9-28-15 Agenda Packet- Special Called MeetingCITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CITY COMMISSION AGENDA
September 28, 2015
SPECIAL CALLED MEETING AT 5:00 PM
Call to order
1. Appeal of Variance Approval-15-ZVAR-1035
Adjourn
Please Note: This meeting will be live-streamed and videotaped and can be accessed by clicking on the
Commission Meeting Video tab located on the home page of the City’s website at www.coab.us.
If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at any
meeting, such person may need a record of the proceedings, and, for such purpose, may need to ensure that a verbatim record
of the proceedings is made, which record shall include the testimony and evidence upon which the a ppeal is to be based.
Any person wishing to speak to the City Commission on any matter at this meeting should submit a request to the City Clerk
prior to the meeting. For your convenience, forms for this purpose are available at the entrance to the Commi ssion
Chambers.
Every effort is made to indicate what action the City Commission is expected to take on each agenda item. However, the
City Commission may act upon any agenda subject, regardless of how the matter is stated on the agenda.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 286.26, Florida Statutes, persons with disabilities
needing special acco mmodation to participate in this meeting should contact the City Clerk by 5:00 PM, Friday,
S eptember 25, 2015.
1
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.A
CASE NO 15-ZVAR-1035
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64 for relief from the Section 24-
88(b) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of
substantially the same architectural style, colors and materials at Atlantic Beach
Subdivision “A” south half of Lot 6 Block 34 (aka 88 Ocean Blvd).
LOCATION 88 OCEAN BLVD
APPLICANT DR. DAVID DOWARD
DATE MAY 21, 2015
STAFF DEREK REEVES, ZONING TECHNICIAN
STAFF COMMENTS The applicant, Dr. David Doward, is the owner of 88 Ocean Boulevard. The property is a three story townhouse where each half of the building and land is owned by separate people. The building was constructed in 2006 with a flat roof and stucco siding on both units that were mirror images of each other and connected by a concrete block wall down the middle of the building. Dr. Doward would like to replace the siding with horizontal lap siding while making some minor architectural changes on his portion of the building. A variance is needed because Section 24-88(b) states that, “adjoining two-family or townhouse dwelling units shall be constructed of substantially the same architectural style, colors and materials.” The proposed changes will result in different exterior materials and architectural style from the original construction and what exists on the adjoining unit, which is in its original condition. The reason for the requested variance requires a little history. Dr. Doward bought his unit in 2013 knowing that there were documented stucco failures. Dr. Doward hired a contractor to make repairs when it was discovered that the water intrusion issues were worse than they thought. The contractor began to replace the stucco with new stucco as permitted. Prior to completion, the building was still facing water issues and Dr. Doward hired a new contractor and an engineer. The engineer recommended building a drainage system behind the siding. An architect designed a system that would allow water to pass behind the exterior finish but elected to go with horizontal lap siding after the original failure of the stucco and the subsequent failure of the second attempt of using stucco. Due to issues with permitting and the change of contractor, the horizontal lap siding was not approved by the city and a stop work order was placed on the property after work had started. This led to the variance application. The city’s Building Official, Dan Arlington, has stated that stucco is an approved building material and does not believe that the design of the structure prohibits its use. He added that a properly designed drainage system behind the siding could work for any accepted siding material. It is expected that the adjoining unit has similar issues that will have to be addressed at some point, but it is unknown when or how they will make the necessary repairs.
Page 2 of 3
ANALYSIS
Section 24-64(b)(1) provides that “applications for a variance shall be considered on a case-by-case basis, and
shall be approved only upon findings of fact that the application is consistent with the definition of a variance
and consistent with the provisions of this section.” According to Section 24-17, Definitions, “[a] variance shall
mean relief granted from certain terms of this chapter. The relief granted shall be only to the extent as
expressly allowed by this chapter and may be either an allowable exemption from certain provision(s) or a
relaxation of the strict, literal interpretation of certain provision(s). Any relief granted shall be in accordance
with the provisions as set forth in Section 24-64 of this chapter, and such relief may be subject to conditions as
set forth by the City of Atlantic Beach.”
Section 24-64(d) provides six distinct grounds for the approval of a variance:
(1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property.
(2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties.
In their application, the applicant has identified the condition of the structure and the need to make
repairs resulting from construction defects that other properties in the area do not have to resolve.
(3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other
properties in the area.
In their application, the applicant stated that the continual issues resulting from stucco siding has
prevented the completion of their home and subsequently the ability for them to move in and live in the
home they bought two years ago.
(4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after
construction of improvements upon the property.
(5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration.
(6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of
the property.
Page 3 of 3
REQUIRED ACTION
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend approval of 15-ZVAR-1035, request
for relief from the Section 24-88(b) requirement for adjoin townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of
substantially the same architectural style, colors and materials at Atlantic Beach Subdivision “A” south half of
Lot 6 Block 34 (aka 88 Ocean Blvd), upon finding this request is consistent with the definition of a variance, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 24-64, specifically the grounds for approval delineated in Section 24-64(d) and as described above.
A variance may be granted, at the discretion of the community development board, for the following
reasons:
(1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property.
(2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby
properties.
(3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other
properties in the area.
(4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after
construction of improvements upon the property.
(5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration.
(6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use
of the property. Or,
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend denial of 15-ZVAR-1035, request for
relief from the Section 24-88(b) requirement for adjoin townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of
substantially the same architectural style, colors and materials at Atlantic Beach Subdivision “A” south half of
Lot 6 Block 34 (aka 88 Ocean Blvd), upon finding that the request is either inconsistent with the definition of a
variance, or it is not in accordance with the grounds of approval delineated in Section 24-64(d), or it is
consistent with one or more of the grounds for denial of a variance, as delineated in Section 24-64(c), described
below.
