Exh 8AAGENDA ITEM #SA
NOVEMBER 23, 2005
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
' AGENDA ITEM: Selva Verde Replat. Request to replat a portion of Block 1 within Unit 1 of
the Selva Marina subdivision, including all of Lot 33 and portions of Lot 32 and Lot 34 for the
purpose of creating three single-family residential lots ranging in size from 8167 square feet to
12,884 square feet in Lot Area. This property is located at the northwest corner of 12th Street and
Selva Marina Circle.
SUBMITTED BY: Sonya Doerr, AICP ,O ~-l~
• ~ Community Development Director
DATE: November 18, 2005
. BACKGROUND: This request seeks approval to reconfigure a portion of the Selva Marina
subdivision to create three single-family residential lots. The original "parent parcel" contains one
' lot (Lot 33) and portions of two adjacent lots (Lots 32 and 34). While such a division would be
. considered an illegal division of property under current Land Development Regulations, this
property has apparently existed in its current configuration long prior to the regulation of such
' " divisions of land. This "parent parcel" is of sufficient size to create three lots that meet the width,
depth and lot area requirements of the RS-1 Zoning District and the Low Density Comprehensive
Plan designation. A subdivision re-plat, however, must be approved and recorded in order for this
' ~ division of property to create legal platted Lots of Record.
Each proposed new lot meets the minimum 75-foot width and 100-depth requirements of the RS-1
Zoning District. Proposed Lot 1 will contain 8,167 square feet; Lot 2 will contain 11,625 square
feet, and Lot 3 will contain 12,884 square feet. The proposed lot sizes are also consistent with
Residential, Low Density future land use category, which establishes maximum permitted density
of up to six dwelling units per acre.
RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Board considered this request fora re-
plat at their August 16th meeting, and following comments and objections by residents,
recommended denial by a 5:1 vote, citing the following findings of fact.
1. Approval of this re-plat is not consistent with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations for
the City of Atlantic Beach.
2. The request is contrary to public interest and is detrimental to the health, safety and welfare
of general public.
' 3. The proposed re-plat is not compatible with adjacent properties and other properties within
. the surrounding area because this neighborhood within the Selva Marina subdivision
contains larger lots than those requested.
4. The proposed subdivision re-plat is not consistent with the RS-1 Zoning District or the RL
(Residential, Low Density) Comprehensive Plan designation.
AGENDA ITiJNI #8A
NOVEbIBi/R 28, 200
5. The proposed subdivision re-plat is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan,
• specifically, Goal A.l; Objective A.1.6 and Objective A.1.3 of the 2015 Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Element. (Reproduced as follows.)
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, 4) maintains the City's distinct residential community
' ~ character, 5) provides for reasonable public safety and security from hazardous conditions
associated with coastal locations, and 6) that provides public services and facilities in a timely and
cost effective manner.
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, 2) provides for the preservation and protection of the dense tree canopy, and 3) which
provides for varied and diverse recreational opportunities, including the preservation, acquisition
and development of public access to the beach and other water-related resources.
Objective A.L6 -Preservation of Older Neighborhoods
The City shall preserve the sound structural condition and the diverse character of the built
environment of the City and shall encourage development programs and activities that are directed
• , at infill development as well as the conservation, redevelopment and re-use of existing structures
and the preservation of and re-investment in older neighborhoods.
BUDGET: No budget issues.
. ATTACHMENTS: Draft minutes of the November 15th Community Development Board
meeting, supporting information and copy of Selva Marina, Unit 1 subdivision plat (as originally
platted) and proposed Selva Verde re-plat.
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
November 28, 2005 regular meeting
2
AGENDA ITEM #8A
NOVEMBER 28, 2005
Draft Minutes of November 1 S, 2005 meeting of the Community Development Board
b. Selva Verde re-plat, Lindley Tolbert. Review and recommendation to the City Commission
related to a proposed preliminary subdivision re-plat to create three new lots, for property
within the RS-1 Zoning District and located at the northwest corner of 12th Street and
Sclya Marina Circle.
Lindley Tolbert, 334 6th Street, purchased 2 lots, one at 1202 Selva Marina Circle and one at 361
12th Street. Prior to August these lots were one large parcel.
Campbell Ford, 1825 Oceanview Drive, attorney representing Ms. Tolbert, understood that there
were concerns about this proposal but stated that the rules and regulations of the City were being
followed.
