Item 7AAGENDA ITEM # 7A
MARCH 10, 2008
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CITY COMMISSION MEETING
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: First reading of Ordinance 90-08-203 to amend Section 24-172 of the Land
Development Regulations, the Residential Development Standards to delete subsection (c), the
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) provisions and to add new subsections (e) to establish procedures to
request Variances from provisions of the Residential Development Standards and (f) to provide
for an annual review of the regulations by the Community Development Board.
SUBMITTED BY: Sonya Doerr, AICP ,led/
Community Development Director
DATE: February 24, 2008
BACKGROUND: The Community Development Board, at their February 19th meeting, again
considered the FAR provisions. While the CD Board recognized that a majority of the
Commission has publicly expressed their intent to eliminate the FAR, the CD Board nonetheless,
had a very thoughtful discussion of the issue. (There were very few residents in attendance to
address this issue.) Several members expressed some reluctance to amend the ordinance prior to
it being fully tested, but in support of the Commission's expressed intent, the CD Board
recommended approval of the elimination of the FAR provisions.
The CD Board also recommended that a provision requiring annual review of the Residential
Development Standards be re-introduced. Drafts of the ordinance included this requirement, but
this provision was deleted during some of the final changes made in mid-2006. Language to
provide for annual review by the CD Board has been included in the attached draft.
Staff has also proposed a provision related to variances from the Residential Development
Standards. As I have commented several times, the standard Zoning Variance provisions of
Section 24-64 do not provide applicable grounds to approve or deny any application to deviate
from the Residential Development Standards. The CD Board has discussed the need to provide
such a provision in previous meetings, and this would seem to be the appropriate time to include
such a provision.
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve on first reading.
ATTACHMENTS: Draft minutes of the February 19th meeting of the Community
Development Board, proposed revisions and Ordinance 90-08-203 to amend the Residential
Development Standards as set forth herein.
BUDGET: No budget issues.
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
March 10, 2008 regular meeting
AGENDA ITEM # 7A
MARCH I Q 2008
Draft minutes of the February 19, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
ITEM 5.c. Recommendation to the City Commission related to a proposed revision to
Section 24-172 of the Land Development Regulations, Residential Development Standards, to
eliminate Section (c)(1)i.-iv., the Floor Area Ratio provisions
Ms. Doerr reviewed the concept of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) as included in the Residential
Development Standards. She explained that majority of the current City Commission has
expressed a desire to remove this particular provision from Section 24-172. However, because the
Community Development Board serves as the Local Planning Agency, a recommendation must
originate from the CD Board, and it must be based upon a finding that such revision would not be
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and further, that such revision would not make the
remaining Residential Development Standards inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As
such, the City Commission directed staff to bring this issue back to the CDB for their
recommendation and then to continue with the process.
Mr. Lambertson asked what are the typical sizes of Atlantic Beach lots, to which Ms. Doerr replied
that "typical" lots range are 5000 square feet, 6500 square feet, 7500 square feet in size.
Mr. Lambertson opened the floor to public comment.
Peggy Nolan, 879 East Coast Drive, stated that her lot is 60 feet by 85 feet [5100 square feet],
which is considered Nonconforming. She said that removal of the FAR provision would allow
houses that would overwhelm such lots.
Mr. Boyer asked Ms. Doerr: were not lots smaller than 5000 square feet considered as if they were
actually 6000 square feet? Ms. Doerr replied that this provision had been removed during an
amendment to the original ordinance. There was some discussion amongst the Board as to when
this occurred.
Commissioner John Fletcher, 672 Ocean Boulevard, who had been in the audience, asked to speak
to the matter. He stated that when the original ordinance was submitted, the FAR was .54.
However, after the Community Character study was concluded, it was decided that that was too
restrictive, and the ordinance was after several changes, finally amended to the current FAR of .60.
At the same time, the small size lot consideration was eliminated.
R.D. DeCarle, 51 Beach Avenue, identified himself a local realtor, and said that he had attended
and participated in most all of the Community Character meetings. He confirmed that the FAR
was originally .54, but it was soon after amended to .60 and the trade off was the removal of the
special consideration for small lots. Mr. DeCarle said that he was in favor of removing the FAR,
primarily because it is redundant of other restrictions. Beyond that, he said the standards
collectively restrict creativity, and as a result, people looking to build tend to avoid Atlantic Beach.
