10/20/1982r
t
? 1 ? ,
? ? ? >
d
?..
g7 ?1 y ? ; ? #???`tL?:?.?.t?.l kl ts:? `l? ,,
•??,i
ACTION AGENDA - BUILDING'/>'.f'1,UU1) CONTROL BOARD, O F
ADJUSTMENT h APPEAL - ?lctober 20' 1982
4:. A G E N I) A i
CASES • HEARD
1 !
1. John A. Birchfield - 2.65 varlill)COu. 1. Granted'.
Coastal Construction Code, Secatiull
3906 - Flood Control j
2. I
Inverness Condominium - varianco
2.
Withdrawn
from Standard Building Code, Such- Lon
1104.4(b). Alternate design of I
air conditioning sy4item.
OTHER BUSINESS
'1. Minutes of Wednesday, Sept:embur 1. Approved as
15, 1982 submitted.
I
' I
• I
ACTION ACU+NUA - 10 20/82,
rJ ?ti ii ,1 ? ?? S.#c•` / ?? ?? irk
r
C, l Z' Y [ F C L' L !? I3 W A. `I' E
P 0 5 T QFFI[:k: kk01( 474
CL.E_APWA'I E=R. F•L..OPODA 33510
1011
TER 1011
December 1, 1982
Mr. Richard W. Cope
C/o 1988. Gulf-fro-Bay Blvd.
Post Office Box-6600
Clearwater, Florida 33518
Rd:. Lot 230 Mandalay Point Subdivision
1188 Eldorado
Dear Mr. Cope:
Your request for a variance from the Coastal
'Construction Code, Section 3901 was considered at
a meeting of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals
on'Building/Flood control at City Hall Annex on
Wednesday, November 24, 1982.
Your request, as follows, has been granted:
Variance of approximately 8.0 ft. below flood plain
to construct garage and raise the existing grade
to approximately 11.0 ft. at entry level.
Very truly yours,
, Secretary of
. J, AyiL
rd justment and Appeals
oa
Building/Flood Control
RJA/jj
cc: Peter Marich
410 Pegasus Avenue
Clearwater, Florida 33515
"Equal Employment and Affirmative Action Empioyer"
.r
December 1, 1982
.Mr. Richard W. Cope
c/o ' 1988 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd.
Post office Box 6600
Clearwater,' Florida 33518
Re: Lot 23, Mandalay Point Subdivision
1188 Eldorado .
V Dear Mr. Cope
k' - Your' request for a .variance. from the Coastal
Construction Dode, Section 3901 was considered at
.a meeting of the bohrd of Adjustment and Appeals
on Building/Flood control, at City Hall Annex on
Wednesday,,Nove'mber 24:', 1982.
Your request, as follows, has been granted:
Variance'of approximately 8.0 ft. below'flood,plain
to-construct garage and raise the existing grade
fmoapproximately 11.0 ft.-at entry level.
Very truly yours,
R. J: Ayrf-s, Secretary of
Board of Adjustment and Appeals
_.'.' Building/Flood Control
RJA/jj
cc: Peter Marich
410 Pegasus Avenue ;
Kee..:` Clearwater, Florida 33515
T1
1f C ,
ACTION AGENDA -- BUILDING/FLOOD CON'T'ROL BOARD OL',
' 'ADJUSTMENT &,APPEAL _ October 20, 1982
A G E N D A
CASES HEARD
1. John A. Birchfield -'2.55 variance. 1. Granted
Coastal Construction Code, Section,,
3906 - Flood Control
2'." Inverness Condominium _ variance 2. Withdrawn
from Standard Building Code, Section
1104.4(b).-'Alternate design of
air conditioning.system,
OTHER BUSINESS
1. Minutes o€ Wednesday, September 1. Approve'ed'as' '
15, 1982 submitted.
i .
BOARD OF ADJUSIMEW' & APPEAL
BUILDING/FLOOD CONTROL
Wednesday, October 20, 1982
Members'Present:
Mr. John Batstone, Chairman
Mr. John Logan
Mr. Edward Walker
Mr. Joseph Straub'
Mr. R. J. Ayres, Board Secretary
Member absent:
Mr..John A. Cornett
Also r s t
p e en ? ?' ? ..?