Carolyn Woods stated that the rule and regulation with the highest authority is the
Comprehensive Plan. In particular the portion about Old Atlantic Beach that states the City shall
manage growth that maintains healthy environment, preserves and enhances social,
environmental and natural historical resources, and provides for public safety. The distinct
residential character of this neighborhood needs to be maintained. This property does meet the
infill development requirement. This property is only a small portion of the neighborhood, and
by allowing the property to be divided again will lead to the degradation of this neighborhood.
The lots proposed would be 30 feet smaller than any other lot in the area. The most important
thing in the Plan that addresses this is preserving this area and the character that it currently has.
Mr. Ford states that the proposal is for lots that are quite a bit bigger than the 75-foot minimum.
Required by the rules. Second of all, he recognizes that they are coming in late under the same
set of laws that have long been in effect and that his client should not be penalized as long as
they are still complying with the law that is now in effect.
Ms. Woods stated that nothing in the Code or Comp Plan states that the City must allow the
creation of smaller lots.
Mr. Ford responded that what should govern the decision is the precedence that has been
established over and over again in the past, and that if you follow those rules and the specifics of
the Code in considering this request, should be able to accomplish this request.
Dave MacInnes stated that it looks like there will be three lots. Ms. Tolbert responded that the
lot that is over 19,000 square feet would be divided in two, resulting in three lots.
Chris Lambertson asked staff about why this matter was being brought before this Board. Ms.
Doerr responded that the original parcel was a larger piece of property. The City's subdivision
regulations allow you to administratively divide a piece of property into two lots if those two lots
meet all size and other requirements. The larger parcel had been divided into two lots, and one
of those lots was still large enough to again divide into two lots meeting the RS-1 and Low
Density minimum sizes, but that since this would have the effect of creating three lots, further
division could not be approved administratively by staff. Such a division would have to be
reviewed as a subdivision re-plat tluough the process set forth in the Subdivision regulations.
Mr. Lambertson asked if there had been an effort to request this further division
administratively. Ms. Doerr stated that she advised the applicant that a replat was necessary
because the division of the overall parcel creates more than two contiguous lots. Each of the
three lots proposed may be large enough to meet all the size requirements, but that the replat
process is the proper procedure to use for this request.
Sam Jacobson asked Ms. Doerr about why this is different than other divisions of lots. Ms.
Doerr explained that in years past, property owners in Atlantic Beach sold off portions and
pieces of platted lots, such that many of the oldest subdivisions no longer resemble the original
subdivision plat maps as those were approved and recorded. Depending on when such lots were
AGENDA ITEM #8A
NOVEMBER 28, ZUUS
Draft Minutes ojNovenrber 1 S, 2005 meeting of the Cormnunity Development Board
created, the City recognizes those as being lots of records. Current regulations require that all lot
divisions must be approved and done in accordance with the proper process in order to obtain
building permits for these lots.
Mr: Ford stated that if you look at the rules about dividing the property, technically and
administratively, there was some thought that they could meet the requirements administratively
just by dividing the property again. All three of these lots are more than the minimum size
required for the new lots. Ms. Tolbert, however, had followed Ms. Doerr's direction that the
three lots must be created through the replat process. Steve Jenkins asked City Attorney Alan
Jensen, to address Mr. Ford's position that seems to state that the City cannot deny this request,
and that it cannot be approved administratively. Mr. Jensen responded that it sounds to be
consistent with the Comp Plan and with the zoning regulations, but the CD Board can
recommend to the City Commission to approve or deny. The City Commission makes the final
decision. City Attorney Jensen was asked if the City Commission was to deny this request,
could such a denial be defended.in court. Mr. Jensen responded, probably not.
Mr. Jacobson: A comment was made that it appears that it is compliance with the Comp Plan,
what is the basis for that statement.
Sonya Doerr responded that the land use designation for this property is low density residential,
' ' which allows a maximum of six dwelling units per acre and that the proposed division into three
single-family residential lots will be within that density limit, and the use will be single-family
residential within a residential area.
Lynn Drysdale asked staff if any of these three proposed lots would be considered
nonconforming or substandard. Ms. Doerr stated no; as proposed, they would each all meet the
RS-1 and Low, Density size requirements.
Carolyn Woods stated that the according to the Comp Plan it does meet the square footage, but
nowhere in the plan does it say we must approve this. The Comp Plan does specifically say that
the City is trying to preserve existing old neighborhoods, and this proposal does not do that. Ms.
