8-19-Agenda
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday / August 19, 2014 / 6:00 pm
Commission Chambers / 800 Seminole Road
1. Call To Order and Roll Call.
2. Approval of Minutes.
A. Draft minutes of the July 15, 2014 regular meeting of the Community Development Board.
3. Old Business.
A. ZVAR-14-00100020 (PUBLIC HEARING)
Request for zoning variance as permitted by Section 24-64 for a reduction of setbacks as required by
Section 24-106 (e).
4. New Business.
A. ZVAR-14-00100021 (PUBLIC HEARING) Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64 for an increase in allowable fence height from 4 feet to 6 feet within 10 feet of the property line on corner lots where the abutting right -of-way is less than 50 feet as required by Section 24-157(c)(1) at Atlantic Beach Subdivision Block 20 Lots 5 and 6 (aka 587 Beach Ave.).
5. Reports
A. Beach Avenue and Ocean Boulevard Through Lot Code
B. Overlay Discussion
6. Adjournment.
All information related to the item(s) included in this agenda is available for review
at the City of Atlantic Beach Planning and Zoning Department, located at 800
Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida
32233, and may be obtained at this office or by calling (904) 247 -5800. Interested parties
may attend the meetin g and mak e comment s regardin g agend a items , o r comment s
may b e maile d t o the address above. Persons appealing decision made by the
Community Developmen t Boar d with respect t o any matte r considere d a t thi s meetin g
may need t o ensure tha t a verbati m recor d o f the proceedings, including the testimony
and evidence upon which any appeal is based, is made.
Notic e t o person s needin g specia l accommodation s and t o all hearin g impaired persons : I n
accordanc e wit h the American s wit h Disabilitie s Act, person s needing special accommodations to
participat e i n this proceedin g should contact the City of Atlantic Beach, 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic
Beach, Florida 32233, or (904) 247- 5800, not less than five (5) days prior to the date of this meeting.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
July 15, 2014
1. CALL TO ORDER. – 6:00 pm
Chair Brea Paul verified that all board members are present with the exception of Kirk Hansen. The
meeting was called to order at 6:00pm. Also present was Building and Zoning Director, Jeremy Hubsch;
Zoning Technician, Derek Reeves; Recording Secretary Jenny Walker, and representing the firm
Kopelousos, Bradley & Garrison, P.A. was Mr. Rob Bradley.
2. ADOPTION OF MEETING MINUTES – June 17, 2014.
Brea Paul called for a motion to approve the minutes of the June 17, 2014 regular meeting. Mr. Elmore
made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Parkes seconded the motion and it carried by a vote of 5 -
0.
3. OLD BUSINESS. None.
4. NEW BUSINESS.
A. ZVAR-14-00100020(PUBLIC HEARING)-Deferred till August 19th
152 3rd Street (Allison Hillis)
Request for zoning variance as permitted by Section 24-64 for a reduction
of setbacks as required by Section 24-106 (e) (1).
B. ZVAR 14-00100025(PUBLIC HEARING)
290 Beach Ave (Andrew Thomas Pitler)
Request for zoning variance as permitted by Section 24-64 for a reduction
of setbacks as required by Section 24-106 (e) (1).
Staff Report Jeremy Hubsch states that the applicant recently purchased a property in
the RS-2 zoning district that is located on a through lot between Ocean
Boulevard and Beach Avenue. The property has a 1200 square foot single
story home that was constructed in approximately 1940 and a two story garage
apartment. The home fronts along Beach Avenue, while the garage apartment
fronts along Ocean Boulevard. The applicant would like to preserve as much
of the original single family home as possible while creating additional living
space to the property by adding a second story. The house is 8.5 feet from the
property line along Beach Avenue. The requested variance is seeking to allow
the applicant to add a second story above the existing home, beginning at a
point 10 feet from the Beach Avenue property line. The required setback along
Beach Avenue is 20 feet. Adding additional space within the required setback
(even vertically) is not allowed by code and requires a variance.