No variance shall be granted if the Community Development Board, in its discretion, determines that the
granting of the requested variance shall have a materially adverse impact upon one (1) or more of the
following:
(1) Light and air to adjacent properties.
(2) Congestion of streets.
(3) Public safety, including traffic safety, risk of fire, flood, crime or other threats to public safety.
(4) Established property values.
(5) The aesthetic environment of the community.
(6) The natural environment of the community, including environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife
habitat, protected trees, or other significant environmental resources.
(7) The general health, welfare or beauty of the community.
Variances shall not be granted solely for personal comfort or convenience, for relief from financial
circumstances or for relief from situation created by the property owner.
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-
64 for relief from the Section 24-88(b)
requirements for adjoining townhouse dwelling
units to be constructed of substantially the same
architectural style, colors and materials at Atlantic
Beach Subdivision “A” south half of Lot 6 Block 34
(aka 88 Ocean Blvd).
15-ZVAR -1035
Site Context and Detail
RG-M (Residential General-
Multi-Family) Zoning.
RM (Residential Medium)
Future Land Use.
26 Foot by 106 Foot Lot.
½ of a 2-Unit Townhouse.
Built in 2006.
Proposed Plan
Replace exterior stucco siding with new horizontal lap siding.
Architectural changes to balconies, columns and garage door.
Need for a Variance
Section 24-88(b) states; “adjoining two-family or townhouse
dwelling units shall be constructed of substantially the same
architectural style, colors and materials.”
The adjoining unit is the same as it was originally constructed
featuring tan stucco with beige accents.
The proposed use of horizontal lap siding is different from the
stucco of the adjoining unit.
The proposed changes to columns and garage door will also
result in minor changes to the architectural style compared to
the adjoining unit.
Analysis and Concerns
From the Applicant
Extensive water damage caused by poor
construction including wood rot and mold.
Attempts to replace old stucco with new
stucco resulted in continued water
intrusion.
An engineer found the new stucco was
installed incorrectly and recommended
designing a drainage plane between the
siding and structure.
From Staff
The drainage plane system was not tried
with stucco.
City Building Official has said stucco is an
accepted building material and should
work when designed and installed
correctly.
Analysis and Concerns
Aesthetics
Continuity
2-Unit Townhouse located on 3rd Street in Neptune
Beach with different siding on each unit.
Grounds for Decision
APPROVAL- existence of
one or more of the following
DENIAL- adverse impact on
one or more of the following
1.Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property.
2.Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties.
3.Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area.
4.Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvement upon the property.
5.Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration.
6.Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property.
1.Light and air to adjacent properties.
2.Congestion of streets.
3.Public safety, including risk of fire, flood, crime or other threats to public safety.
4.Established property values.
5.The aesthetic environment of the community.
6.The natural environment of the community, including Environmentally Sensitive Areas, wildlife habitat, protected trees or other significant environmental resources.
7.The general health, welfare or beauty of the community.
88 Ocean Boulevard
Townhouse
RENOVATION PHOTOS
Stucco exterior conceals internal
problems
Original Exterior Stucco Cladding –
black mold visible on parapet wall
Interior before renovation looks
problem free
Paint hides problems within walls
6 years old windows & doors fogged
up
Initial exterior exploration of stucco to
determine source of leaks
View above 1st floor of 30’ high south
wall with many window penetrations
Portico roof removed over front door
due to water damage
Exterior stucco being removed and
revealing extent of damaged wood
Rotten OSB sheathing on exterior
column
Rotten front porch columns
Damage to walls of dining room &
fogged windows and doors
Damaged roof truss from parapet wall
above
Black OSB board crumbling as it is
removed
Water intrusion after every rain
Wet sub -floor & insulation after every
rain
Damaged OSB roof sheathing
Drywall removed and mold is revealed
Wall open to exterior
Removing OSB board – house is
vunerable to water intrusion every
time it rains
Rotten wood framing around windows
and mold in batt insulation
Dangerous mold in wood framing and
insulation at front wall of building
Water leaks in 3rd Floor M. Bedroom
Structural wall damage
Exterior damaged wood from water
intrusion
OSB wall sheathing crumbling & falling
apart
Extensive water intrusion continues
after new sheathing installed
New ½” plywood sheathing with work
still going on to repair roof
Note amount of damage wood
removed from both duplex units
New ½” plywood wall sheathing & new
wood wall framing
Interior after installation of new
windows
Entire exterior had to be removed &
replaced
Water damage and trash full of
removed stucco materials
View from 3rd floor balcony
2nd attempt to install stucco
1 year later wall continues to leak
Damaged wood around new window
New lath and accessories installed over weather
resistant barrier were installed incorrectly
Stucco accessories installed incorrectly
3rd attempt to waterproof exterior created a
drainage plane behind siding to allow wall to dry
out.
Installing aluminum window pans
Windows removed and re-installed.
Lap siding with mitered corners &
drainage plane in the wall cavity.
New siding matches finish material of
adjacent property on both sides of
Townhouse
New waterproofing on balcony
Clean details of wall plane works well
with stucco of adjacent unit.
Demising wall to receive stucco finish
to match existing adjacent unit.
Existing landscaping helps to hide transition of
materials. Owner to install new lush landscape at finish
of project.
View from Ocean Boulevard
View from corner of Ocean & 1st. Area has
a more urban feel to the streetscape.
Most homes in area are finished in lap
siding
Example of siding & stucco mix in
Atlantic Beach
Many buildings full height stucco over wood
show signs of water intrusion.
Stucco wall with similar water problems because of no
roof overhang at gable end
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 3.A
CASE NO 15‐ZVAR‐1035
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64 for relief from the Section 24‐
88(b) requirement for adjoining townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of
substantially the same architectural style, colors and materials at Atlantic Beach
Subdivision “A” south half of Lot 6 Block 34 (aka 88 Ocean Blvd).