Mr. Ken'Palmer - Plumbing/Mechanical Inspector
Mr. John Chester - Fire Inspector
Mrs. Doris Carroza, 780 Eldorado Avenue, Citizen
The meeting was called to order in the Operations'Center, City
Hall Annex by Chairman Batstone at 2:00 p.m.
Case I - John A. Birchfield, 775 Eldorado Avenue, Clearwater'Beach.
Permit 9858D was issued to Mr. Birchfield on August 26, 1982 for
construction of an open porch, approximately 400 square feet, on a
cement slap, with cement block support posts, and for the extension
of an existing rafter, with built-up roof. When construction was-
nearly completed, the City inspector observed the addition exceeded
approved permit by making a substantial addition rather than a simple
.roofover by enclosing exterior walls with block. Mr. Birchfield must
therefore'request a 2.65 ft. variance be granted by the Board to allow
this addition to remain as presently construct-Ion.
Mrs. Doris Carroza of 780 Eldorado appeared at the meeting.'to speak in
opposition to granting of variance. Mrs. Carroza's'written state-
ment is included in the file. Questions by board members indicated
Mrs. Carroza's fear was that the plan was to convert the residence
at 776 to a duplex dwelling and was assured that this was not the'in-
tent; further it would not be within this Board's authority to grant
such a request.
The addition in question does not have plumbing or electrical power,
and to build at a higher elevation would not be aesthetically com-
patible with surrounding homes.
Motion.by Mr. Logan that it is within the Board's authority to act upon
the request for variance from the flood insurance regulation for this
structure located at 776 Eldorado Avenue and' moved for a decision by
the Board to grant the 2.65 variance requested. Motion seconded by
Mr. Walker and carried unanimously.
10/20/82
' 1 l., CIF i 'S,?I ' `! , ,f ? +? ? .. 11 ?''? ?•
, ? . ''1 .. J r??? ? rte'. ?¦?1
Board of Adjustment & ?xppeal
Building/Flood Control
October 20, 1982
Page ,2
1
In connection with this case Mr. Logan questioned whether a flood
control variance was actually needed. This appears to be a minor addition
representing less than 10% of the total value of the house. Mr. Ayres will
check into this further.
Case II Inverness Condominium, Building 6, Village Drive - Mr. Sam Spears,
Frank M. Bosworth Architecture, Inc., and Mr. Bob Morgan, Airtron, Inc
represented the developer.
Inasmauch as there was some doubt as to the Building Department's interpre-
tation of the code, this case was discussed between the Board members,
Messrs.?Ayres, Palmer and Chester before Messrs. Spears and Morgan entered
the meeting. The City Building Department had ruled that the access
corridor could not be used as a return air plenum and that the developer
would have to redesign his system and secure a variance from the board to
permit use of the modified design. After considerable discussion and re-
view of the plans, it was the opinion of the Board that the City's inter-
pretation of Section 1104.4 of the Building Code had not considered that
adjacent areas (offices) were separated from the corridor by doors, thus
removing them as sources of return air. The Board concluded that-the plans
as submitted complied with code and that a variance was not necessary. The
Board ruled that the air-cooled hallway can be used as a plenum since the
air would be pulled from only that one area and not from adjoining areas.
Mr. Spears and Mr. Morgan entered the meeting. Mr. Spears advised board
that plans had been submitted, permits issued and construction approximately
70% complete at this condominium when they were informed by our City In-
spector that they were in violation of Section 1104.4 of the Building
Code. In view of this, modifications of the design incorporating the
use of smoke detectors were made up for submission to the Board for
variance approval so that construction could resume without a total and
complete redesign of the system.
Mr. Spears submitted a copy of a letter he had received from Southern
Building Code Congress, who, after reviewing the original plans, con-
firmed that they did meet the requirements of the code. However, Mr.
Spears stated he was willing to cooperate with the City all possible so
that this project could be completed without undue delay. At this point
Mr. Walker informed Mr. Spears and Mr. Morgan that it was within the
Board's authority to determine whether or not a variance is needed and
it was their ruling that in this instance a variance was not necessary and
that the original plans are in compliance with code. Messrs. Ayres,
Palmer and Chester concurred with the Board's opinion and advised that
the "red tag" would be removed and the developer will withdraw his re-
quest for variance, and.he application fee of $10.00 will be refunded.