In particular, he expressed concern that architectural diversity is sacrificed with the limitation of a
22-foot high wall plate.
No one else from the audience came forth to speak so Mr. Lambertson closed the floor to the
public and opened discussion to the Board.
Ms. Glasser said that she felt the one good thing about this was that the Board was only being
asked to look at FAR. She said it was interesting though that it came back to the CDB when it was
already known how the City Commission was going to vote.
Page 4 of 9
AGENDA ITEM # 7A
MARCH IQ 2008
Draft minutes of the February 19, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Ms. Glasser [who was not a CDB member at the time] noted that it had been the CDB that had
reviewed all of the information originally. She also commented that as a resident, she had been
intimidated by the numbers and the whole process, and by those who were so vocal during the
public hearings. She said that she felt that no compromise had truly been offered and that the
community remains split. The CDB originally voted 4-3 to recommend a FAR of .7, but the
number was lowered substantially and then a bit again by the City Commission. She proposed the
current CDB reconsider and recommend a compromise of .70 again.
Mr. Boyer said that the original recommendation of the consultant was .46, and that he personally
think that the .60 FAR is so high that it is meaningless. He stated that not a single application has
been affected by this regulation. However, he said that he thinks the FAR should be kept as a fall
back position. Mr. Boyer continued, saying that he felt Commissioner Woods recommendation of
being able to choose whether to abide by the other Residential Development Standards, or
alternatively, by the FAR alone, was a vast step in the wrong direction. He said his predilection
was to further reduce the FAR. Otherwise, he desired to maintain it as it is.
Lynn Drysdale agreed with Mr. Boyer's sentiments. She explained that many regulations were
simultaneously enacted, and there was no rationale as to why there was a focus on this one in
particular other than emotion. Ms. Drysdale said that because she felt the body of residential
design regulations had not been thoroughly tested, she was leaning towards further investigation.
Mr. Adams said that his personal feeling was that FAR was merely an extra level of government
inserting itself into the development process, and that he thinks there are other control mechanisms
in place.
Mr. Hansen said that there are many elements to consider. First, going through the process and
looking at the models upheld as desirable examples at the Community Character study, the
question arises could these be built again, under current regulations? It would appear not. Second,
the overall square foot difference of the maximum size of house that could be built with or without
the FAR does not seem to be large enough that it should cause such dissension. Thus, he said he is
in favor of removing the FAR provision.
Mr. Lambertson expressed concern over the wall plate height issue as brought up earlier by Mr.
DeCarle, and asked Ms. Doerr to confirm whether or not the structures with tower elements as in
the pictures distributed by Mr. DeCarle could or could not be built under current regulations. Ms.
Doerr replied that they could not now, due to the wall plate height limit. However, Ms. Doerr
noted that a variance is still an option for anyone interested in having such an element.
Mr. Lambertson explained that he had disagreed with the consultant from the beginning, feeling
that what was being presented to the City was merely a boilerplate. Further, he did not feel that the
consultant truly understood local issues. And, in the end, the people of Atlantic Beach ended up
drastically changing the recommendations. Mr. Lambertson also said that he thought Mr. DeCarle
had made a good point regarding the past and present market situation.
Mr. Lambertson said that he initially had concern over the status of duplexes, and the ability to
rebuild. Ms. Doerr replied that there is a vesting provision that addresses destruction by any
means not resulting from the action of the owner. The use as atwo-family residence is vested and
the footprint is vested, but the rest of the new regulations would apply to new duplexes.
Page 5 of 9
AGENDA ITEM }/ 7A
MARCH 10, 2008
Draft minutes of the February 19, 2008 regular meeting of the Community Development Board
Ms. Glasser said that she felt that there had been several flaws and basic issues of fairness in the
original process. Why had the concentration been only on Old Atlantic Beach? Ms. Doerr replied
that it originated out of Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan that specifically
address the preservation of the character of Old Atlantic Beach, but that the City Commission later
made a decision just to address Old Atlantic Beach at that time. Ms. Glasser expressed concern
over removing FAR altogether, saying this had been presented as a package deal. This has started
with discussion of FAR, but further fiddling could start unraveling the whole ordinance. She said
that the bottom line is that we want to be fair, but there is disagreement as to what is fair.
Mr. Lambertson agreed that he felt that neither the FAR provision, nor the other Residential
Development Standards have truly been tested. Ms. Doerr interjected that she did not see limiting
or removing the FAR as having a dramatic impact, but again stated that it is important to retain the
other provisions of the Residential Development Standards. Again, she reminded the Board that if
any particular regulation was a problem to an individual, then it could be handled through the
variance process.