LOCATION 88 OCEAN BLVD
APPLICANT DR. DAVID DOWARD
DATE JULY 13, 2015
STAFF DEREK REEVES, PLANNER
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicant, Dr. David Doward, is the owner of 88 Ocean Boulevard. The property is a three story
townhouse where each half of the building and land is owned by separate people. The building was
constructed in 2006 with a flat roof and stucco siding on both units that were mirror images of each other
and connected by a concrete block wall down the middle of the building. Dr. Doward would like to replace
the siding with horizontal lap siding while making some minor architectural changes on his portion of the
building.
A variance is needed because Section 24‐88(b) states that, “adjoining two‐family or townhouse dwelling
units shall be constructed of substantially the same architectural style, colors and materials.” The proposed
changes will result in different exterior materials and architectural style from the original construction and
what exists on the adjoining unit, which is in its original condition.
The reason for the requested variance requires a little history. Dr. Doward bought his unit in 2013 knowing
that there were documented stucco failures. Dr. Doward hired a contractor to make repairs when it was
discovered that the water intrusion issues were worse than they thought. The contractor began to replace
the stucco with new stucco as permitted. Prior to completion, the building was still facing water issues and
Dr. Doward hired a new contractor and an engineer. The engineer recommended building a drainage
system behind the siding. An architect designed a system that would allow water to pass behind the
exterior finish but elected to go with horizontal lap siding after the original failure of the stucco and the
subsequent failure of the second attempt of using stucco. Due to issues with permitting and the change of
contractor, the horizontal lap siding was not approved by the city and a stop work order was placed on the
property after work had started. This led to the variance application.
The city’s Building Official, Dan Arlington, has stated that stucco is an approved building material and does
not believe that the design of the structure prohibits its use. He added that a properly designed drainage
system behind the siding could work for any accepted siding material. It is expected that the adjoining unit
has similar issues that will have to be addressed at some point, but it is unknown when or how they will
make the necessary repairs.
Page 2 of 4
Update
In response to comments from the public and the board at the June 2nd, 2015 meeting, the applicants have
altered their design and provided additional information. The design will now keep the original
construction garage door and paint the new columns on the balconies to match the siding. When compared
to the neighboring unit, the only differences other than the siding material will be the narrower columns
and lack of an arch above the second floor balcony. They have also provided copies of the report on the
condition of the house and the building plans.
While the differences in architectural style have been minimized in the new design, the main issue of the
different siding material still requires the variance to be approved.
Page 3 of 4
ANALYSIS
Section 24‐64(b)(1) provides that “applications for a variance shall be considered on a case‐by‐case basis, and
shall be approved only upon findings of fact that the application is consistent with the definition of a variance
and consistent with the provisions of this section.” According to Section 24‐17, Definitions, “[a] variance shall
mean relief granted from certain terms of this chapter. The relief granted shall be only to the extent as
expressly allowed by this chapter and may be either an allowable exemption from certain provision(s) or a
relaxation of the strict, literal interpretation of certain provision(s). Any relief granted shall be in accordance
with the provisions as set forth in Section 24‐64 of this chapter, and such relief may be subject to conditions as
set forth by the City of Atlantic Beach.”
Section 24‐64(d) provides six distinct grounds for the approval of a variance:
(1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property.
(2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties.
In their application, the applicant has identified the condition of the structure and the need to make
repairs resulting from construction defects that other properties in the area do not have to resolve.
(3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other
properties in the area.
In their application, the applicant stated that the continual issues resulting from stucco siding has
prevented the completion of their home and subsequently the ability for them to move in and live in the
home they bought two years ago.
(4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after
construction of improvements upon the property.
(5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration.
(6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of
the property.
Page 4 of 4
REQUIRED ACTION
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend approval of 15‐ZVAR‐1035, request
for relief from the Section 24‐88(b) requirement for adjoin townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of
substantially the same architectural style, colors and materials at Atlantic Beach Subdivision “A” south half of
Lot 6 Block 34 (aka 88 Ocean Blvd), upon finding this request is consistent with the definition of a variance,
and in accordance with the provisions of Section 24‐64, specifically the grounds for approval delineated in
Section 24‐64(d) and as described above.
A variance may be granted, at the discretion of the community development board, for the following
reasons:
(1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property.
(2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby
properties.
(3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other
properties in the area.
(4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after
construction of improvements upon the property.
(5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration.
(6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use
of the property.
Or,
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend denial of 15‐ZVAR‐1035, request for
relief from the Section 24‐88(b) requirement for adjoin townhouse dwelling units to be constructed of
substantially the same architectural style, colors and materials at Atlantic Beach Subdivision “A” south half of
Lot 6 Block 34 (aka 88 Ocean Blvd), upon finding that the request is either inconsistent with the definition of a
variance, or it is not in accordance with the grounds of approval delineated in Section 24‐64(d), or it is
consistent with one or more of the grounds for denial of a variance, as delineated in Section 24‐64(c), described
below.
No variance shall be granted if the Community Development Board, in its discretion, determines that the
granting of the requested variance shall have a materially adverse impact upon one (1) or more of the
following:
(1) Light and air to adjacent properties.
(2) Congestion of streets.
(3) Public safety, including traffic safety, risk of fire, flood, crime or other threats to public safety.
(4) Established property values.
(5) The aesthetic environment of the community.
(6) The natural environment of the community, including environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife
habitat, protected trees, or other significant environmental resources.
(7) The general health, welfare or beauty of the community.
Variances shall not be granted solely for personal comfort or convenience, for relief from financial
circumstances or for relief from situation created by the property owner.
Page 1 of 11
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
July 21, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL.