Section 24-85 (c) (1) states, “No nonconforming structure shall be expanded or
enlarged unless such expansion or enlargement complies with the terms of this
section and other applicable provisions, of this chapter, including building
setbacks, or unless a variance has been obtained from the community
development board.” This means that per code, the applicant can only expand
or enlarge the home at the point where the current setbacks start. The applicant
is able to expand the structure vertically at the point where the setbacks start.
In this instance, it would mean a 2nd floor addition would need to be setback 20
feet from the Beach Avenue property line by code. Jeremy discussed the
grounds for approval and denial.
Applicant
Comment
Mark Major, 515 3rd St., Neptune Beach. He states that it is not feasible to add
a second story 20 feet back and maintain the historical and architectural
character of the existing house, it would basically destroy it. Jeremy
mentioned that other nonconformities in the area cannot be grounds for
approving the variance, however the Comprehensive Plan policy states that
maintaining the architectural character of old Atlantic Beach is one of the
policies of the City. The architectural character of this area is very much
determined by minimal setbacks to the right of way.
He states that what they are proposing to do is simply go up within the existing
footprint of the historic structure. The design will be keeping with the existing
cottage design. This is an existing single story cottage surrounded by two story
structures. They are planning on converting it from a rental property into a
fully functional single family residence.
Next Andy Pitler, 277 Beach Avenue, spoke. He is the owner of the property.
He states this does seem to be within the code related to garage structures , the
concept of being able to expand nonconforming structures in a vertical manner
using the existing footprint and they would like to use that as additional
justification for adding a second story.
Kelly Elmore states that he has had exparte communication with the owner and
the architect.
Public
Comment None.
Board
Discussion Kelly Elmore started the discussion. He states that there really does need to be
an overlay for Beach Avenue based on the number of cases similar to this one
coming before the board, and he realizes that this goes beyond the case they are
discussing tonite, but they keep coming back with very difficult decisions that
a lot of the language that’s set up flies in the face of what the character of what
Beach Avenue is which is a tighter to the right of way buildings and it gives it
its’ charm and I feel that what they are trying to do here is consistent with that
charm. That is what makes Beach Ave so unique. It has a 25ft right of way
and it is a big pedestrian corridor in our community and it has special needs
and uses different then conventional streets have and yet we don’t have
anything in place for it.
Brea agrees with Mr. Elmore and states that rather than saying what the board
doesn’t want, they should define what they do want. She also agrees the board
needs to have a discussion regarding an overlay. She believes we need to
preserve the character of Beach Ave.
Patrick Stratton states that he agrees with Kelly, but also the board is not the
“aesthetics” board to determine what looks good and what doesn’t look good,
nor what is good use of land and what is not good use of land. How would you
feel if every house down Beach Ave threw a second story addition on inside
the 20ft setbacks? So now you would be going down a tunnel. How will we
handle it if we get 10 more in a row that want to put on 2nd stories? If we
approve this one tonite and then disapprove one in the future, the City will get
sued.
Sylvia states the board needs to make their decision tonite based on the code
and on the reasons given to either approve or disapprove, but this is not the
time nor the place to be discussing the need for a Beach Ave overlay. She
would like to bring the discussion back to this variance. She states that this
does not meet code. She believes the property is an eyesore and not of
historical nor architectural significance. The people who bought these two lots
took a single lot and divided them knew what they were getting, they were
getting a 50’ wide lot by 130’ deep. She states that this is a doable, buildable
lot without a variance.
Harley agrees with Sylvia in that this solution does not preserve the
architectural significance at all. If they built the second story further back then
they could preserve the architecture and the character from the street. He feels
there are several other solutions. Our job here is to enforce the code.
Mr. Pitler requested that the board defer their decision until the City
Commission makes their decision regarding through lots.
Motion Mr. Parkes makes a motion to recommend denial of ZVAR-14-00100025. Mr.
Stratton seconded it. All were in favor and motion carried.