Mr. Lambertson asked several questions regarding duplexes, and then commented that now felt
more comfortable that the other existing regulations would address these.
MOTION: Kirk Hansen made a motion to recommend to the City Commission the
elimination of the FAR provisions from the Residential Development Standards, Section 24-
172(c), of the Land Development Regulations, finding that such removal is not inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, and also that such removal will not render the remaining
provisions of the Residential Development Standards inconsistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. Blaine Adams seconded the motion. Further discussion ensued, with Ms. Drysdale
saying that so much had gone into the process that she felt that elimination of this provision
was not advisable at this time, and because the standards were being looked at in a piecemeal
fashion. Mr. Boyer added that tailoring an ordinance to current market conditions is
disastrous. This Board and the City need to be proactive. The motion carried 4-2, with Mr.
Boyer and Ms. Drysdale dissenting.
Further discussion focused on the ability to incorporate architectural elements. such as towers, as
previously mentioned by Mr. DeCarle. Otherwise, people will design around the regulations and
the result will be a lack of creativity, as noted by Mr. Boyer. Mr. Lambertson also agreed with Ms.
Drysdale's earlier suggestion that an annual review of the standards needs.to be implemented.
MOTION: David Boyer made an additional motion to add that the Board recommend to the
City Commission the incorporation of an annual review of the Residential Development
Standards. Lynn Drysdale seconded the motion. There was no further discussion and the
vote was unanimous.
Page 6 of 9
AGENDA ITEM # 7A
MARCH 10, 2008
Proposed revisions to- Section 24-172. Residential Development Standards
No changes to Sections (a) or (b)are proposed
(c) Additional Residential Development Standards. The following standards and
requirements shall apply to that area defined in preceding paragraph (b), and as further and
more specifically described for each particular standard or requirement.
-»^-~tlzi9.,,;,.~ T~` A D ,.~6'
t1S}9i~S--S
P
-
o
l
L
f l
n~~~a~~inar ~nrl ~•a• o
ci
i~~
P-imnrry
--arrtt~-t~
9 -
~~~9
.Y
a;+;,,,,~ „L.:..L, o ,,,7 ..+,,,.:,... 1~'1 A,. L.< +1, + + F'
`i
u
°
~- .. .......b„ .,...... ...... .a..ava..., ..... v.. v<
~.
uu iii~viava i
,,+ /'AGO%\
> >
1.<> x..1:.1 < >,<11~ o +L..,., +«.., ~:.lv~
~Tl,~+,~,.,,-+;~,,, .,f'~„ ~++.,..1,0.1 .. 0.1;,,R C!1!1 ~ v ~ o+.,f'>~1...,« A,-o.,
~~6~E1~2S
b;~169iii~ eS
3 ~3'2e~
~9 ,, •] .]o..L~
e~~'-
S /.,~ ,oll 0«1,.,., ..~ o
;
Z2
1~ ~ ~
'FTim
~ ~
-
te ~
,
+,,,- +L,
~ 1:,7 ,
=
' .F 1. + ,~+
'
'
~-c
ene~e~ed-b
~e zg
~i~r~ r
~o~ @cccar@S~-i~
im--c
oze ~
~ ~vrrcrE6
o
cr-6~ ~6v
~
1
°~
n r-v
c
rr-icvc
a
3 - A
~re-
3
;
ce t
s~s;
t,o o „l,~~0,1
•~e~e~re
~
e--C
l
es-
~
~
-~
~d
z~
~~
~
~
~
~ 7,
~
~ri~
~ ~
'
'
~ g
~°"
-
i e
c
e
ir
~~ ;^~c
p
s~
1
+
'
~
~
l
~ e13-
-. v; ~L.+ ,~..a
ttt@
o
e t
1 c~
~
ru z-ei~i3-aci~cc 6~.r
ct
l
z
i~E
-53~,
,
No other changes to Subsection (c) proposed.
March 10, 2008 regular meeting
AGENDA ITEM # 7A
MARCH ]0,2008
Proposed new Subsections (e) and (~.