Minutes of the meeting of September 15, 1.982 were approved as
written.
ing ad urned at 3:15 p. m.
ne, unairman
--? - 2 -
?,# cording S etary
10/20/82
,
•
? •
l
, .. •
?k??? ?Y
r. X11
°d
t t 1 •
+
{. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT & APPEALS '
BUILDING/FLOOD CONTROL
,. Wednesday, October1962 2. P. M..
A G E Nln A
! Cases to'be heard -
1. INVERNESS'CONDOMINIUM,.'B1dg. 6, Village Drive
+ Owner - U, S. Home Corporation
Representative -- Mr. S. Spears (Frank M. Bosworth
Architecture, Inc., k
Variance from Standard Bldg. Code,Sec. 1104.4(b)
to, allow alternate design of ' air condi.toni.ng
system:
2. JOHN A'. BIRCHFIELD, 776 Eldorado, Mandalay Sub.
Owner - John. Bi
rchfi.elc7
.
Variance from Sec. 3906, Coastal Construction
Code; 2,65 variance to allow finished floor level...
at 9.35, feet.
Other Business }
1. Review of Minutes of Wednesday, September 15, 1982.
a
+.•'r .: s ., ... .. S
,
.. ,. .. , /• I , . : .;, R _.?? ikat M,t .°
' • • .r '•• 1. ?'.
I lr.S„t?i{k/
...,rte.
! October 21, 1982
i
'.Dr. John A. Bir" chfiel.d i. .
;.: 6502 .11oodlynn Avenue
Tampa, Florida .;3361A
it 3 , .. ..
Re:.:776-Eldorado Avenue, Clearwater, Florida
Dear' Dr. Birchf ield : ' ' , .
Your request for a variance 'was considered at - ' . '
a meeting of; the Board of; Adjustment and Appeal on 1
Building/Flood Control held at City Hall.'Annex on.
' li
October 20,. 1982:
,
" Your request, as follows, has, been granted:
2.65 variance to permit con--'
'struction'of approximately 400,
square ft. porch, addition to ,
existing dwelling below.minimum .'
flood plain.
Very truly yours,,
R. J. Ayres, Sectetary
..Board'-of Adjustment & Appeal ,
Building/Flood Control
' r 7
RTA/,jj'
r.
,4 ? 1, .
- e
a
11053 QF 1- IV E 130x 4740
GLEARWAVITIR, FLORIDA 33510
October 27, 1982
Mr. Samuel O. Spears
Prank M. Bosworth 'Architecture, Inc.
1002 South Tort Harrison Avenue
Clearwater, Florida 33516
Re: Inverness Condominium, Building 6, Village Drive
Dear Mr, Spears:
In its meeting of Wednesday,' October 20, 1982, the Building/
Flood Board of Adjustment and Appeal ruled that a variance from
the code was not necessary in the case of Inverness Condominiums,'
Building 6, Village Drive. The basis for their ruling was a re-
interpretation of Section 3.104.4 of the Standard Building Code,
as explained in the following excerpt from'the Board minutes:
Inasmuch as there was some daubs: as to the Building
Department's interpretation of:'the code:, this case
was discussed between the Hoard members, Messrs.
Ayres, Palmer and Chester before Messrs. Spears and
Morgan entered the meeting. The City Building Depart-
ment had ruled that the access corridor could not be'
used as a return air plenum , -ind
that the developer
would have to redesign his system and-secure a
'variance from the board to permit use of the
modified design. After considerable: discussion
and review of the plans, it was the opinion of the
Board that the City's interpretation of. Section
1104.4 of the Building Code had not considered that
adjacent areas' (offices) were separated from the
' Corridor by doors, thus removing them as sources
of return air. The Board concluded that the plans
as submittedcomplied with code and that a variance
was not necessary. The Board ruled that the air
cooled hallway can be used as a,plenum since the
air would be mulled from only ghat one area and not
from adjoining areas.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Very truly yours,
r
R. A es, Secretary
Board of Adjustment and Appeal
RJA/jj
. "Fquol Employment and Affirmative Action Employer."
.. ........ ?} .• . ... ?t',ts?P St':i?•?ti?:*?e7ii?lix:si7ic?tty3r.c
IN
,. 'M
IM
{