Woods stated that it specifically violates that provision of the Comp Plan.
Chris Lambertson asked staff about the building restriction lines on the original plat maps that
were distributed to the Board. Ms. Doerr responded that the platted building restriction lines
must still be maintained in the case that this request is approved. The zoning setback is 20-feet
in the front and 20-feet in the rear. The 75x100 RS-1 District lot size predates the Comp Plan,
but the 7500 square feet lot size is also consistent with the Low Density land use category. Mr.
Lambertson asked is it made sense that these building restriction lines were larger than the
zoning setbacks in keeping with the character of these larger lots and asked if making these lots
smaller would create an a hardship for later developing these lots. Mr. Lambertson stated that it
seems we would be making smaller lots but keeping the same restrictions that apply to larger
lots. Ms. Doerr responded that the lots would still comply with the Comprehensive Plan density
and dial this smaller lot size could not Later be used as justification for a Variance request. Mr.
Lambertson stated his concern that we might be creating irregular lots.
Sam Jacobson asked about what kind of building will be able to go on these lots. Ms. Doerr
responded that any building would be subject to all regulations and entitled to no relief in the
form of a Variance.
Mr. Ford stated that the minimum lot size is 7500 square feet, and all three of the lots to be
created by this division will be greater than that minimum.
2
AGIrNDA ITIrN1 #8A
NOVCMBER 28, 200
Draft Mijitrtes of November 1 S, 2005 meeting of the Community Development Board
Chris Lambertson responded that once you have shrunk the building envelope, it will likely push
any new buildings to the maximum height and that could negatively affect the character of the
" ~ nerghborhood.
' Mr. Ford stated that they would meet the same restrictions that everyone in Atlantic Beach had
.. to meet when building new homes.
Sam Jacobson inquired from the applicant as to their occupation. Ms. Tolbert responded that she
remodeled beach houses for a living. Mr. Jacobson asked if it was the intention to put up
" structures on these lots. Ms. Tolbert responded that she would like to sell two of the lots and
build on the other lot.
Mr. Jacobson asked whether a,tree survey was done. Ms. Tolbert responded that the trees would
be minimally impacted. All trees fall on the lot line or within seven feet on either side. The
larger lot does not have a lot of trees.
Mr. Jacobson asked if it was recognized that breaking this down would not conform with the
wishes of neighborhood. Ms. Tolbert stated that a number of the lots have been divided and it
has not degraded the appearance of the neighborhood.
" The hearing was then open to the public for speaking.
' Kevin Byrnes, 391 8th Street. Mr. Byrnes asked if the bigger lot was the corner lot. Ms. Tolbert
" responded that it was. Mr. Byrnes asked how that division was decided upon, and Ms. Tolbert
responded it was done keeping the integrity of the neighborhood in mind.
Susan Marriani, 360 12th Street. She lives caddy-corner from the property. Have lived there
` " for years with one house on those lots. Moved there because they love the community.
Aesthetically, there is no way that you can say that this will not change the look and feel of the
neighborhood. The old town feel will be negatively affected. The quality of life, once you
` develop this area, there is no going back. She expressed concerns about the resources -just
had the sewers redone due to the water problems. What is to stop division of large lots on
Selva Marina Drive, are they going to divide them all into six 50-foot lots. She also expressed
" ' concerns about safety, evacuation. Unplanned growth such as this does not consider the future.
We must think of our children. If the developers have their way the quality of life will be
negatively affected. Should go with the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law.
Leonard Caurse, Selva Marina. Disagrees that there is an outpouring from the community. This
objection represents only a small minority. Believes that you are infringing on the property
" rights. They have met the law, and this should be approved.
Next-door neighbor then spoke. The man read an e-mail from his 96-year-old mother, who
was concerned with any proposal to reduce the size of lots, believing it will reduce the quality
" of life. Believes that this proposal is against the original intent of the neighborhood.
Kate Gamball, 320 12th Street, bought simply because of the greenscape, it appears that we
have no legal resource. Concerned that the neighborhood is being changed dramatically. Do
feel that there should be some value in the larger lots, and no longer has the initial quality of
. life. Requested that the Board please deny this request.
Thom Goelz, 320 Beach Ave. Don't confuse property rights with the ability of the Board to
address quality of life issues. If its simply a geometric issues, why are we here tonight. There
` are larger issues than just if they meet the laws that need to be considered.