C. ZVAR-14-00100026(PUBLIC HEARING)
1251 Selva Marina Circle (Linda Dunlap)
Request for zoning variance as permitted by Section 24-64 for a reduction
of lot width at the building restriction line as required by Section 24-256
(a).
Staff
Report
Derek Reeves, Zoning Technician introduced himself. He stated this is a
request to split a lot in Selva Marina, Unit 1, into two buildable lots.
Specifically, there is an issue of the lot with at the building restriction line.
This property is in the RS-L zoning district. Section 24-104 requires a lot
depth and width of 100 feet and minimum of 10,000 square feet for all new lots
in the RS-L zoning district.
The proposed property division splits the property into two lots, where both
lots have direct access to Selva Marina Circle. The proposed lots meet the
required 100 feet of depth and width, and greatly exceed the minimum 10,000
square feet, as lot one is over 20,000 square feet and lot two is over 17,000
square feet. Each proposed lot also has adequate room for a driveway that
would meet impervious surface regulations. As part of the original plat of
Selva Marina Unit 1, this property was platted with a 40 foot building
restriction line, (BRL). Lot two meets the required 75 feet of width at the
BRL, but lot one only has 65 feet of width at the BRL, which is 10 feet less
than required. This is the largest lot in Selva Marina Unit 1, by far the next
closest lot in size is 80% of the size. 33 of the 47 lots in Selva Marina Unit 1,
are smaller than the lot 1 split proposed. So over half of the lots in the existing
neighborhood will be smaller than what is proposed here.
More recently, the city made an effort to prevent future property divisions
within Selva Marina after concers expressed by the public and City
Commission by creating the RS-L zoning classification in 2006. Prior to the
creation of the RS-L zoning district, properties in this area were only required
to have 75 feet of width and 7,500 square feet. After a few property divisions,
including one that was especially controversial, the community expressed
concern over the loss of the large lot character of the neighborhood. That code
was then changed to the current lot size of 10,000 square feet and 100 feet of
lot width. This made is so that a lot now needs at least 20,000 square feet to be
divided, where it had been 15,000 square feet previously. The proposed lot
split is consistent with lot sizes in the RS-L zoning district, and is necessary
due to an irregular shaped lot, which does not have enough lot width at the
BRL to meet a specific code provision.
Applicant
Comment
Peter Coalson introduced himself on behalf of Linda Dunlap. Ms. Dunlap
wishes to divide the property for construction of two homes. Mr. Coalson
stated that he is very impressed with our new department. Peter says what we
have is a lot that is twice the size requirements in one lot and nearly that in the
other. We would like to get around this restriction caused by the culdesac.
Public
Comment
Beatrice Musser of 1420 Seminole Road was up first. She has lived at this
address since 1962. She is against splitting this lot and anymore lots in Selva
Marina. She states that the original conception of Selva Marina was large lots
and lots of big shady trees and that’s what prompted her to want to settle in
Atlantic Beach.
Next up was Maria Wilkes, 1320 East Coast Drive. Our house is right behind
the current residence. Unit 1 of Selva is very unique and there are not many
lots that big and that is why they moved from Ponte Vedra to Selva because of
the uniqueness and because of the size and shapes of the lots and feels we
should keep the integrity of the original lots. You shouldn’t be able to use the
argument of because this house sits on a culdesac it is okay to split.
Board
Comment
Harley Parkes stated that if you moved the BRL back 10 or 20 fee in Lot 1
where it would have a 75’ width wouldn’t this solve the issue? Mr. Elmore
stated that yes, that would solve it. Derek did state that there would have to be a
condition to either demo a portion of the structure to meet the setbacks or demo
the entire structure.
Mr. Stratton questioned us working around the codes, especially 24-256 and 24-
104. Mr. Elmore states that this is a colossal lot and even with splitting the lot it
meets all the requirements of what 24-104 stipulated. Regarding 24-256 Mr.
Elmore says you would just move the BRL back deeper to meet the 75’.