The meeting was called to order at 6:05 pm. Chair Paul verified that all
board members are present, with the exception of Mr. Parkes and Mr.
Stratton. Also present was Building and Zoning Director, Jeremy Hubsch;
Planner, Derek Reeves, and representing the firm Kopelousos, Bradley &
Garrison, P.A. was Mr. Rob Bradley.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
A. Minutes of June 2, 2015
Mrs. Lanier motioned to approve the minutes of the June 2nd meeting.
Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
3. OLD BUSINESS.
A. 15-ZVAR -1035 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, for relief
from the Section 24-88(b) requirement for adjoining townhouse
dwelling units to be constructed of substantially the same
architectural style, colors and materials at Atlantic Beach
Subdivision “A” south half of Lot 6 Block 34 (aka 88 Ocean Blvd).
Mrs. Paul motioned to take item 3.A out of order and start with item 4.A
citing the complex nature of item 3.A and the desire to have the City
Attorney present whom was running late. Mr. Elmore seconded the
motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Page 2 of 11
4. NEW BUSINESS.
A. 15-UBEX-1042 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for a use-by-exception as permitted by Section 24-
111(c)(3), to permit on-premises consumption of alcoholic
beverages within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District at
28 Sherry Drive.
Staff Report
Mr. Hubsch introduced the item as a use-by-exception to allow the sales
of alcoholic beverages at a hotel for on-site consumption. A zoning map
was presented showing the surrounding zoning districts. Pictures were
then shown of the hotel and the surrounding area. Mr. Hubsch then
explained the proposed remodeling of the hotel including the addition of
covered seating and a fire pit within the courtyard of the hotel with the
help of renderings. He showed where one of the existing rooms would be
converted to an office/lounge area where beer and wine would be sold
from. The overall number of rooms would remain at 10 after other
renovations.
Mr. Hubsch then reviewed various city codes regulating alcohol sales
including the requirement for a use-by-exception when not in conjunction
with a restaurant. Additionally, alcohol sales are prohibited between 2
and 7 AM, sufficient lighting must be provided and that sales and
consumption can only occur inside a building or in an outdoor seating
area.
Mr. Hubsch addressed the possible concerns if the use-by-exception were
approved. The site does not have any additional parking beyond those
required for guests, which could be a problem if the lounge became a
popular spot. As a result, the city may want to restrict sales in a way that
limits the number of patrons at the lounge. Additionally, there is a church
and residential nearby and the city may want to further restrict hours of
sales.
Mr. Elmore asked if One Ocean or other hotels did or would have to get
similar approval. Mr. Hubsch stated that all hotels would with exceptions
for those with a full restaurant, which would already be allowed for beer
and wine. Mr. Elmore then asked if the neighboring church had
approached the city with any concerns. Mr. Hubsch responded that he
had not heard from them at this point.
Applicant Comment
Greg Schwartzenberger, 428 Lora St, Neptune Beach, FL 32266,
introduced himself as an owner of the hotel. He clarified that they will
only sell beer and wine focusing on local beers that is really meant to be
Page 3 of 11
an added amenity for guests only. He added that they do have a working
relationship with the church in the form of overflow parking as well as a
similar agreement with the nearby real estate office. He stated that at
100% occupancy they would have between 22 and 30 guests. Mrs.
Simmons asked how the alcohol sales would be limited to guests since it
is intended as an amenity to them and not the general public. Mr.
Schwartzenberger responded that they are working on ways to link sales
to a room key or room tab. Mr. Elmore asked if they were open to
restricting hours of sale. Mr. Schwartzenberger stated that they have a
courtyard quiet time at 11 PM and would likely stop sales at that point on
weekends and possibly at 9 or 10 on weekdays. Mrs. Lanier asked about
any other changes to hotel. Mr. Schwartzenberger answered that they
would be updating the décor, while keeping with the charm of the area,
but not making visible changes from the outside with the exception of the
covered seating area.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment.
Lorrie Pardee, 393 Ahern St, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, introduced himself
as a neighbor to the east and expressed her concern about traffic issues
and questioned the off-site parking agreements especially if the business
were to grow.
Marlina Vincent, 1130 Seminole Rd, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, expressed
her concerns related to pedestrians and especially children at the near-by
school and church and impacts from future growth of the business.
Chris Jorgensen, 92 W 3rd St, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, stated that,
historically, this area has always had heavy traffic.
Marcy Ashby, 133 Pine St, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, asked if there is a
distance requirement for alcohol sales from churches or schools. Mr.
Hubsch replied that the city has no such requirement. She also asked
about any rules against children being present in the hotel with alcohol
sales. Mr. Hubsch again replied there were none.
Mr. Hubsch stated that conditions can be placed on the use-by-exception
to address the concerns of the public if the board feels necessary.
With no additional speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Board Discussion
Mr. Elmore stated that he felt based on the building design and the
owners desire to limit sales to guests that he feels the use will be fine and
that traffic should not be impacted. Mrs. Lanier stated that she likes the
plan and feels that appropriate conditions would be acceptable. Mrs.
Simmons stated that she sees a requirement for conditions related to the
Page 4 of 11
number of people allowed with concerns about parking especially. Mr.
Hansen agreed with a need to condition the number of people allowed.
Mr. Elmore stated that the Fire Marshall will limit the number of people.
Mr. Hansen also stated that he was in favor of limiting hours. Mr. Elmore
asked for the makeup of the 10 rooms. Mr. Schwartzenberger stated that
they have a collection of single kings, single queens and double queens.
Mr. Elmore then asked there were roll away beds available. Mr.
Schwartzenberger replied that they did not. Mr. Elmore then asked if 50
people would be a fair number. Mrs. Paul stated that she also felt that the
Fire Marshall could regulate it. Mrs. Lanier asked how staff would verify
the number of people. Mr. Hubsch stated that it would be largely based
on complaints.