3
r1GENDA ITEM #SA
NOVEMBER 28, 2005
Draft Minutes of November 1 S, 2005 nrecting of the Community Development Board
• Nancy Bodge, 336 12th Street. Submitted and read a letter, on behalf or her husband, into the
record expressing concerns that the proposal will degrade the area. The proposal to allow three
new residences is not good. Concerns that the tree canopy will be lost. Public interest is not met
- - with the request Recommend denial to the replat.
Renee Legiero, 389 12r'' Street. Specifically bought this house for the area, to see it split up into
three is very heartbreaking
William Robichieu, 352 12th Street. Does not have a lot to add, other than it is a shame that we are
taking a community street and destroying a neighborhood that we have come 'to love. Atlantic
. - Beach has become the place to live at the beaches. It would be a shame to destroy the character
of the area.
Sam Jacobson asked the staff that in the material that is provided to the Board there are criteria
(suggested findings) for recommending approval or denial. Where do the criteria come from? Ms.
Doerr responded that you need,to have some reason to recommend approval or denial to the City
Commission based upon consistency with the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations, the
Comprehensive Plan and the procedure for this request as set forth in- the subdivision regulations.
Mr. Jacobson stated he was particularly interested in the third item: about is the replat compatible
with surrounding properties?
Is this a proper element that should be considered in a replat, such as what was requested here
- tonight. Ms. Doerr responded that compatibility was an issue that needs to be considered in most
zoning and land use related decisions.
The pubic hearing was closed and the floor was open to discussion.
Carolyn Woods clarified the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Woods looked at this area as being
part of Selva Marina, it borders old Atlantic Beach, but to compare these lots to the small lots in Old
Atlantic Beach is not a comparable comparison. These lots are not compatible with size of the lots
in Selva Marina.
Dave MacInnes stated that based on Mr. Jensen's comments -suggested recommendations for
approval of denial -there seems that there could be legal issues if we recommend denial.
Mr. Jensen stated that this Board needs to just recommend appro~~al or denial; the City Commission
will make the final decision.
Sam Jacobson stated that whatever recommendation is offered by the Community Development
Board, it will have major affect on the Commission's decision.
Carolyn Woods reiterated that any decision to be made was bound primarily by the Comp Plan
Sam Jacobson stated that in many ways that this Board is dealing with the right of the community to
• regulate land use versus the question of private property rights and the notion that anyone that owns
property should be able to do what they want. On the other hand, neighbors also have property
rights and there are regulations to offer guidance, our role is to figure out where the appropriate
balance is.
. In this case we are dealing with an established neighborhood that has a certain ambiance or character
that people are looking for. People have an emotional investment in their neighborhood. There has
to be some reasonable restriction that other people have to follow to go with the ambiance of the
neighborhood. In my opinion, what Ms. Tolbert is asking to do will not be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
4
AGENDA ITI;i4I #8r1
NOVIJb1BER 28, 2005
Draft Minutes of November 1 S, 2005 meeting of the Commztnity Development Board
After additional discussion, Carolyn Woods made a motion to deny the request in that it is
not compatible with Goals A.1 and Objective A.1.6 of the Comp Plan in that it is contrary to
the community, the proposed replat is not compatible with adjacent properties, and Selva
Marina is an area with larger Lots, this is not in keeping tivith that character.
Lynn Drysdale recommended to add Objective A.1.3 to the motion. Ms. Woods agreed to
amend the motion to add that the proposal is also not compatible with Objective A.1.3.
The motion was approved 5-1, with Dave MacInness dissenting.
5
~n
''y' o
~ C
~ N
~ N
r-• a
~,
Qq
A~
~~
C7 ~
0
~
;ti
;
i~` , ..
G') ~a `
'~.
•'r•
' •
V'A ~ ~
~`
•
U O
~C~R U.o„~ ~
1 . ti a
~•uer~o•e~~o`
y\;4~~y~.~ao~ i
CV
• Q L 4 ~ ` ~ ~ ~ o p~.Q •~
` ~ \
~ ~~r~~~ re
~ cam:
O ~ b `~ `0'O V .p ~ ~v y,
~
e
~VhS~eu~o~~
ryhu~'.~'r^'~`4~~ ~
~``'~a~.ue~•o'`a
o'er u ~ ~.~ ~ u a, u
O
~ -.C•
~
U~
O~N
O~'h 4,U~
~~ ~ V l h y ~Q u\`-•~
troy ~ N•~ C~~•C~ ~ ~
uo ~~ a eti~
a\•v
C.