Sylvia states that the shape of this lot is the only reason the applicant needed to
apply, otherwise they could just split the lot without the boards’ permission. It
actually could have been divided into 3 lots based on the square footage of the
lot. Brea feels like this is just a mere formality and that with a pie shaped lot
you would want to push the house back in the lot anyways.
Sylvia states if the board grants the variance they are granting it based on
exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as
compared to other properties in the area.
Motion
Harley makes a motion to approve the Zoning Variance with the condition that
the building restriction line be located at the point that complies with the width
requirement of the existing ordinance, or 75’ and that the plat reflect that. The
other condition will require that the existing house on site must meet all the
required setbacks, which would require total demolition. Kelly Elmore
seconded and all were in favor.
Additional
Public
Comment
Rich Reichler of 2025 Beach Avenue states that he came to talk about 152 3rd
Street, he states he is at a loss at what the board expects to achieve by taking this
issue to the commission, the only possible outcome that he sees is basically
humiliation for the members of this board. I’m saying this because, one, this
law was recommended by you all, the law that’s written is only one sentence
long, so it is difficult to read something into the way it was written, thirdly, as it
was written, there was one workshop and then an initial reading of this law, at
the commission full public hearing, then there was an additional workshop and a
final reading of the law as it is now written. The commission voted for it
unanimously with no opposition from the community and I just don’t understand
how you can come back at some later time and say oh, well, we wanted, its our
impression that the law was not written as intended by this board, since you
never did provide any intention of the law to the commission, you didn’t ask for
it and neither did the commission, nobody even asked Mr. Griffin his intention
of the law or even why he was bringing this to the commission, nor mention any
positive nor negative affects this law would have. What is it that you expect to
achieve by going in front of the commission and I assume asking of what their
intention was when they passed the law.
Next Mr. Chris Jorgenson from 3rd St.. He states that before the meeting he
spoke to Jeremy and criticized the quality of the ground level photos and now he
is totally embarrassed and humiliated that right off the bat tonite Jeremy shows
high quality, precisely what I was talking about photographs. He states he
wishes all the boards would present the reasons for approval and denial.
5. Reports. No new reports.
6. Adjournment. Adjournment at 7:50.
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.A
CASE NO ZVAR‐14‐00100021
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64 for an increase in allowable
fence height from 4 feet to 6 feet within 10 feet of the property line on corner lots
where the abutting right‐of‐way is less than 50 feet as required by Section 24‐
157(c)(1) at Atlantic Beach Subdivision Block 20 Lots 5 and 6 (aka 587 Beach
Ave.).
LOCATION 587 BEACH AVENUE
APPLICANT KIRK AND ANNE MARIE MOQUIN
DATE AUGUST 7, 2014
STAFF JEREMY HUBSCH, BUILDING AND ZONING DIRECTOR
DEREK REEVES, ZONING TECHNICIAN
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicants are Kirk and Anne Marie Moquin, the owners of the property, with representation from
Thomas Kervin of Aurora Custom Homes. The property is an ocean front lot on the corner of Beach Avenue
and 6th Street. There is currently a new home being constructed on the site by Mr. Kervin for the owners.
The owners are seeking to redesign their originally approved plans to move the location of a fence along 6th
street to the property line and to increase the height to 6 feet from 4 feet along its length.
A variance is needed for this redesign according to Section 24‐157(c)(1) which states, “for corner lots
located on rights‐of‐way that are fifty (50) feet or less in width, no fence, wall or landscaping exceeding four
feet in height, shall be allowed within ten (10) feet of any lot line which abuts a street.” The 6th Street right‐
of‐way is 40 feet wide.
The applicants’ desire to have the height of their fence along 6th Street increased from 4 feet to 6 feet is
largely motivated by safety and security concerns. An incident has been recorded with the Atlantic Beach
Police where an unknown and unauthorized individual climbed the 6 foot temporary construction fence.
