Loading...
02/18/1994 PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE A HEARING OFFICER February 18, 1994 - 9:00 a.m. SUN WATCH, INC. Hearing Officer: J. Lawrence Johnston Also Present: Miles A. Lance, Assistant City Attorney Camille Motley, Central Records Specialist Issue: For a variance of 5 ft to allow a structure 95 ft in height where 90 ft is allowed at 670 Island way, Sec 05-29-15, M&B 31.011, zoned RM 28 (Multiple Family Residential). V 93-55 Appearances: Mark D. Breakstone, Attorney for Appellant R. Carlton Ward, Attorney for Appellant Jeff Middlebrook, Architect Ernie Shrieves, Air West Air Conditioning 1801 St. Rd. 590, Safety Harbor, FL Diane Gunther Unit 1010, 690 Island Way, Clearwater, FL Exhibits Submitted: 1. Drawing The Hearing Officer received the following exhibits into evidence. 1. Notice of Appeal dated November 10, 1993, signed by R. Carlton Ward, as representative. 2. Notice of Public Hearing of August 26, October 14, and October 28, 1993. 3. Excerpts of the minutes of the Development Code Adjustment Board of October 28, 1993. 4. Variance Application. 5. Variance Request. 6. Variance Transmittal sheet. 7. Letter of objection from Beverly Glassman, owner of Unit 601 at 690 Island Way. 8. Building Cross Section. Hearing Officer Johnston opened the meeting at 9:13 am. He stated that due to confusion in the public notice received by the State, this hearing was continued to this date. Opening statement was made by Mr. Breakstone for the appellant relative to the substance of the variance requested. He stated that the building's dimensions and height would be harmonious with the environment. He pointed out the structure type was necessary due to the narrowness of the lot. He stated in order to allow for the additional requirements of air conditioning and heating the extra five feet was necessary. Mr. Lance made the opening statement for the City. He indicated that no hardship was shown and that the developer had over-designed the building. If the room height was limited to code rather than 8 ft., there would be no need to request the variance. He felt that the developer's concern was not hardship but rather the return investment on the building. Mr. Ward stated the issue is that the code requires a seven foot six inch (7'6") minimum ceiling height. By requesting a ceiling height of eight feet (8') which is the preferred heights in most units, there was not sufficient clearance for the air conditioning ductwork. Mr. Lance rebutted that the code provides for seven foot six inch (7'6") high ceilings but the eight foot (8') request for ceiling clearance may be more desirable in appearance; however, the city feels that the variance should still be denied. Jeff Middlebrook was called to testify relative to the problems encountered in building according to code. He is the architect of Scott Partnership Architect Firm. He submitted a drawing which showed the proposed building. He stated that the ductwork will take one foot (1') from the eight foot three inches (8'3") leaving seven foot six inches (7'3") which is below the minimum height required to meet code. Their desire is simply to cool and heat the units. Mr. Breakstone questioned Mr. Middlebrook relative to the appearance of surrounding buildings. Mr. Middlebrook stated they were taller than the proposed Sun Watch structure. Sun Watch must maintain a large open space which constrains the width dimensions of the building. Mr. Lance asked what date the building was designed. Mr. Middlebrook responded August of 1993 and met the 1991 code. Mr. Lance stated he felt the architect didn't know the building height code requirements until after the building had been designed and that the completed plans had been submitted to the developer. Mr. Lance made reference to paragraph 2. of the notice of appeal which stated the additional height would allow the installation of all air conditioning duct work and fire sprinkler systems in a manner that would accommodate the preferred finished room height of approximately eight feet. The original plans had called for eight foot eleven inch (8'11") ceilings. He stated a variance would not be required if the code was met as opposed to wanting the preferred ceiling height. Mr. Middlebrook agreed a variance would not be needed if the building was built to meet the code. Mr. Middlebrook stated the building design called for a post tension system due to narrow site (use of steel tendons running from column to column for floor support). Mr. Lance felt the problem was a design problem not a code problem. Mr. Middlebrook stated alternatives had been explored consulting with structural engineers in order to solve the problem. Mr. Middlebrook stated they were under density allowance and wanted to have as many units as possible. Mr. Middlebrook stated he agreed with the developer for ninety-six units as submitted. Mr. Lance proposed that the plan was developed without benefit of meeting code requirements and the building could still meet structural parameters by reducing the building by one floor. Mr. Ward questioned Mr. Middlebrook regarding clarification of structural requirements for the ceiling according to the proposed building. Mr. Middlebrook stated he was asking for eight foot eleven inches (8'11") between floors. Hearing Officer Johnston referred to diagram dated 10/28/93 which had been submitted. He asked if it was no longer accurate. Mr. Middlebrook confirmed that to be correct. Mr. Middlebrook stated with post-tension eight inches (8") would be needed between floors. Mr. Lance stated that the design which had been submitted to the Development Code Adjustment Board was in process of change. He