' j ~ V ~ C` F U 0 ~\ ~ Y`.~ `~ ~ p V
•~ ~• ~"`ecu~~~~£,",oi•5 ~u
YG p \~\`\~\\ro~
%•:
C u~ o ^~
u
O
u~
l
o l
i o
o~o~a~~~~~oe~
' •q~
a
$ ~o~•s~~~ ~~ ~•F
of
. I
ICI
I a I
---------~ girl
.\
~`
~`
ti
ti
•
`` • ° a~~
a ~~ ~ ~, F
C ~ ~ U l
V~ ~\ Ve'` \\~aj ~T'•\
\.U, ]\
ro.Cye~Ciu`*\ ``~•i•~
ve~uut°l'c~~n;~`
~~~~~`tiu~~u~uo~
~~bs~uo~ o~O~~uw~1
~ti'~~o a ° h ~~~q~~~ a h;°
e Q \a~_ ~ w ro h 4~~~~ u U
v
CoVpu~`oa0•D~Cv^~.C
b U O ` A`l 4\ ~' ~
p l 1 C 'Cp '~ U U y ~. \~
pe]`Tin~hA~~yp~u•0
yp'en,P4"~oP a u
hV y~~'I ~•enU C~pW pC'^iy
d~ D~V ~q~ h~C 4'~lUii p
N p U~~ C ~ U a h\.C C
u.u~ h.y 'a a, a o h a
.C ~ ~ `y~; V U'01ry e~ ~ h y O ~
~•C V \~\ t V, U p•~ qy ~l ~i
~F~~~~'~~~~~ero0~a
~cV°~~0,au~PWtip~
h ~ p l 'C Q~ a' V 4~
;~AOp UNUa atu~•^W0
.~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ '~o~ art ~ ` ~ e
o~.C l~ C~\ ~lr Oy u'a'yC
~ h o~ 0 u ro~ Uh ~~~~ a
4~U~ Op`Qa\O~CU~
U AU P•e U V p U M~ \•"
C q~~~~~w•~p\~~ 0 V S`
~`eati~,u,~hrN~~ai~~i
ro cQ ~ ~u ~,~,tigc4~~ u~Q
~ R•6 yh tl \UUUN
eb.\U\L OI~V`oi~`~`i~V .
~~ V v~~~ h 4 ~~ v y~~
vh~oti'n~~o~~~~ti~ti~W
~; ~~ _tJ ••?~
••~~ Y..i'~ :?
.i
'~u o ~•
WCU h~~O h ~
\\4 C
~ u
v
4 U4 ~ a
E V ro.C ^ o~ a
~
\
h
~ p,
~
V .Q
h
~
b
~e .,„p ~ p
S~
~~ ~ `;V Q~.~ V h
3
•.
ro y
~ ~
~
u
.
u
Flo ~ •C^
~ ~ R a `
~ u ~ b h t
~
U
X9:0 5~~~~ ~ ~
~ u
l
\ O 4
.
Q 4 ~ ~ 4~\ \\
a ] ~4~
~ e0 '\0
4
\ u
~
hy. p h O ro ~ C plU
~
~tuU\O Ah \~ -
~•h 1~J
4
`t. roe Q`~..ae ~
4
o
a
(1
e
`.J~
~`~gCgo.'~
~~
ti 1a
°
he
yF~a~e
i.p
~~ ~ u,v~ ~ n o o'y ~
~ '
~~ a o~•o i 1•~.
ro ~ i
•~
'~C,N U~a4ti 4M ~b
\.'~'Cb u \l
~o~~
o~~
~
VR eh
~u
~~
e
a
a
~]~C U\u3b\.o.~l
~
~
V ~ U ~'~
~~~\ N J,C ~
WI`~ ~qu ou ^`~`\\~ ^to
n U o~U o ova ~~v ~ ti
~ ,~ • a~
I~ ~ 1 Y7d S/Nl N/ O~Op7~N/ .[~iV I ti
j N I F8o6od ti .rooa' /e/d I h l
I i. I .t y.tt .a' a' 6'd i ~i i H ~ V19
~ °_ .G W
\ o o . 5° eo ~
m 5 ^n
TT
~. $ '.
