Loading...
04/01/1987r ? ?. ?a„h - : t ?` ? a ?'. its y . ' • ' r , . r > 0. s z low UJ h: S Ix y :..G yH r a: -? ?1? ? Eli ;7 04 iU ° c a Jil m 00 uj A. x N 0 z M H ^ C ? ci z t co 2 z z c i w ? w .{ GI' { U), cn CD CC I-- 0 cm O, !? a Co U w ' . z m o M W N ui O ?} M co In Qf C 1 ? Q7 tC' M m to ?- 2 P LiJ c Pd ?• ob u z uj F- H LL S U O GPs?RR ' v7 ~ r7 ? E-? ? 1 C] 0 CL' M U U LU C) cl 04 C) >4 U) '' F+ oao U r -1 CL ? ? NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ' Board of Adjustment and Appeal on Building/Flood Control .Annex Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 10 South,Missouri, Avenue-' Wednesday, April It 1957 at 2:00 p.m. To oonsider the following requests: 1. 2590 U. S. 19, North (Plymouth Plaza)- variance from Standard Building Code, Section 703.11.5, to equip'fire doors with approved olosors at entrances to the two stairwells in the garage. I 2. 590 U. S. 19, North (Lechmere)- variance from Standard Building Code, Table 1100, requiring that the facility be built as a Type II Construction Classification due to an upper level non--public accessory office use of 7,100'6quare feet. A Type IV, Unprotected, Classification is requested. :,. 3. 822 Eldorado Avenue (Roins)- variance from Coastal Construction Code, Chapter 39, for construction withhin 18 ft.,from seawall. I Florida Statute 286.0105 states:. Any person appealing a decision of this,, Board must have a record of the proceedings to support such an appeal. Citizens' may appear to be heard or file written notice of approval or objection with the Building Director, P.' 0. Box 117118; Clearwater, Florida, 33515, prior'' to appropriate-Public Hearing. I. City of Clearwater Cynthia E. Goudeau, City Clerk 3/27/87 €i? '". NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING 1 Boa'rd'of Adjustment and Appeal on Building/Flood Control, Annex ' Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 10 South Missouri Avenue. Wednesday, April 1, 1'987, at ,2:00' p.m. To consider the following requests: 1. 2590 U. S. 19, North (Plymouth Plaza) .. variance from Standard Building Code, Section 703.4.5,to equip fire doors with approved ; closers'at entrances to the two stairwells in the garage. 2. .590 U.' S. ,19, North (Lechmere) -.variance from Standard Building Code, Table 400, requiring that the facility be built as a Type II Construction Classification due to an upper level non-public accessory office use of 7,100 square feet. A Type IV, Unprotected, Classification is requested.'. Florida Statute 286.0105 states: Any person appealing a decision of this Board must have a record of the proceedings to support such appeal. Citizens may appear to be'heard or file written notice of approval or objection with the Building Director, P.,O. Box 4748, Clearwater, Florida, '33518, prior to appropriate Public Hearing. ' Adv. Cynthia E. Goudeau,'City Clerk YOU ARE BEING'SENT THIS NOTICE IF YOU ARE THE APPLICANT OR OWN PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FT. OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. : 1 , J. F CITY O F C L E A R W A T E R POST OFFICE BOX 4748 1'EACLEARWATER,r-LORIDA 33518-4748 ER .. °orrlce or ' Building Director ! March 25, 1987. Mr. John H: Logan, Jr. 1108 Eldridge Street C1 eaniater, FL 33515 Dear Mr. Logan: ! HOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL '-.'13UILDING/FLOOD CONTROL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ! A meeting of your Board to hear the cases as described in the attached Notice' of Public Bearing has been scheduled to'be held in the Annex Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 10 South Missouri Avenue"on: Wednesday, April 1, 1987, at 2;00 p.m. Applicants have been duly notified and will „ ''.be present at this meeting to'present their re- for variances. quests Very truly yours? Andrew B. O ferr Acting Director Building,lnspection'Department ' a J / .i 1 "E9'uaIKat play'menI and Ajrlr.malh,e Action tmplnyar" F 1, ? .•1[ , ` !.'. r CITY 0F CLEARWATER, ? - POST OF=FICE IlOX 4748 ?Af?R?0 CLEARWATER,I:LOILIDA 33518-4748 Of (let of Building Director March 25, 1987 Mr. Edward M. Walker Walker & Associates.Architects, P. A.- 2535 Landmark Drive Clearwater, FL 33519 Dear Mr. Wal ker: HOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL , 13UiLDZNG/FLOOD CONTRAL , NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING A meeting of your Board to hear the cases , as described-in the attached Notice.of Public Hearing has been scheduled to be held'in the Annex Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 10 South Missouri Avenue on: Wednesday, April 1, 1987, at 2:00-p.m. .'Applicants have been duly notified and will be 'present at this meeting to present their re- quests.for variances. Very truly yours, ?