Mr. Hansen asked what the applicant would say is a reasonable number
of people to allow. Mr. Schwartzenberger said that the 30 to 35 would be
acceptable. Mrs. Simmons asked if parking would self regulate itself with
regards to the number of people as people would have no where to park.
Mrs. Lanier agreed.
Mrs. Simmons proposed a limit of hours to 10 PM on weekdays and 11
PM on weekends. Mrs. Lanier agreed and asked the applicant if that was
acceptable. He replied that it was.
Mrs. Simmons asked if 35 people would be acceptable. Mrs. Lanier, Mr.
Hansen and Mrs. Paul said that it would.
Motion
Mrs. Simmons made a motion to recommend approval of the use-by-
exception to the City Commission with the following conditions: 1. That
the hours of sale be stopped at 10 PM Sunday through Thursday and at
11PM on Friday and Saturday. 2. That the maximum number of people in
the lounge area be limited to 35. 3. That the sales be limited to beer and
wine only. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
B. 15-UBEX-1043 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for a use-by -exception as permitted by Section 24-
111(c)(2), to permit a veterinary clinic within the Commercial
General (CG) Zoning District at 725 Atlantic Boulevard, Unit 1.
Staff Report
Mr. Reeves introduced the item and explained that this is a use-by-
exception for a veterinary clinic within the Commercial General zoning
district. The surrounding uses are commercial with the exception of
residential use across Sailfish Drive to the northeast. The plan is too
Page 5 of 11
remodel the unit so that areas occupied by animals the most are located
along the exterior wall. They plan to utilize sliding glass doors and
insulation in the walls to reduce noise. They also plan to install pet waste
stations and a hose outside to help keep the area clean.
The primary reason that a veterinary clinic is a use-by-exception is due to
noise and odor impacts on surrounding properties. With use-by-
exceptions there are also general concerns with the intensity of the use,
traffic and compatibility with neighbors. In this case the use is less
intensive than most retail or restaurant uses with less traffic, especially
when considering this is in an existing building. There are some concerns
with compatibility and that is why the board may want to consider
making it a condition to install sound proofing on adjoining other units
and pet waste stations and a hose.
Mr. Elmore asked if there were other examples of veterinary clinics in
shopping centers in the area. Mr. Reeves pointed out that the applicant is
currently and has for years operated in a shopping center down the street
from this location. It was added that staff did look into code complaints at
the current location and did not find any.
Applicant Comment
Dr. John Green, 519 Atlantic Blvd, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, clarified that
they do not board animals but that they do perform surgeries that may
require a patient to stay overnight. Mr. Elmore asked how long the lease
for the property is. Dr. Green responded with 15 years. Mrs. Lanier asked
if they had any plans for the old seating area. Dr. Green said that they are
exploring a new material that is easy to clean and drain but haven’t
approached the city for approval yet.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment.
Lorraine Smith, 112 Poinsettia St, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, stated that
she lives behind Dr. Green’s current location and has had no issues.
With no additional speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Board Discussion
Mr. Hansen stated that has no problems with the business and is ready to
make a motion with the proposed conditions. Mrs. Lanier stated that she
felt the same.
Motion
Mr. Hansen made a motion to recommend approval of the use-by-
exception to the City Commission with the following conditions: 1. That
the applicant install and maintain pet waste stations and a hose outside
Page 6 of 11
the business. 2. That the applicant install floor to ceiling sound proofing
between units within the shopping center. Mrs. Simmons seconded the
motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Item 3.A. 15-ZVAR -1035 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Staff Report
Mr. Reeves introduced the item and gave a background on the property
and reminded everyone that this is a continuation of the same item that
was differed from the June 2nd meeting. The proposed plan is to change
the stucco siding to horizontal lap siding while making minor architectural
changes to the balconies and columns. The applicant has changed the
garage door back to the original and is painting the columns to match the
siding in an updated design based on comments from the last meeting. A
variance is needed because of Section 24-88(b) which requires adjoining
duplex or townhouse units to be substantially the same architectural
style, colors and materials. The change in materials for the siding is the
main item of concern. A large reason for the requested variance is
because the original construction with stucco had significant issues with
water and a subsequent attempt to repair the stucco failed. After hiring
new contractors and experts, it was recommended to start all over with
new siding over a drainage plain. Staff pointed out that stucco was never
attempted on the new design and that the city’s Building Official has
stated that stucco is an accepted building material and saw no reason
that it would not work, especially on the drainage plain.
There are a couple of reasons that the city has a code provision like this.
The more obvious reason is to preserve the aesthetics of the community.
The second is to ensure the individual owners that there neighbor will
have to maintain their portion to similar standard.
Mr. Elmore asked about the issues related to permitting by the city. Mr.
Reeves explained that Dr. Doward hired a contractor to make repairs to
the property. That work was permitted but the repairs were not working.
Dr. Doward and the contractor separated and Dr. Doward hired a new
contractor. The first contractor removed notified the city that they were
no longer on the job which voided the permit. The new contractor came
into the city with new plans that had the horizontal lap siding. There was
some confusion at the permit desk where staff thought that they were
going to do the same work as the first contractor and that a review of the
new plans would not be necessary. The new contractor left and began
work thinking that they were put on the old permit as the contractor.
However, the old permit called for a like for like replacement of stucco
siding. Staff noticed the project under construction with the horizontal
lap siding and issued the Stop Work Order. Mr. Elmore stated that it
Page 7 of 11
seems as though the city made a mistake and the applicant acted on it in
good faith and that this is what the board is for. Mr. Hubsch stated that
contractors often meet with staff on projects to discuss all aspects and
make sure that their plans are ok. Simply speaking with clerical staff at
the front counter is the not the same level of precaution taken.