There was no damage or injury in this case, but the applicants are concerned that this may happen again if
the project is completed with a 4 foot tall fence. While the applicants intend to do as much as possible to
prevent safety and security issues including security cameras, locking gates and an automatic pool cover;
they believe a 6 foot tall fence would add an additional barrier to potential trespassers. It is of note that the
state sets the minimum height of a fence around a pool at 4 feet.
Staff has found 23 variances related to fences that have come before the Community Development Board
since 2000 and 12 have been approved. Two of the approvals were considered because of high levels of
pedestrian traffic and parking in right‐of‐ways related to beach accesses. There has also been an approval
for an increase in height allowed for properties near Rose Park and three related to high levels of vehicular
traffic on corner lots. Another was approved on a corner lot in relation to pedestrian traffic from Atlantic
Beach Elementary, while one more recently was denied for similar reasons.
Page 2 of 4
In an effort to improve the aesthetic views of the property along 6th Street as well as provide a safer
environment, the applicants have offered to work with the city to design and furnish 3 parallel parking
spaces in the right‐of‐way along the south side of 6th Street east of Beach Avenue. These spaces are already
recognized by the city as beach access parking, but they are not paved.
Aerial of 587 Beach Avenue and Surrounding Area
Courtesy of Google Maps
Site Plan of 587 Beach Avenue
Previously Permitted Location of Fence
Previously Permitted 4 Foot
Fence to be Raised to 6 Feet
New Location of 6 Foot Fence
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.
As with most ocean front lots in the city, this lot has a relatively large change in elevation within and
around it when compared to the rest of city. The area closest to the ocean has an elevation of about 8 feet
that climbs over a distance of about 80 feet to the finished floor elevation of 17.9 feet of the main house.
The public beach access directly to the north of this site follows similar contours until the walkway is
elevated to go over the dunes. At this point there are clear views into the yard of the residence. The
applicants have concerns that this visibility will encourage people to trespass onto the property and
possibly result in vandalism or injury. The applicants believe the additional 2 feet of height will reduce the
visibility into the yard and provide a more significant obstacle to potential trespassers.
(2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties.
The primary reason for corner lots to have fences of 4 feet or less along right‐of‐ways is to ensure that
traffic has adequate sight lines at intersections. However, sight lines over private property are not
required at all‐way stop intersections like Beach Avenue and 6th Street. The fence along Beach Avenue is
already planned to be 6 feet tall and positioned away from the Beach Avenue right‐of‐way in an effort to
provide adequate sight lines.
(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.
Page 4 of 4
REQUIRED ACTION
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to recommend approval of ZVAR‐14‐00100021,
request for a variance for an increase in allowable fence height from 4 feet to 6 feet within 10 feet of the
property line on corner lots where the abutting right‐of‐way is less than 50 feet as required by Section 24‐
157(c)(1) at Atlantic Beach Subdivision Block 20 Lots 5 and 6 (aka 587 Beach Ave.), 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 ZVAR‐14‐00100021,
request for a variance for an increase in allowable fence height from 4 feet to 6 feet within 10 feet of the
property line on corner lots where the abutting right‐of‐way is less than 50 feet as required by Section 24‐
157(c)(1) at Atlantic Beach Subdivision Block 20 Lots 5 and 6 (aka 587 Beach Ave.), 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.
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 5.A
CASE NO AMENDING CODE SECTION 24-84 (THROUGH LOTS)
DATE AUGUST 7, 2014
STAFF JEREMY HUBSCH, BUILDING AND ZONING DIRECTOR
STAFF COMMENTS
On April 14, 2014, the City Commission passed Ordinance 90-14-222 as presented by the former Building
Director. This ordinance specifically relates to through lots between Beach Avenue and Ocean Boulevard.
The code prior to this ordinance had a special provision which stated that on through lots between Beach
and Ocean, the front yard was to be Ocean Boulevard and the rear yard Beach Avenue. This meant that
detached garages could be built within 5’ to 10’ of Beach Avenue, depending on their height.