{e) Requests to vary from the provisions of the Residential Development Standards
Reco~nizin~ that there may be alternative means by which to achieve the Purpose and Intent
of this Section, an Applicant ma~quest a Variance to provisions of this Section in
accordance with the procedures as set forth within Section 24-64 of this Chapter exce tp that
the following shall be considered as grounds to approve such requests (Paragraphs (c and
(d) of Section 24-64 shall not be applicable to such reauests.~
Reauests to vary from the provisions of the Residential Development Standards may be
granted, at the discretion of the Community Development Board upon findin tg hat•
i. The proposed development will not result in excessive height mass or bulk that will
excessively dominate the established development pattern within the neighborhood or
excessively restricts light, air, breezes or privacy on adjacent properties.
ii. The proposed development will be compatible and consistent with the diversity of
architectural styles and building forms found in Old Atlantic Beach.
{f) Annual review of these Residential Development Standards. The Community
Development Board shall at a re ularly scheduled meeting review these provisions once
yearly. Such review shall address the effectiveness of these provisions• the prior year's
activity subiect to these provisions and any needed revisions. The Community Development
Director shall then forward a report containing any recommendations of the Community
Development Board, including a summary of any public input, to the City Commission.
March 10, 2008 regular meeting
AGENDA ITEM # 7A
MARCH ]0, 2008
ORDINANCE NUMBER 90-07-203
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, COUNTY
OF DUVAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 24 OF
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS, AS ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NUMBER 90-01-172,
INCLUDING ALL SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS THERETO; THIS
ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING SECTION 24-172,
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO DELETE
SUBSECTION (c) (1), FLOOR AREA RATIO, AND ALSO CREATING
NEW SUBSECTIONS (e) AND (f) TO ESTABLISH VARIANCE AND
REVIEW PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; PROVIDING FOR RECORDATION
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Atlantic Beach, pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida
Statutes, Section 163.3164, Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development
Regulation Act, and Section 24-4 of the Municipal Code of Ordinances, the City Commission
has the authority to adopt and amend Land Development Regulations, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to such authority, the City has adopted a Comprehensive Plan, and
has adopted regulations to guide the future use and development of lands within the City, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing to enact this Ordinance was held by the City Commission
for the City of Atlantic Beach on March 24, 2008.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION ON BEHALF OF
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. Chapter 24, Sections 24-172, Residential Development Standards within
the Land Development Regulations, is hereby amended and upon enactment shall read as set
forth within Exhibit A, attached to and made part of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its final passage and
adoption and shall be recorded in a book kept and maintained by the Clerk of the City of Atlantic
Beach, Florida, in accordance with Section 125.68, Florida Statutes.
Passed on first reading by the City Commission of the City of Atlantic Beach the 10th day of
March, 2008. Passed on final reading and public hearing the 24th day of March, 2008.
JOHN S. MESERVE
Mayor/Presiding Officer
Approved as to form and correctness: Attest:
ALAN C. JENSEN, ESQUIRE
City Attorney
DONNA L. BUSSEY, CMC
City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM # 7A
MARCH 10, 2008
EXHIBIT A
SECTION 24-172. Residential Development Standards
(a) Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of these new regulations is to implement the
goals, objectives and polices as set forth within the adopted 2015 Comprehensive Plan,
restated in part below.
Goal A.1 The City shall manage growth and redevelopment in a manner, which results in a
pattern of land uses that: 1) encourages, creates and maintains a healthy and aesthetically
pleasing built environment, 2) avoids blighting influences, 3) preserves and enhances coastal,
environmental, natural, historic and cultural resources, and 4) maintains the City's distinct
residential community character.
Objective A.1.3 Maintaining Residential Character -The City shall encourage future
development and redevelopment, which: 1) retains the exceptionally high quality of life and
the predominantly residential character of the City of Atlantic Beach, and 2) provides for the
preservation and protection of the dense tree canopy.
Policy A.1.4.3 By December 31, 2005, the City shall consider amendments to its Land
Development Regulations, which include provisions intended to retain the unique community
identity, the architectural character, and the residential scale of that area of the City known as
Old Atlantic Beach.
Policy A.1.4.4 Within Old Atlantic Beach, the City shall consider options to discourage
the redevelopment of residential lots in ways that are inconsistent and incompatible with the
historic and existing built environment.
The diversity of residential types is recognized as an asset to this community's unique
character. The purpose of these regulations is also to regulate the future use and
development of land in a manner that minimizes incompatible relationships within
neighborhoods that may result from new Development, which because of excessive height,
mass or bulk may result in new Development that excessively dominates established
development patterns within neighborhoods or excessively restricts light, air, breezes or
privacy on adjacent properties.