-o7 Andrew B. O fer, Acting Director Hui.ldi.rig inspection Department. ii/ "F.yuaf Imployis ent -and. AjjirmaIive Action FmpIoyar," <„VA I . -us ;Y .??.."]P wlt ,' 1 CITY 4F CLEARWA TER POST OFFICE DOX 4748 ?7ATEQ4 pit CLEARWATEK,FLORIDA 33518•-,4748 office of Building Director March 25, 1987 Per. Joseph Straub ' Curtis & Gross Builders, Inc. 314 S. Missouri, Suite 300 Clearwater, FL 33516 Bear Mr.. Straub: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL _ BUILDING/FLOOD CONTROL_ -` NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING, , A meeting of, your Board to hear the cases as described in the attached Notice of Public Hearing has been scheduled'to be held in the Annex Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 10 South' Missouri Avenue on: Wednesday, April 1, 1987, at 2:00 p.m. Applicants have been duly notified and,will be present at this meeting to, present their re- quests for variances. Very truly yours, Andrew B. O fer? Acting Director Building Inspection Department j7/ Ct "li7uuIRml?loymanf and Affir.moffve.Arflon h`ml+lo?•or" LL? F r• 4y r i Lo; rq. ,.!! CITY' Q.F CL-EARWATER'. ??" ?Q• - F POST OFFICE BOX 4748 CLEARWATER.,FLORIDA 33518-'4748 ?EA?;,1 Office of Building Dlrecfor March 25, 1987 Mr. Henry St.. Jean Williams Architects, Chartered , 1445`Caurt Street Clearwater, FL 33516 Dear Mr. St. Jean BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL BUILDING/FLOOD CONTROL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING A meeting of your Board to hear the cases as described in the attached Notice of Public Hearing'has been scheduled to.be held in the Annex Conference Room,-City Hall Annex', 10 South Mi'sso'uri Avenue on: Wednesday, April 1,' 1987, at 2:00 p.m. Applicants have been,duly notified and will be present at this meeting to present their're-- quests for variances. Very truly yours, Andrew B. 0 fer, Acting Director Building Inspection Department r 7]/ Ct F 1 i f • { "EquaIEniplaymais t and Affirmative Action Employer" ` I. r ROM a?"1':'1;: .. ...•.., t,, .,:??re? '_lsr•:C°r; 4:..'rx ,, ,,, ..,.. ....'f'. .' . !, ', , 1 , ' ' • "`awl'`'' C1+TY O F C L E A RWATER 4C POST OFFICE BOX 4748 CLEARWATER,FLORIDA 33518-4748 ATE,,? Office of ' Bulldin4 Director , March 25, 1987. Mr. Andy-Nicholson George F. Young Co. .299 - 9th Street, North St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Dear Mr-Nicholson. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL r HUILDING/FLOOD CONTROL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ' k meeting of your Board to hear the,cases as- ,described in the attached Notice of Public Hearing has been scheduled to be held in the Annex-Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 10 South j Missouri Avenue on: 'F Wednesday, Apr3I I , 1987, at 2:00 p.m. t Applicants have been duly notified and will be present at this meeting'to present their're- quests for variances. Very truly yours', Andrew B. O fer, Acting Director. Building Inspection Department ji/ Ct' ' i •I r "EquuI Fnll?ioynlrtif Ind rl'flirn?ath-e Artir+n Employer" l S. j ! 7 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT' & APPEAL BUILDING/FLOOD CONTROL 4/1/87 Members resent: John H. Logan, Jr., Chairman Edward H. Walker Joseph Straub Hank St. Jean A. M. Nicholson Also present: Philip J. Bennis Victor Chodora' James Goodloe, Lire,Department Chairman Logan called the meeting to.order at 2:05 p.m. Three 'cases on" the agenda to be heard. ?'• Plymouth Plaza, 2590 U. S. 19, North - requesten g a variance from Standard Building Code, Section 703.4.5; to equip fire•doors with approved closers at entrance to the two stairwells in the garage.. ,I Representatives:' Ed'Armstrong, Attorney representing Plymouth Development Gerard Altro, President of Plymouth Development Corporation Bob Spanos, Construction Manager Mr. Armstrong presented his case to the Board explaining that Plymouth Plaza consists of.two office buildings and a four-story, open parking structure between them. Variance requested to weigh the requirement of the Building Code and the Life Safety Code which requires fire doors in the two stairways in the parking garage; this '.is'justified because the'Qarking garage is an open air parking garage i and by,the very nature of being a parking garage, it is a concrete structure, and vehicles. There really would be nothing,in'the parking garage to maintain a fire. If a fare were to break out, any people who would be on one of the higher floors could always go to the other stairwell where the two elevator systems, which are on the north,side of the building, are. The open air structure provides excellent ventilation to allow smoke to escape, and.the parking