The code change that was implemented in April took away the special provision that allowed the rear
yard to be on Beach Avenue. The code now reads that through lots between Beach and Ocean are to be
treated the same as through lots elsewhere in the city. On through lots elsewhere in the city, both street
facing sides of the property are considered the front yard. This means that you cannot build detached
garages, pools, or other accessory structures within 20 feet of the street on either street frontage.
CODE HISTORY
Beach Avenue has historically developed and operated as more of an alleyway than a road. This dates
back to the early 20th Century, when staff believes it was unpaved when originally constructed. At this
time, the actual beach itself had a platted 32 foot right of way. This meant that oceanfront homes literally
had a front yard on the beach and that Beach Avenue was their rear yard (or alleyway). Similarly, homes
on through lots between Beach Avenue and Ocean Boulevard considered Ocean Boulevard their front
yard and Beach Avenue as their rear yard. This development pattern led to Beach Avenue being treated
and developed as somewhat of an alleyway. Residents on both sides of the street built their detached
garages, garage apartments, or guest quarters along Beach Avenue, and in some cases right up on the
right of way. This development pattern prevented the city from ever being able to acquire enough right-
of-way for a two way street.
The earliest example of city code related to through lots shows that Beach Avenue was considered the
rear yard for through lots between Beach and Ocean. Ordinance 050 in the year 1940 said, “In the case of
lots running from street to street, the front yard of the lot is adjacent to the wider street”. Ocean being the
wider street would have been the front yard and Beach Avenue the rear. As part of a major overhaul of
the Land Development Regulations in 1982, this section was changed to say, “a double frontage or
through lot is defined as a lot that has frontage on two non intercepting streets. The applicable front
setback requirement shall apply to both frontages regardless of which line the land owner elects as the
Page 2 of 2
front line”. However, four years later, a special provision was put into the code relating to through lots
between Beach Avenue and Ocean, and for Oceanfront homes. Section 24-84 stated, “On double frontage
lots, the required front yard shall be provided on each street, except the required front yard on through
lots between Beach Avenue and the Atlantic Ocean shall be the yard which faces the Atlantic Ocean, and
the front yard on double frontage lots between Beach Avenue and Ocean Boulevard shall be the yard
which faces Ocean Boulevard.”
Other than the 4 year period between 1982 and 1986, Beach Avenue has developed and been regulated
as the rear yard for through lots between Beach Avenue and Ocean Boulevard since the inception of
Atlantic Beach. Staff is of the opinion that the code should be changed back to the way it was prior to the
recent change in April 2014.
REQUIRED ACTION
Recommendation to the City Commission relating to Section 24-84 of the Land Development
Regulations.
Previous Code
Sec. 24-84. Double frontage lots.
(a) Double frontage lots. On double frontage lots, the required front yard shall be provided on
each street, except for lots as set forth below and as set forth in section 24-88.
(b) Special treatment of ocean-front Lots. For lots having frontage on the Atlantic Ocean, the
front yard shall be the yard which faces the Atlantic Ocean, and the required front yard shall
be measured from the lot line parallel to or nearest the ocean.
(c)Special treatment of Ocean Boulevard lots with double frontage. For double frontage lots
extending between Beach Avenue and Ocean Boulevard, the required front yard shall be the
yard, which faces Ocean Boulevard.
Current Code
Sec. 24-84. Double frontage lots.
(a) Double frontage lots. On double frontage lots, the required front yard shall be provided on
each street, except for lots as set forth below and as set forth in section 24-88.
(b) Special treatment of ocean-front Lots. For lots having frontage on the Atlantic Ocean, the
front yard shall be the yard which faces the Atlantic Ocean, and the required front yard shall
be measured from the lot line parallel to or nearest the ocean.
(c)Special treatment of Ocean Boulevard lots with double frontage. For double frontage lots
extending between Beach Avenue and Ocean Boulevard, the required front yard shall be the
yard, which faces Ocean Boulevard.