Loading...
01/10/2001BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEAL ON BUILDING/FLOOD CONTROL MEETING CITY OF CLEARWATER January 10, 2001 Present: John H. Logan, Jr. Chair Michael D. Corcoran Board Member Carroll Nall, Jr. Board Member Edward H. Walker, Jr. Board Member Absent: Pankaj Shah Board Member Also Present: Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Kevin Garriott Building Official Bill Wright Building Construction Inspector II Brenda Moses Board Reporter The Chair called the meeting to order at 2:02 p.m. at the Municipal Services Building. To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. ITEM #A - Approval of Minutes – November 8, 2000 Member Nall moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of November 8, 2000, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #B - Continued Requests – None. ITEM #C - New Requests 1) Case #BAA01-01 - 3000 Woodsong Lane, McCullough Development Corporation, Owner: James B. McCullough, Representative. Request variance on stairway riser height of 1/8 – ¼ Code Interpretation to permit uniform tread depth for combination straight and winder stairs. Parcel #21-28-16-99089-000-0210. James McCullough, representative, said he built the subject staircase. He was requested by the subcontractor to pay for the staircase. He had informed the subcontractor that the City first required an inspection. He said after discussions with the subcontractor and by virtue of the builder sending the City Inspector a letter to describe the work already performed, approval of the staircase would not be a problem. The contractor completed the staircase and sent a letter to the City Building Inspector but upon inspection, the staircase did not meet Code required dimensions. He said he hopes the existing staircase is salvageable, as it would be costly to tear it down and build a new one. He said in retrospect, he can understand why the building inspector denied the permit. The staircase was modified from a straight to a circular staircase with 17 risers. Mr. McCullough said the staircase was not “red tagged” by the first inspector because he was working with him to resolve the issue. He said Code requires the tread be consistent throughout the entire length of the staircase, and this one is not. Code addresses straight and winder staircases, not combination or custom staircases such as this one. The maximum riser height required by Code is 7 ¾ inches. This staircase was built with 8-inch risers. Mr. McCullough said he felt the staircase is not a safety hazard even though it deviates from the Code. He said there is a dominant number of straight treads versus winder treads. He felt the staircase makes reasonable use of the residence as required by Code, as it is a private residence and does not affect the public health, safety, and welfare. Building Official Kevin Garriott referred to a diagram of the originally proposed staircase versus the one constructed. The subject staircase includes inconsistent tread dimensions as required by Code. Mr. McCullough hopes staff will apply the general tread and riser section of the Code to the entire stair. Mr. McCullough said the contractor can reconstruct the treads to 10 inches for the entire length of the staircase and match the straight portion of the staircase without having to add another tread. On the winder portion of the staircase, the dimensions range between 9 1/2 to 10 inches as measured from the inside radius. He said the riser heights are uniform but are 1/8 to 1/4 inch higher than required by Code. It was remarked if the winders were considered spiral, there would be no problem. Mr. Garriott said this staircase does not meet the definition of a spiral staircase. Mr. McCullough said he could bring in the inside radius in order to measure from a new inside radius and get closer to the required 11 inches for the stringers. He said the riser height, caps, and railings could not be changed, as it would be too costly. The staircase is 44 inches wide and could be narrowed to 36 inches, while reducing the straight portion of the stair. In response to a question, Mr. Garriott said if the treads are safe, the risers are uniform, and as this is a private residence, he did not see the staircase as a huge problem, however it is not in his authority to approve the request as it violates Code. Building Inspector John Witkowski said Code addresses all stairs, not just those in private residences. Guests, construction workers, etc. would all be subject to the use of the staircase. The intent of Code is to provide consistency in height, depths of treads, and other dimensions of staircases for safety purposes. This staircase is in violation of Code. Mr. Witkowski said he felt the staircase should not be approved as it stands. Building Inspector Rob Ackerman concurred with Mr. Witkowski’s opinion that the staircase should not be approved as it stands. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said the staircase does meet the public health, safety, and welfare criteria in the Code. In response to a question, she said if this Board recommends approval of the applicant’s request and determines the staircase is not a safety hazard, the City would not be held liable for any legal ramifications related to the staircase. Discussion ensued regarding how the Code addresses combination staircases and if a substantial problem exists with this one. It was remarked the winders are not a substantial problem. Mr. Garriott reviewed the dimensions of the staircase. In response to a question, he said interpretation of the portion of Code relating to staircases is rare. It was remarked that only one other case came before the Board regarding a height variance, not a combination staircase in a private home. It was remarked that the combination of the two types of stairs makes this request less objectionable. Member Walker moved to grant the request for a variance to allow 8 inches in the stairway riser height and a variance in the winder portion of the stairway as requested for 3000 Woodsong Lane, based on the combination of stair types, the fact that this is a private residence, and that the owner should be able to adapt to the slight variances. This motion is limited to this case only. The motion was duly seconded. Mr. Garriott referred to the language in a letter from Mr. McCullough indicating that the standard codes adopted as written would not apply, and suggested the Board consider that language in their motion. Member Walker said he felt his motion would suffice. Upon the vote being taken, the motion carried unanimously. 2) Case #BAA01-02 - 222 Palm Island SW, Ginny Juhl, Owner; Robert Osborn, Representative. Request variance to allow a 14-foot setback I.L.O. 18-foot based on the confirmed location of seawall tiebacks for a swimming pool. Parcel #05-29-15-43416-000-0140 Robert Osborn, Freestyle Pools, said his opinion is based on past experience building swimming pools on waterfront properties. He said pools could be constructed 10 feet from a seawall if it the position of the tiebacks are verified and construction can occur at a safe distance from them. The tiebacks on this property are at a safe distance from the proposed construction, which is approximately 14.5 feet. Mr. Osborn said he has obtained verification of the location of the tiebacks from a seawall contractor and an engineer. The owner wishes to encroach into the 18-foot setback by less than 4 feet. Mr. Osborn said the sketch provided is accurate as to the location of tiebacks and the deadman. In response to a question, Mr. Osborn said there is a 12 to 18 inch grade change from the house to the seawall. Mr. Garriott said the Code sets criteria for construction in proximity to seawalls. The Coastal Construction Code also applies throughout Pinellas County. Mr. Garriott said had the owner requested reconstruction of a seawall, City staff would have addressed this request. As this is new construction, the Board must address it. Member Corcoran moved to grant a variance to the Building Code to allow a 14-foot setback as requested to allow construction of a swimming pool within up to 14 feet of the seawall for property at 222 Palm Island SW. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM #D - Pending Matters – None. ITEM #E - Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 3:03 p.m.