of $20,000. and $80,000. before going to the Mechanical Engineers. He said he is then committed to $100,000. and someone just says "No, I don't like it". Mr. Winch noted that the applicant was in the Building Department a few months back and questioned this height and was told no it could not be done; and that was before these plans~were submitted. Mr. Anderson said they were actually done at that point so it was not that he knew ahead of time and did it anyway. Mr~ Winch said these are condominium offices, the man owns between the walls; he owns to the slab to the ceiling. Mr. Anderson noted that he has certain rights in the Condo Association too. Mr. Winch said yes, but the dirt underneath he does not own; it is common share. Mr. Anderson replied, try to tear up his slab to get to a common element. Mr. Winch said, if it is in the agreement, there is nothing to stop from running these air conditioning lines under the slab. Mr. Anderson said he has experienced condominium offices where he has been sued, his father has been sued as an architect, and they always try to separate the two elements. When you have to tear up someone's personal element to get to a common element, it creates havoc at some of these condominium meetings. He cited a time when he spent 7 hours at a Leisure Towers meeting because one client put a deck on top of a common element. When he bought the unit, they gave him a patio so it came down to a legal question of how deep his element went. Mr. Anderson said they are trying to avoid these losses. Mr. Winch reiterated that, if this is written up in the purchase agreement beforehand, there shouldn't be any problem. Mr. Anderson said he did not know how they would feel if they were conducting a business and someone said they were going to have to tear up their whole floor. Chairman Thompson said it appeared to be a financial move; it is cheaper to put the units on the top than on the ground. The architect' disagreed. Mr. Anderson felt that there was not much difference mn how far to run it; he felt it good common sense to run the coolant down. - 5 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 12, 1981 Mr. Slavin questioned the need to come here before this board if the air conditioning units .on top is not part of the structure. The architect qualified that by saying they can put the air condi- tioners on top legally without screening it. Mr. Slavin was trying to establish if the 3'6" is legal; if it is, a variance is not needed. Mr. Winch emphasized that the problem is: the air con- ditioning equipment is one thing and the mansard is part of the structure which is considered part of the structure height. It was noted that the mansard is desired to avoid an eyesore, to cover up the air conditioner, that it really costs more to build that. Mr. Ridolfi asked how far the nearest residential area is from the building. It was noted that there are single family homes across the street, walled in to some degree, and High Point ~ls going behind. He felt'that the aesthetic beauty is not that important. Chairman Thompson tried to establish hardship. Mr. Anderson reiterated the substantial amount of time and money invested and said if this is not approved, they would have to go back and re- submit to their financing institution; they might say they do not think as many will sell. They could withdraw their ccmmitment. Chairman Thompson felt thatwould be a self-imposed hardship, invest- ina their money, and not a hardship on the part of thc City or County. Mr. Zimmerman explained that this was at one time zoned C-3; had that zoning remained, there would not be any problem ~ow. It was not imposed upon them by the City; this was reclassed by the owners at that time. He felt that this change of zoning could not be called a hardship, but it does-have a bearing on what can be built there. That might be something to consider. Mr. Anderson said there were negotiations, those drawings were submitted, and they were told what they had to do to_et this through, one of which was to go from C23 to C-1. Those drawincs were prepared for that particular meeting, and so they were trying ~o please the City and gave away C-3 to go to C-1 and now they are asking for a little bit of C-3 back. It was noted that, when those plans were drawn and submitted, it was C-3. Mr. Zimmerman said he did not know if the rezoning has any bearing on whether hardship was created by the applicant or wkether the City was involved in any way in encouraging a change in zoning, but he felt that the building with the additional screening would look a lot better in the Community than without. Still, he felt that the hardship angle should be considered. It was clarified that the drawings were submitted to the City Planning and zoning Department where the rezoning came up. There was a question of the City imposin'g a hardship on these people by asking them to make this change. The Chairman did not feel that anyone will downgrade a piece of property in one way with intentions to build. - 6 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 12, 1981 Mr. Anderson said the point was brought up at the Council Meeting about the 25' height requirement when they approved the rezoning from C-3 to C-1. They only wanted two stories so it seemed all right. As soon as they realized a height problem, they filed this petition. Mr. DiSarli suggested agreeing to the height requirement and then i% would have to be proposed to the Building Department. Mr. Winch noted that 'this physical height change in the building might be considered a major change which would mean that it would have to go through all the boards again and back through council. That would be a determination for the City Planner to make, whether it is con- sidered a ma3or change or not. Mr. DiSarli asked if .it would come back to this Board again. It was determined that it would not, if the variance of height were agreed upon tonight. He said he would go for that. Mr. Slavin felt it was frustrating here that nobody knew anything about it. It seemed everything is contingent upon this Board's decision. Chairman Thompson said, if it is denied, the building can be built, tt is just a matter of granting permission for the 3½ feet or denying it. He noted that everything has been approved. With no further questions, the .Chair entertained a motion to grant or deny the request. Mr. Ridolfi made a motion to deny the variance. He said he talked to about 25 people on Congress Avenue and the area. They.were mostly older people and some said they don't care one way or the other and some said they did not like the idea of having anything too high. Mr. Ridolfi felt that the area is becoming very commercial, there will be a lot more building in the'future, and he expressed concern over setting a precident here. He felt that the Board should stick by what they have and deny the request. Motion was seconded. The Chairman asked for discussion on the motion. No further discussion was offered and the Chairman called for the vote: Paul Slavin Ted Blum Ben Ridolfi Tony DiSarli Bob Gordon Carl Zimmerman Vernon Thompson For Against For Against For For For Motion carried 5-2; request was denied. Mr. Anderson asked for a list of those who voted yes or no and he was advised to pick it up at the City Clerk's Office~ that it is a matter of public record. - 7 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 12, 1981 Mr. Cassandra expressed his desire to make a few comments. Number 1, he reiterated a feeling of frustration. He said, if ~they were asked by the Planning and Zoning or the Council to go frOm C-3 to C-l, why wasn't this known to this Board at the outset. He continued: if you are agreeing to do something, you are relinquishing a right and if you are relinquishing a right, you have got to be compensated for it. If they have this understanding,~ or misunderstanding, of the Planning Board, they should have told this board at the outset; then he could understand their asking for this variance. Mr. Cassandra felt they came in with a demanding attitude, as though.it were coming to them. Number 2, to him, what put the icing on the cake along that thought was when it was asked if this is a public record, which lead him to believe that maybe they were told that they would get it. Chairman Thompson reiterated that the building could be built without the variance an-d felt that 150' from the street and 3' up does not make any difference. There was repeated discussion of the visual effect, and the same problem with Motorola was noted. It was noted that Bethesda only wanted 8" between floors for oxygen pipes and other conduits. It was brought out that, when this came up at the Planning and Zoning Board a long time ago, this was a change in zoning by a different owner, and that ties the Board's hands as to ruling a hardship. It was ~i~ficult fo~ the Board to determine ~the-date'ofltransf~r of the pr~Oper~¥ ~i~h ~he~mate~ial that was before them.at~ th~s t~me~ EXCUSED ABSENCE At this time, Chairman Thompson acknowledged the absence of Lillian Artis and announced that she had asked to be excused to be at a funeral in Atlanta. ADJOURNMENT Motion was made, seconded, and passed to adjourn. Respectfully submitted, Lo~s Bee (Two tapes Transcribed) - 8 -