stated that the design could not be changed and then request that a Hearing Officer to pass judgement on the new design. Hearing Officer Johnston agreed to let Mr. Lance argue that later. Hearing Officer Johnston continued to question Mr. Middlebrook about how post-tension works. Mr. Middlebrook stated the ductwork would be between nine to ten inches (9" to 10") plus three inches (3") for steel framing and one-half inch (1/2") for gypsum board. Mr. Lance asked how high hallways, kitchens and baths could be. Mr. Middlebrook stated seven feet (7'). Mr. Middlebrook said the ductwork needed to go to the middle of the other rooms. He stated meeting the code would require some re-design. Mr. Lance felt that the cost of re-designing the building would impact the structural engineer and would be costly in terms of time and money. Mr. Lance asked if Mr. Middlebrook had ever applied for a height variance in Pinellas County. Mr. Middlebrook stated he had never used the post-tension system before. Mr. Middlebrook stated he had never worked on any multi-story condos. Hearing Officer Johnston sought clarification about the spaces needed between floors for ductwork. Mr. Middlebrook stated nine to ten inches (9" to 10") was needed for ductwork but was asking for thirteen inches (13"). Hearing Officer Johnston asked what the minimum height was for common areas. Mr. Middlebrook stated he assumed that the new code still required seven feet (7'). Mr. Breakstone called Ernest Shrieves of Air West Air Conditioning located at 1801 State Road 590, in Safety Harbor, Fl. to give testimony. Mr. Breakstone asked him to present the needs of these particular units. He stated that in order to cool rooms with large amounts of glass it is necessary to move the air to the center of room. He stated he needs nine inches (9") diameter for ductwork. Twelve to thirteen inches (12" to 13") would be the minimum for practical use. Mr. Lance questioned Mr. Shrieves as to whether or not he was involved in the design of the building. Mr. Shrieves stated he had been called in by developer after the plans were drawn. He stated the drawings did not illustrate air conditioning needs at that time and he was asked what would be needed for ductwork. Mr. Shrieves stated he told the developer eight feet (8') was not enough. He stated in his opinion no unit is acceptable at seven foot six inches (7'6") regardless of what the code says. He stated he would build what the developer requested. He did not have anything to do with the application for variance. Mr. Lance stated that developer and architect make the choice regarding the number of stories for the building. Mr. Ward questioned Mr. Shrieves regarding the proposed structure. Mr. Shrieves testified he had personal experience with using seven foot six inch (7'6") ceiling height and felt air distribution was not good in that limited ceiling height. Mr. Lance objected to Mr. Shrieves' statement regarding his dislike of the City code. Mr. Lance asked about the units Mr. Shrieves had laid out. Mr. Shrieves agreed if the building was re-designed he might not need the same size ductwork. Mr. Lance called Ms. Diane Gunther, Unit 1010, 690 Island Way, Clearwater, FL, to give testimony. She was sworn in by Hearing Officer Johnston. Ms. Gunther stated the Development Code Adjustment Boards's decision should be upheld because the proposed building would diminish the view for neighbors. She felt the structure would not conform to the other buildings and that it would stick out like a sore thumb. Mr. Breakstone asked Ms. Gunther how the building would affect her. She stated although she lived on the 10th floor, the closeness of the buildings and higher ceilings would limit her view to the inside of someone else's unit. She also stated it would adversely affect her financial investment. Mr. Lance asked Ms. Gunther when her building was constructed. She stated about 10 years ago. Hearing Officer Johnston stated his final orders should be submitted within forty-five days. The parties may have an opportunity for post-hearing submissions of proposed basis of fact and conclusions of law which should be submitted within ten (10) days of today. He asked for summations. Mr. Lance stated this was a disturbing but simple case. He felt that the building had been designed without benefit of consulting the building code. The air conditioning systems needed were based on the present design of the building. Mr. Lance stated the building should be re-designed. He offered alternatives of less clearance between floors or smaller size units. All code requirements must be met. He felt the Development Code Adjustment Board was acting properly in denial of this variance. He stated the only hardship alluded to was money lost if units were smaller. He asked the Hearing Officer to uphold the Development Code Adjustment Board's decision. Mr. Ward stated ninety-nine units were allowable for maximum density of the property. The developer was asking for ninety-six. He felt the property value was a legitimate concern for the neighbors and developers. He stated the surrounding units were as high or higher than the proposed building. Mr. Ward stated the variance asked for was a minimum and not based on the applicant's desire to realize a larger dollar return. He felt the smaller units would decrease the value of the property and that of the neighboring properties. Mr. Ward suggested the Development Code Adjustment Board reached their verdict without knowledge of heights of the neighboring buildings and this building would actually be shorter than surrounding properties. Proceedings concluded at 10:34 a.m. by Hearing Officer Johnston.