Mrs. Paul asked if the new contractor ever had a permit. Mr. Hubsch
responded that they did not. Mrs. Paul then clarified by asking if they had
any paperwork from the city giving them the ok. Mr. Reeves stated that
they did have a permit for the interior remodel on the property but not
one that covered siding.
Mr. Elmore asked how long the ordinance had been in effect. Mr. Reeves
stated that it has been in place since at least 2001. Mr. Elmore asked why
the code was created. Mr. Reeves responded that he did not know for
sure but believed that it was likely related to a corresponding down
zoning in the city where duplexes were no longer aloud where they were
before and this may have been an effort to remove them over time. Mr.
Elmore stated that this may be a case where codes are out of date.
Applicant Comment
Catherine Duncan, 1922 Felch Ave, Jacksonville, FL 32207, presented
herself as the architect on the project. A history of the property was
given. While going through a presentation, photos were shown of the
extent of damage as a result of water intrusion. Based on the damage, all
of the stucco was removed. After a failed attempt to apply new stucco,
the owner hired an engineer that specializes waterproofing that
recommended using the drainage plain. With the drainage plain, it was
decided to not install stucco again. It was pointed out that horizontal lap
siding is consistently used on surrounding properties.
Ron Woods, 6260-D Dupont Station Ct, Jacksonville, FL 32213, introduced
himself as a consulting engineer focusing on stucco problems. A slide
show was shown featuring common stucco problems on wood frame
structures. He stated that stucco is an approved product but that it
requires a specific installation that is often not followed. He stated that he
would not recommend stucco siding in this case. Mrs. Lanier asked if the
3 story aspect is an issue. Mr. Woods responded that it is not.
Dr. David Doward, 185 8th Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, introduced
himself as the owner of the property. He spoke about the history and
timeline to this point on the property.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment.
Page 8 of 11
Anjna Roy, 90 Ocean Blvd, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, introduced herself as
the owner of the adjoining townhouse. She stated that she and her
husband had nothing to do with Dr. Doward buying the property and that
her side had been repaired and that subsequent tests have assured them
that their side is good. She pointed out that everyone has said that stucco
is acceptable. She then referenced Section 24-64 that states variance
should not be granted for relief from situation that the property owner
has created.
Eric Miller, 2610 Horn St, Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250, introduced himself
as a realtor at the beaches and that he has seen people moving away
from stucco siding because of issues and that it has a lower value.
Ron Boarders, 96 Ocean Blvd, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, introduced
himself as a neighbor to the north and that he is concerned about the
sympathy for a contractor that takes the word of administrative staff and
that he is opposed to the use of different materials in this case. He stated
that in his experience, stucco works when installed correctly.
Jenni Edwards, 335 Ahern St, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, introduced herself
as nearby resident that lives in a 3 story stucco building that was built
around the same time and has had to make repairs to her property.
Brian Platock, 11640 Beach Ave, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, spoke to the
aesthetic benefit of a mixture of siding materials.
Chris Jorgensen of 92 West 3rd Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 spoke
about his concerns related to the project.
With no additional speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Board Discussion
Mrs. Paul pointed out that just because a sub contractor doesn’t know
how to install stucco properly does not excuse the general contractor
from making sure things are done right. Mr. Elmore stated that stucco is
clearly a product with issues and that Dr. Doward has gone to great
lengths to fix his problems. He added that he does not think that different
materials or architectural style would hurt anyone and that he was in
favor of the variance. Mrs. Lanier stated that she agrees and that we are
here because of a lack of effort. Mrs. Simmons reminded the board that
their job is to uphold the codes of the city and not to make decisions
what should be. Mrs. Simmons then stated that while there are still
material differences, the changes in architectural style from the previous
meeting result in a plan that is more consistent with the adjoining unit
and because of that she is inclined to grant the variance.
Mr. Elmore asked Mr. Arlington if a fire wall was required when the
structure was constructed. Mr. Arlington said that a 2 hour fire wall would
Page 9 of 11
be required and he believed it was a masonry wall in this case. Mrs.
Duncan confirmed that it is masonry. Mr. Elmore then stated that that
makes him feel better that Dr. Doward’s side could be secure despite
other possible issues with the building.
Mr. Hansen stated that he is concerned that if the variance is granted,
then they would be doing so based on feelings when they should be
upholding the current code. He added that maybe the code should be
changed but that needs to be done later. Mrs. Lanier said that she had
similar feelings but then focused on the word “substantially” and stated
that the design is substantially the same. Mrs. Paul responded by asking
what precedent that would set. Mr. Elmore stated that if another
property had similar issues then he would support that as well.
Motion
Mrs. Simmons made a motion to approve the variance finding that the
property presents exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable
use of the property as compared to other properties in the area with the
condition that that the completed construction be consistent with the
provided drawing that is known as Exhibit “A”. Mrs. Lanier seconded the
motion. The motion carried with a 3-2 vote with Mrs. Paul and Mr.
Hansen dissenting.
5. REPORTS.
A. Maintenance Bond Code Change Discussion.
Staff Report
Mr. Hubsch explained that under current code when a development
occurs that builds streets and utilities like water and sewer lines that are
turned over to the city that the city requires a one year maintenance
bond values at one hundred percent of the value of improvements. This
gives the city money to make any repairs during the first year. Comments
by recent projects have drawn attention to the burdensome requirement
that other cities don’t have. At this time, Jacksonville Beach is the only
other city to require a one hundred percent maintenance bond. Neptune
Beach, St Johns County and Nassau County require fifteen percent. Clay
County and Flagler County require ten percent. Public Works Director,
Doug Layton, believes that fifteen percent would be sufficient since the
city already does inspections as projects are built. It is also expected that
one hundred percent of a project would never fail as a result.