The further intent of these regulations is to appropriately limit height and bulk and mass of
residential structures in accordance with the expressed intent of the citizens of Atlantic
Beach, and also to support and implement the Recitals of Ordinance 90-06-195 and as more
specifically enumerated below.
(1) To ensure that buildings are compatible in mass and scale with those of buildings seen
traditionally within the residential neighborhoods of Atlantic Beach.
Page 2 of 6
Ordinance 90-08-203
AGENDA ITEM # 7A
MARCH 10, 2008
(2) To maintain the traditional scale of buildings as seen along the street.
(3) To minimize negative visual impacts of larger new or remodeled buildings upon adjacent
properties.
(4) To promote access to light and air from adjacent properties.
(5) To preserve and enhance the existing mature tree canopy, particularly within front yards.
(b) Applicability. The Development Standards and provisions set forth within this Section shall
apply to Development of Single-family and Two-family Dwellings within that area of the
City depicted by Attachment A and generally referred to as Old Atlantic Beach, which for the
purposes of this Section shall be bounded by:
• Ahern Street and Sturdivant Avenue, between the beach and Seminole Road on the
south;
• Seminole Road, extending north to 11th Street on the west;
• 11th Street extending east to East Coast Drive, and also including Lots 2, 4, 6, 8, 10,
12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30 and 32 within Block 141ocated on the north side
of 11th Street and west of East Coast Drive, and
• East Coast Drive extending north to its terminus, then along Seminole Road to 16th
Street, and 16th street extending east to the beach, with the beach being the eastern
boundary of this area.
Development, as used within this Section, shall also include total redevelopment of lots and
certain renovations and additions to Single-family and Two-family Dwellings as set forth
herein.
(c) Additional Residential Development Standards. The following standards and
requirements shall apply to that area defined in preceding paragraph (b), and as further and
more specifically described for each particular standard or requirement.
(1) Side Wall Planes. To avoid stark, exterior side walls from facing the sides of adjacent
residences, particularly on two-story and three-story residences, the following standards
shall apply to new two-story and three-story Single-family and Two-family Dwellings; to
renovations involving Structural Alterations or additions to the sides of existing Single-
family and Two-family Dwellings, and where a second or third-story is added to an
existing Single-family and Two-family Dwelling.
i. Second and third-story exterior side walls, which exceed 35-feet in length, shall
provide horizontal offsets of at least four feet, or architectural details, design elements
or other features, which serve to break-up the appearance of the side wall, such that
adjacent properties are not faced on the side by blank two or three-story walls void of
any architectural design other than siding material or windows.
Page 3 of 6
Ordinance 90-08-203
AGENDA ITEM # 7A
MARCH ] 0, 2008
ii. Such design features may also include balconies, bay windows and other types of
projecting windows or architectural details provided that these shall not extend more
than 24-inches into the Required Side Yard, and that a minimum separation of 10-feet
is maintained between such extensions into the Required Side Yard and any other
existing adjacent residential Buildings.
(2) Height to Wall Plate. For Single-family and Two-family Dwellings, the maximum
height to the top horizontal framing member of a wall from the first floor finished floor
elevation shall not exceed 22-feet.
(3) Third Floor Footprint. In order to reduce the mass of taller Single-family and Two-
family Dwellings, the interior footprint of any third floor area shall not exceed fifty
percent (50%) of the size of the second floor interior footprint.
(4) Shade Trees. In order to sustain the City's existing tree canopy and to provide shade
along the City's residential streets and sidewalks, one shade tree shall be provided within
the Required Front Yard and an additional shade tree shall be required on the Lot in a
location at the property owner's discretion in accordance with the following provisions:
This requirement shall apply to the construction of new Single-family and Two-
family Dwellings and to Structural Alterations of any Single-family and Two-family
Dwelling. Such required Trees shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy or prior to final inspections, as applicable. (The requirements of Chapter
23 of this Code shall also apply.)
ii. Required Shade Trees shall have a minimum size of 4-inch caliper at the time of
installation. A list of recommended tree species is available from the City.
iii. Credit shall be provided for the following, and additional Front Yard Shade Trees
shall not be required in such cases.