spaces are not immediately adjacent to the stairwells. They do not believe the health, safety, and. welfare of the citizens of Clearwater would require that the fire doors be installed: Mr`. Armstrong stated that when his clients were-looking at building a parking garage, they went around and looked at the City's parking garages to-see how they'handled this issue. Mr'. Armstrong provided photographs showing the City's Park Street Parking Garage does not have, the fire doors either, and it,was concluded by the applicant that that must'be because the City,•agaiin, recognized the appropriateness .of the applicant's argument which is that the fire doors really don'.t' serve a valid-purpose in an open air parking garage,.and they think that . the,code really doesn't address the peculiarities of a building such as that. Pictures submitted for the record. i l ' I BOARD Or ADJ. & APPEAL BUILDING/FLOOD CONTROL 9/1/87 Page. 2 Mr. Logan questioned if the parking garage was already built. ?Mr. Armstrong answered "yes,it is". Mr. Logan questioned "your plans, apparently, didn't indicate that,the doors were required." Mr. Armstrong answered "that's correct". Mr. Chodora stated that the architectural plans had the doors on them {fire rated doors with closers}. Mr. Armstrong introduced Hob Spanos, the construction manager. Mr. Spanos stated that his understanding was that when . they submitted the plans it was brought to their attention to add the fire doors and the closers and that it would be discussed at a hater point. They were added and are on the plans. Plans of the' Plymouth Plaza Parking Garage were submitted and.reviewed by the Board. Discussion ensued on locations of stairwells and.e.levators. Mr. Armstrong stated that if there were to be a fire it would be very unlikely that it would impede traffic through a stairwell. There would be three other alternative ways for someone to reach the around level. Mr. Chodora stated that there would be one; elevators are not a,legal means of euress.. Mr: Armstrong stated that as a practical-matter, if the garage is`on tire, someone would use an elevator. Mr. Chodora stated that the elevator would go down to the ground floor and be useless.,' Mr. St. Jean asked what the reason was for the applicant opposing,the installation of the doors. Mr. Armstrong stated that they think it is unnecessary because it serves no-purpose. They think the.'code is applying to a typical office building or situation such as that, but by the very nature,.a parking garage is a'very low fare risk situation. Mr. St. Jean disagreed, stating that a storage structure is the highest classification you can have. Mr. Armstrong also cited the City not providing the doors,. and economic reasons.' Mr..Nicholson stated that the City is required to go through normal permitting process like any.other private citizen. if there was a waiver of the doors in manner consistent-with the applicant's, he would like: to look at that record. If it was missed by oversight, perhaps the City should go back and reconsider, but the fact that it is not on a City. structure, in and of itself,- doesn't have any merit in this case. Mr..''Logan asked if the stairwells themselves are enclosed. Mr. Armstrong stated that they were not. Mr. Chodora stated that they were separated from the parking structure. Pictures of the stairwell of the Plymouth Building were submitted.by Mr. Armstrong. Discussion ensued about the stairwells and use of the structure. Mr. Logan asked if there were any more comments-from the City. Mr. Chodora stated that Mr. Armstrong was referring to the'Park Street Parking Garage on which the doors.were eliminated. The Garden Street Garage has fare doors .with closers on all floors with stairways very similar to the project in question. Mr. Chodora stated that the Life Safety Code would still have to be dealt with, which this Hoard would not have the 'author'ity to make any judgements on.' • r' BOARD OF ADJ. & APPEAL BUILDING/FLOOD, 4/1/87 Page 3 r r Mr. Logan asked for an opinion,from the Fire Department. Mr. Goodloe stated that he was in agreement with the Building Department. Mr. Logan asked if the original plans showed the,fi.re doors'as on the plans submitted to the Board. Mr. Armstrong answered that the original plans did not show the fire doors and that an amendment was submitted which later showed the inclusion of the fire doors. Mr. Chodora stated that that was incorrect. tie stated that the notes he had to the architect were that the door closers will be required on.all fire doors that were shown on the drawings. The fire doors were originally shown on the drawings for the building; the only thing lie added were•.the closers. Discussion ensued as to why the doors were not put on.