The proposed change would only require a minor change to Section 24-
233 to replace one hundred percent with fifteen percent.
Page 10 of 11
Mrs. Paul asked if the city requires projects to present video of their pipes
prior to accepting the utilities. Mr. Hubsch stated that is required. Mrs.
Simmons asked what the cost of one hundred percent would be. Mr.
Elmore stated that the Country Club project spent 12 to 14 million dollars
on their infrastructure. He continued to state that he believes 15 percent
is adequate when everything is inspected throughout the process. Mrs.
Paul asked if this is hurting development or if this would encourage new
development. Mr. Elmore stated that it probably isn’t at this point but
could be done.
Mr. Elmore made a motion that the board supports the Public Works
Director’s statement to reduce the Maintenance Bond from one hundred
percent to fifteen percent. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion
carried unanimously.
B. Commercial Buffer Code Change.
Staff Report
Mr. Hubsch explained that the City Commission asked the board to review
the codes related to required buffers between incompatible uses. This
would include situations like residential next to commercial where uses
can have a negative impact on the neighbor. The code currently requires a
ten foot buffer strip between adjoining incompatible uses that are not
separated by an intervening street. Commission would like to focus on
the intervening street aspect as the city has multiple areas where
residential is directly across from commercial uses such as along Ahern
Street, Sturdivant Avenue and West 14th Street.
The code does require a landscape buffer of at least 10 square feet per
linear foot of parking area when that area is visible from the street. This
area is required to have one tree per 50 linear feet and shrubs along the
length of the area. Another concern with buffering from residential is
lighting. The code currently has provisions that state lighting should be
directed away from residential properties. The Commercial Corridor
Standards further add that lighting should not illuminate adjacent
properties or sky. However, this is not clearly defined and other cities do
have a defined measurement system to ensure this.
An existing example of what would be expected was shown. Mr. Elmore
commented on the benefit of having the trees but then pointed out the
issue with overhead power lines and how one code change could affect
another code. A negative example was shown where the building was
near the street and had no buffering.
Mr. Hubsch then presented some possible code changes. He started with
possibly eliminating curb cuts along residential streets for through lots
Page 11 of 11
that front on Atlantic Boulevard and Sturdivant Avenue for example. This
would help preserve the residential and pedestrian nature that these
streets have. Landscaping buffering could be increased so that a tree is
required every 25 feet, which would create a denser visual barrier.
Another change that could be added would be to require a lighting plan
demonstrating compliance with a set standard of light leaving a property.
Public Comment
Mrs. Paul opened the floor to public comment.
Susanne Barker, 1938 Beachside Ct, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, stated that
she had heard of a specific project that while she opposes the project in
general, she would support additional buffering.
Lorraine Smith, 112 Poinsettia St, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, stated that
she lives adjacent to one of these streets and that she is opposed to a
project that she also heard about due to safety and health concerns.
With no additional speakers, public comment was closed by Mrs. Paul.
Board Discussion
Mrs. Paul asked staff if the city allowed 24 hour businesses. Mr. Elmore
stated that eliminating curb cuts would cause problems with traffic on
Atlantic Boulevard. Mr. Elmore then asked about fencing in conjunction
with landscaping and posed the idea of 6 or even 8 foot tall fencing. Mr.
Elmore then addressed concerns about lighting limits when businesses
are required to provide so much lighting for insurance. Mrs. Simmons
stated that these problems have existed on these streets for years and
have actually improved in recent years, but that there could be some
changes to the code so that as the area is redeveloped, the city can get a
better outcome.
6. ADJOURNMENT.
Mrs. Paul motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Elmore seconded the
motion. The meeting was adjourned at 8:59 pm.
_______________________________________
Brea Paul, Chair
_______________________________________
Attest
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-
64 for relief from the Section 24-88(b)
requirements for adjoining townhouse dwelling
units to be constructed of substantially the same
architectural style, colors and materials at Atlantic
Beach Subdivision “A” south half of Lot 6 Block 34
(aka 88 Ocean Blvd).
15-ZVAR -1035
Site Context and Detail
RG-M (Residential General-
Multi-Family) Zoning.
RM (Residential Medium)
Future Land Use.
26 Foot by 106 Foot Lot.
½ of a 2-Unit Townhouse.
Built in 2006.
Proposed Plan
Replace exterior stucco siding with
new horizontal lap siding.
Architectural changes to balconies
and columns.
OLD Design NEW Design
Need for a Variance
Section 24-88(b) states; “adjoining two-family or townhouse
dwelling units shall be constructed of substantially the same
architectural style, colors and materials.”
The adjoining unit is the same as it was originally constructed
featuring tan stucco with beige accents.
The proposed use of horizontal lap siding is different from the
stucco of the adjoining unit.
The proposed changes to columns and garage door will also
result in minor changes to the architectural style compared to
the adjoining unit.
Analysis and Concerns
From the Applicant
Extensive water damage caused by poor
construction including wood rot and mold.
Attempts to replace old stucco with new
stucco resulted in continued water
intrusion.
An engineer found the new stucco was
installed incorrectly and recommended
designing a drainage plane between the
siding and structure.
From Staff
The drainage plane system was not tried
with stucco.
City Building Official has said stucco is an
accepted building material and should
work when designed and installed
correctly.
Analysis and Concerns
Aesthetics
Continuity
2-Unit Townhouse located on 3rd Street in Neptune
Beach with different siding on each unit.
Grounds for Decision
APPROVAL- existence of
one or more of the following
DENIAL- adverse impact on
one or more of the following
1.Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property.
2.Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties.
3.Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area.
4.Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvement upon the property.
5.Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration.
6.Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property.
1.Light and air to adjacent properties.
2.Congestion of streets.