(a) Where healthy canopy trees exist in the Required Front Yard, which are listed on
the recommended tree list and are at least 4-inch caliper; or
(b) where oak trees exist in the Required Front Yard, which are at least six (6) feet
tall; or
(c) where healthy street trees exist in the adjacent right-of--way, which are listed on
the City's recommended tree list and are at least 4-inch caliper. Where
installation of a Front Yard Shade Tree is required, such tree shall not be planted
within right-of--ways or over underground utilities.
iv. Similarly, credit shall be given for the second required Shade Tree where such tree, as
described above, exists elsewhere on the Lot.
Page 4 of 6
Ordinance 90-08-203
AGENDA ITEM # 7A
MARCH 10, 2008
(d) Special Treatment of Lawfully Existing Single-family and Two-family Dwellings, which
would otherwise be made Nonconforming by enactment of Section 24-172, establishing
these Residential Development Standards. Any lawfully existing Single-family or Two-
family Dwelling, which has been constructed pursuant to properly issued Building Permits
prior to the effective date of these Residential Development Standards, adopted on
September 11, 2006 by Ordinance Number 90-06-195, shall be deemed a Vested
Development, and any such Single-family or Two-family Dwelling shall be considered a
lawful permitted Structure within the Lot or parcel containing the Vested Development, and
shall not be considered as a Nonconforming Structure with respect to the regulations
contained within this Section.
It is further the intent of this Section to clarify when these Residential Development
Standards shall apply in the case of reconstruction or redevelopment following:
(1) a natural act such as a hurricane, wind, flood or fire; or
(2) redevelopment initiated by a property owner or authorized agent for a property owner.
The following provisions shall be limited only to those characteristics, which would
otherwise be made nonconforming from the requirements of this Section, which provides
Residential Development Standards. The provisions of Section 24-85 shall otherwise apply
to Nonconforming Lots, Uses and Structures
Structures damaged or destroyed by natural acts or by any means not resulting
from the actions of the property owner. Any lawfully existing Single-family or Two-
family Dwelling, which has been constructed pursuant to properly issued Building
Permits prior to the effective date of these Residential Development Standards, adopted
on September 11, 2006 by Ordinance Number 90-06-195, shall be deemed a Vested
Development, and any Single-family or Two-family Dwelling shall be considered a
lawful permitted Structure within the Lot or parcel containing the Vested Development.
Furthermore, an existing Single-family or Two-family Dwelling for that particular
Structure, shall not be considered as a Nonconforming Structure such that it may be fully
replaceable in its existing footprint and of the same size and architectural design, subject
to all applicable building codes and other Land Development Regulations controlling
Development and redevelopment of such Lots or parcels. Any construction that exceeds
the existing footprint shall be in compliance with all applicable provisions of this Chapter
including minimum Yard Requirements.
ii. Structures damaged, destroyed or demolished or expanded, by any means resulting
from the actions of the property owner or authorized agent for a property owner.
Single-family or Two-family Dwellings, which are rebuilt or renovated, or expanded by
more than twenty-five percent (25%) in Floor Area, shall be subject to applicable
provisions of these Residential Development Standards for that portion of the Structure
that is rebuilt, renovated or expanded.
Page 5 of 6
Ordinance 90-08-203
AGENDA ITEM # 7A
MARCH lQ 2008
(e) Requests to vary from the provisions of the Residential Development Standards.
Recognizing that there may be alternative means by which to achieve the Purpose and Intent
of this Section, an Applicant may request a Variance to provisions of this Section in
accordance with the procedures as set forth within Section 24-64 of this Chapter, except that
the following shall be considered as grounds to approve such requests. (Paragraphs (c) and
(d) of Section 24-64 shall not be applicable to such requests.)
Requests to vary from the provisions of the Residential Development Standards may be
granted, at the discretion of the Community Development Board, upon finding that:
i. The proposed development will not result in excessive height, mass or bulk that will
excessively dominate the established development pattern within the neighborhood or
excessively restricts light, air, breezes or privacy on adjacent properties.
ii. The proposed development will be compatible and consistent with the diversity of
architectural styles and building forms found in Old Atlantic Beach.
(f) Annual review of these Residential Development Standards. The Community
Development Board shall at a regularly scheduled meeting review these provisions once
yearly. Such review shall address the effectiveness of these provisions; the prior year's
activity subject to these provisions and any needed revisions. The Community Development
Director shall then forward a report containing any recommendations of the Community
Development Board, including a summary of any public input, to the City Commission.
Page 6 of 6
Ordinance 90-08-203