-Mr. Armstrong stated that they do not have a C. O. yet and that they do not want to put the doors on. 'Discussion ensued as to classification of parking garages, and the code'as to the fire hazard classification. Discussion ensued as to the City garages and°the reason for the doors not being installed at Park Street. Mr. St. Jean stated that the two situations could not be compared as being the same. The storage structure is the highest category and requires the highest degree of separation. Mr. Logan asked for any further discussion. Mr. Nicholson stated that, in'the situation he has seen this being.used is that a fire will stay on the second level. Somebody learns' about that on the fourth level and tries to go down the staircases; to'keep them insulated from that fire on the second level to get'to the first level and out. If that door is not there,'and flames are entering that area, he would have to go all the way back up and across or jump two or three stories in order to have a safe exit. F: Mr. Chodora added that besides the doors, this is a precast structure and there are gaps between where the joints come together of 1/2 to 3/4 } of-an inch, which are also going to have to be filled.to maintain a 2-hour rating, 2-hour separation between the stairs and the garage. Mr. Nicholson stated that the benefit of not installing the doors is to save on the construction cost of doinq it, and asked if there was any major hardship in installing the doors that is intrinsic in the design'of the structure. Mr. Spanos stated in the affirmative because they are precast, and to mount the doors it would shatter the precast, and they wouldn't know that until they started to mount the doors. Discussion ensued about the effect the installation of the doers would have on the building. Mr. Walker stated that the stairs are on the outside, if it was inside they couldn't have it open on the other sides. Maintaining a separation is a valid requirement. Mr. Nicholson stated that by installing the doors the stairwell would be available as an'eme,rgency exit and it would not 'be without the doors, and the structure is safer with the doors. Mr. St. Jean asked if the building was sprinklered. It was answered that it is not, and does not,require sprinklers because it is an open parking structure. A, ' Via. I ' y r' . ?.L? BOARD OF ADJ. &'APPEAL BUILDING/FLOOD 4/1/87,' Page 4 Mr. Logan asked for any more discussion before asking for a motion. No discussion. Chairman Logan callec'for a motion. Motion made by Member Nicholson - "With regard to the request for a variance from the Building Code, as required in Section 703.4.5, where it was requested by Plymouth Development Corporation to weigh the requirements for fire doors and closers, the Board finds it within its authority to act upon the request, and denies the variance request, based on the fact that the safety utility value of the staircase.is restored or enhanced by the addition of the doors. It is, in fact, changed by the doors." Motion seconded by Mr. St. Jean and upon vote carried unanimously. Variance denied. Lechmere Store/Clearwater Collection Shop-ping Center, 590 U. S. 19, North'.-- requesting a variance to the Building Code requiring that the facility be built as a Type II Construction Classification due to an upper level non-public accessory office use of 7,100 square feet. A Type IV, Unpro- tected, Classification is requested. Representatives: ' Lindell. Sherrill, Fischer Associates Terry Herr,,Fischer Associates Frank R. Mudano, Mudano Architects Jim Selman, Lechmere Mr. Sherrill presented his case stating that the applicant is appealing !'. the Type II construction classification as outlined by the 1985 Standard Building Code. The reason for appealing this is two--fold; one, there is an inequity in the Code in that it covers mall buildings in allowing them substantially greater square footages, story heights, etc. By virtue ,'.,o£ the mezzanine being classified as a second floor, they are being unfairly restricted on this. The other reason for the appeal is that there is a business hardship associated with the storage function and operation with going to the Type Il construction. To demonstrate why the Type II construction classification was designated for this building, is the 1985'Standard Building Code's definition of the term "mezzanine"'. Up until the 1985•Code, mezzanine has had a relatively loose definition, less than a third of the total, square feet of the room in which it is placed, and that allowed local officials to make an interpretation and have some latitude. The 1985 Code's definition is very specifically spelled out in the terms of what a mezzanine is. If they were to abide