3.Public safety, including risk of fire, flood, crime or other threats to public safety.
4.Established property values.
5.The aesthetic environment of the community.
6.The natural environment of the community, including Environmentally Sensitive Areas, wildlife habitat, protected trees or other significant environmental resources.
7.The general health, welfare or beauty of the community.
88 Ocean Boulevard
Townhouse
RENOVATION PHOTOS
Stucco exterior conceals internal
problems
Original Exterior Stucco Cladding –
black mold visible on parapet wall
Interior before renovation looks
problem free
Paint hides problems within walls
6 years old windows & doors fogged
up
Initial exterior exploration of stucco to
determine source of leaks
View above 1st floor of 30’ high south
wall with many window penetrations
Portico roof removed over front door
due to water damage
Exterior stucco being removed and
revealing extent of damaged wood
Rotten OSB sheathing on exterior
column
Rotten front porch columns
Damage to walls of dining room &
fogged windows and doors
Damaged roof truss from parapet wall
above
Black OSB board crumbling as it is
removed
Water intrusion after every rain
Wet sub -floor & insulation after every
rain
Damaged OSB roof sheathing
Drywall removed and mold is revealed
Wall open to exterior
Removing OSB board – house is
vunerable to water intrusion every
time it rains
Rotten wood framing around windows
and mold in batt insulation
Dangerous mold in wood framing and
insulation at front wall of building
Water leaks in 3rd Floor M. Bedroom
Structural wall damage
Exterior damaged wood from water
intrusion
OSB wall sheathing crumbling & falling
apart
Extensive water intrusion continues
after new sheathing installed
New ½” plywood sheathing with work
still going on to repair roof
Note amount of damage wood
removed from both duplex units
New ½” plywood wall sheathing & new
wood wall framing
Interior after installation of new
windows
Entire exterior had to be removed &
replaced
Water damage and trash full of
removed stucco materials
View from 3rd floor balcony
2nd attempt to install stucco
1 year later wall continues to leak
Damaged wood around new window
New lath and accessories installed over weather
resistant barrier were installed incorrectly
Stucco accessories installed incorrectly
3rd attempt to waterproof exterior created a
drainage plane behind siding to allow wall to dry
out.
Installing aluminum window pans
Windows removed and re-installed.
Lap siding with mitered corners &
drainage plane in the wall cavity.
New siding matches finish material of
adjacent property on both sides of
Townhouse
New waterproofing on balcony
Clean details of wall plane works well
with stucco of adjacent unit.
Demising wall to receive stucco finish
to match existing adjacent unit.
Existing landscaping helps to hide transition of
materials. Owner to install new lush landscape at finish
of project.
View from Ocean Boulevard
View from corner of Ocean & 1st. Area has
a more urban feel to the streetscape.
Most homes in area are finished in lap
siding
Example of siding & stucco mix in
Atlantic Beach
Many buildings full height stucco over wood
show signs of water intrusion.
Stucco wall with similar water problems because of no
roof overhang at gable end
Ocean Grove Drive Duplex
First Street Duplex
Each unit has different elements but all work
together for a cohesive building
Engineer’s Observations
Doward Townhouse
Image from Zillow.com real estate
listing
Image from Zillow.com real estate
listing
Image from Zillow.com real estate
listing
Stucco removed from front balcony
Rotten wood below rear sliding glass
door threshold
Rotten wood sheathing replaced from
inside
Rotten wood sheathing replaced from
inside before stucco was removed
Water stains indicating water intrusion
through CMU into elevator shaft
Moisture meter indicates wet wood
framing covered with WRB
Front elevation
3rd floor front elevation
Front balcony column flashing not
stripped in
Window sill flashing. No metal sill
flashing pan.
OSB sheathing replaced with plywood
Unsealed wall penetration
Stucco weep screed installed over
unsealed metal flashing.
Stucco weep screed installed over
unsealed metal flashing
Unsealed metal flashing
Unsealed metal flashing.
WRB around 1st floor windows in CMU
wall.
Water stain on inside of new plywood.
Front elevation
Ground floor windows in CMU
opening. No metal sill flashing pan.
Ground floor window in CMU opening.
No metal sill flashing pan.
Will sill flashing. No metal sill flashing
pan.
Window sill flashing. No metal sill
flashing pan.
Unsealed wall penetration. No
flashing.
Unsealed wall penetration. No
flashing.
Unsealed wall penetration. No
flashing
Front elevation
Front balcony flashing not stripped in.
Metal flashing below sliding glass
doors has unsealed laps.
WRB around 1st floor windows in CMU
wall is not well adhered
No sill pan flashing extending past
stucco casing bead
Approx. 6-inches of paper between layers of lath. Both
sides of control joint nailed to CMU substrate at
elevator shaft
Approximate 9 inches of paper
between layers of lath
Paper back lath installed backwards
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: Appeal of variance for relief from Sections 24-64 and 24-88(b),
granted July 21, 2015.
DATE: September 9, 2015
SUBMITTED BY: Dan Arlington, Building Official for Jeremy Hubsch, Building and
Zoning Director.
BACKGROUND: A variance was granted for relief from Section 24-88(b), allowing
one side of a two-unit townhouse building, 88 Ocean Boulevard,
to change the type of exterior wall covering. 88 Ocean now has a
different appearance than the adjoining townhouse, 90 Ocean
Boulevard. The neighbors in 90 Ocean Boulevard are appealing
that decision.
Section 24-88
(b) Adjoining two-family or townhouse dwellings units shall be constructed of
substantially the same architectural style, colors and materials.
BUDGET: N/A
RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommend hearing the appeal as soon as possible to allow the
unfinished building to be completed.
Attachments: Order Granting Variance, including Exhibit A.
Appeal letter.
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER___________________________________________________