by the 1985 Code's.mezzanine definition, they feel that they would have serious business hardships associated with it. Such as sound control. They have an employee breakroom, locker rooms, etc., which need to be concealed and private. They have environmental considerations. There is in-store computer equipment that needs to be concealed away from the public and environmentally controlled at all times. There is also the security issue of cash rooms and'employee lockers that would be open to the sales-floor. There is an inequity in the Code because it allows a covered mall to exist upwards to three stories, unlimited square footage$, Type IV construction,, and their application in this instance is much safer for Life Safety reasons, to the public and also to the property. i 1 a W... W" . , rv. BOARD OF ADJ.-& APPEAL BUILDING/FLOOD 4/1/67 Page 5 The structure is very open, surrounded by the minimum 60 feet. All existing requirements have been met. The entire building is sprinklered. They have a high bay stock area that'is sprinklered. Code being met for fire alarms, enunciator panels, strobes, to notify the public of danger of fire. As it stands right now,.it could go in a mall.without any problem whatsoever. But because it is a single story open shopping center environment, the Code has unfairly penalized it. Mr. Sherrill submitted a plan showing the location of the mezzanine. Ground floor of the building is 65,000 square feet (sales floor), with the high bay' stock area and loading dock behind all along it. The mezzanine level is above the.building, with-the area in question being 7,000 square feet, less than 10% of the total building area.' I M Mr. Mudano interjected that the mezzanine area is non-public oriented. It is for the exclusive use of employees'and is the office area for the .larger facility, so, in,effect, it is mixed use. The area is not' accessible for-public use. Mr. St.-Jean asked'if the percentage is not exceeded that puts it in a classification as a mezzanine. Mr. Sherrill answered, "No, the percentage is 33%, and they &re less than 10%." Mr. St. Jean asked if they do exceed the 10% of the enclosed space on the mezzanine. Mr. Sherrill answered, "That's true. The other part of the mezzanine definition is that all of that has to be open to the room in which it is located, and the way this plan is configured, we would have to revise the building plan completely to accommodate that code requirement:" Discussion ensued about the definition of the code and that it creates a financial hardship. It will cost $204,000 to bring'the entire building up to the Type IS construction. All other requirements of the code are met. Mr. Mudano stated.that if this were a mixed occupancy, cut up into small shops, as a mall, it could be Type IV, Sprinklered, and that the code didn!t intend that to happen. Mx. Walker stated that somewhere you need to draw the line between a mall and a commercial store or there is no reason to make a definition and there is something wrong in the basic code that defines the difference between a mall and a store, and where you draw that line is the subject of the discussion. That may be the problem in the code. The argument is pretty good here for this one not being in that more stringent category, Somewhere there`s still got to,be a line drawn. Mr. Mudano stated that malls are limitless in square footage, and there is no'differentiation'' between the stores and the public areas. It is all classed as malls. Discussion ensued regarding the code as to the number of stories in this building. Mr. Mudano stated that the code says that if the building is sprinklered, three stories of offices could be added onto this and it could all be Type IV construction, but because it has a mezzanine, not. a second floor, that it changes. Mr. St. Jean asked if that portion of the mezzanine is separated by walls from the remainder. The'answer being "yes". ., a ?? ,f l BOARD OF ADJ. & APPEAL BUILDING/FLOOD 4/1/.87 Page 6 Mr. St.'Jean asked if it had a 'separate entrance. The answer being no, it does not." Mr. St.-Jean then stated it is questionable whether it is even a mezzanine. Mr. Chodora stated that the Building Department is saying that it is a second floor, because it does not meet the new definition of a mezzanine. Discussion ensued as to why this was put in the code. Mr. Chodora stated that he estimated that it.was to more define what a mezzanine is. Mr. Sherrill interjected that he would imagine that the term "mezzanine" has been subject to interpretation for'many, many years. It has been very, very loose, and this was an ' effort to.nail that down-a little more. There'is no room in that now for interpretation. Mr. St. Jean asked what percentage is enclosed. Mr. Sherrill stated that it is 100% enclosed. Mr. Logan asked for comments from the Building,Department. Mr. Chodora stated that it was turned down•because they called it a second story because of the definition in.the'code•book of what a mezzanine is. It is 1/3 of the floor area that it is open to. He said that, he talked to the Fire Marshal about it and they agreed that the only true mezzanine are the two gray portions (on the drawing). The two spaces combined equal about 1/3 of that open space. Under the Code, they are allowed to build a.Type IV, Unprotected, fully sprinklered building, of mercantile, as long as they have 60 feet of open space all the way around, with unlimited space, and because of this second floor, they now lose that exceptib n. Even if it is considered a mixed occupancy structure, we still have to go by the-one-story rule as far as you are only limited to one story for Type IV, Unprotected, fully sprinklered, with unlimited area, whether it is mercantile, business, etc. Mr. Sherrill.stated'that in order to change this to get,it'open would require major structural modifications'and it would change the function of the'building. Mr. Walker asked-if glass could be put around the mezzanine.. Mr. Sherrill stated that the mezzanine floor slab is about 5 feet below the 'structure of'the sales floor; what could be done is to strip a window on there to look out onto it. Discussion ensued Gs.to why the code was changed. Mr.•Mudano reiterated that.this same type of building has been constructed and is occupied six times, and in other jurisdictions that are,using the Standard Building Code. :.•' Mr. St. Jean asked for a comment from the fire Department. Mr. Goodloe said•that they would support,any position that the Building Department would take. Further discussion ensued regarding'previously mentioned items. Mr. Mudano mentioned another instance where this same thing occurred with a building located in the County. e 1 r'M I f I • BOARD OF ADJ. & APPEAL'. BUILDING/FLOOD 4/1/87 Page 7 Mr. Logan asked for any further,discussion, he stated'that he really didn't see too much of a problem here. Mr. St. Jean asked if the Fire Department;, felt comfortable with the sprinkler system'being adequate for this type of situation. Mr. Goodloe answered "yes" stating that that was just his opinion. Discussion ensued about asking the Building Code Congress to review, problems such as this for the future. This case will be treated a's a. variance so as to not'set a precedent. Chairman Logan asked kor a motion. Motion made by Member Walker - "I move that the Board finds it within its authority to act upon the request, and hereby. grants the request of Lechmere Stores, 590'U.,S. 19, N., Clearwater, Florida." Motion seconded by Mr.-St. Jean and upon vote carried unanimously. Mr. Nicholson further verified that the variance is for a Type IV construction rather than Type xx;.and that is the sole action the Board is undertaking. Variance granted. 822 Eldorado - requesting a variance to repour existing concrete slab at the re;ai of the property after necessary repairs to seawall. 'Mrs. Fisk, Pinellas Marine Constr., Inc., represented the`property,owner, Mrs. Louise Roins. This woman had a seawall repair done by another seawall company and was not done properly, and it was determined by Mr.-Fisk that the slab would have to be removed in order to repair the seawall. There are no tie-backs in the seawall, and the owner has been required,by the,City to put the-tie-backs in. Mr. Nicholson stated that there should be markings on the slab as to where the tie-backs are and a provision to be able to periodically check the condition of the soil. Member Nicholson requested to make a motion -- "With regard to the request for a variance from the contractor, Pinellas Marine Construction, working at 822 Eldorado Ave., that the request for a variance from Chapter 39, Coastal Construction Code, in order to allow construction of decking.' within 18 feet of the seawall, this Board has the authority to act upon the request, and grants the variance to allow a slab to be constructed within the full 18 feet of .the setback area right up.to the seawall cap, with the stipulation that the seawall cap be marked, identifying the location of the''tie-backs and that on 20 foot on,center that they provide some kind of small inspection port." Motion seconded-by or. Straub. Mr. St. Jean asked that a modification be added to read the "replacement slab" instead of the "slab". All members were in agreement. Chairman Logan asked for further discussion. No .further discussion..'. Motion carried unanimously.' Variance granted. e sk.. •, If;n?r? 4 '' ,? a???'?f. ?a •7l •. . ?':f? r.'r:. .:?