\• 1~ '+:
ai t
\\ Z'QW,H \ ,~~ ~
e
V is ~ ~ o~
\\ A~ ' m
\` \ +\
\\ ~~
\ ~d
~~
z
^
.
~
u
\
~
~
~•
~~
`~•~ i
~~~ ~
'`
V
Rti°' ~~
b~ u
~ ~
•; c O
ti'D p~
T.
C ~ q
u
•~ o
` ~
~
~3
• ~~~ti
C~\~
\ 6
~ •
~~~r
p
V
ri
u .~ ~ 1~
C`
.Q;C~
ro ~
l
~
'C o
.~~a
Z •~ i
~ ~:
•
ti' 1' ~~ ~.
.•
.. _
r,=
LJ'- ~^
'^
' }~ tt i •
y •,i.
.: `r. ;.
•'
^~ ~ ~ ; 1
.~~. ~`'
C u
h.ti~ 0
h
~r~ d
~i
o
~r. 1 Q
o .
b h
v ~ ro ~ a~
u':
u
~'0 v
~ ] q
~~
9 4y ~ 1~ro
a ~ ~° ee
e~~
•~ ryV
a
K
ti
oar o
,ate ~~,
nh~aal
•C~ o~
~
•~
u`~~
\ y
V ~~
o.a~ ° u
.~ ~,~ ~
h
N
`y
'p
u`
U ~
~\q~ .C
~~~~;
o ~`~ q
~.o~~
I
I h ~
o•
i
I
----J
I
I
t
I
I
~---
.~-- --~ .or ('--
N I I
P i I
I p I 1
I
$ ''__ ICI
---~
o I W I
3 N U V I C I
---'~"~ ~ •-~ I
Wy~ ' N I•
.~--gi-R----~ I
-o-- 2 c v~ I ^
41 m ~'~ , I I
~ ~_~ I
---oQ~Z I I
0
-- N h'CT-'1 I w
\ ~ •li. d'
\~.y,J •a ~.~
~\ ` •a
el
el
0
U
.C
U
I
I
L___
M
~„ ~n
0
~ N
-.r ~
N
Ap
WW
~ ~
~z
' U z
_ -
3 0 ~ °-
Z w o~ ? o ~
m
I C1RC~E ~ ~ w m = ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~
i ~\IA A PAS U ~N
V R~NRIt~ _~~ a W W n J~ ' w
M Ap r W v~ _
4. m K u
w ~~ RiGHt DP WAY ,~ ~mi p = U a J o ° r = ~ ~ ~
Z
i ~ RAONS 30"E. ~ `59~E •OD. ~ o~aWZd az °ma r W~o~:
Q S1ti'093g.g5 55 p0 5. p9 F w ~ = a ~ ~ vwi ~ ~- < <~ ~€.
~ a ~ C~ORS06'1B'00"E 3g.2 ~ f6 s~/pb Z~~~o i~°~ ~~ a 6~h<a
I, V a ~ -- 34.00' a ~--- y~~s~9~~y ~ ~3~v~ 1~_-'=a oo a
W Y _
Q 4W r--~ W = ~" r ~ ~~O~W N aQO Oa
Y I x z '~ I ' O p N i iNG REStR1CT10N ENE ~ ~ 3 iO w fn ~~ o m N~ n. ? O
.d $ ~" ... ~ _..-------'~' ~ ~ 3(l~ EjU L~ ~ 1 N (O Q ~ w ° ~ 4 3 W W O ~ W
O ~ ~ -------t-"°-- ~~ o ~ 'b 0 i!~ ~ o o ~~ w a z o a ...~ z v
W C7 ~ o ~ '" ~ np °vi~ r~za omr < m
= N W wO w .~, ~ :n [t: N °zam~~ oa~n t"ia v
m (/~ R ~ r ~ a e z ~ fD= ~a^0 ~-, a~~iiw~ 4oN ~
~ ~ z
~°n ~ ~ ~; Z W ~ ~~~~o ~m °z
J ~ ~ m z 100.00' ~ CL'
~ aaarQ ,, 'i'w ~
~ ~ z 75.69' 6'53"W 175.69' W ~ b . ~ < `=~ v ~ ~ N ~ ~ a r
~ M ~ N06'S 21 ~.t ~ ~ J~Onw o LLom
.t r Z vt
00
~ r iil ~ O ~1 N~ ~ N~o 4UN43 ~ N4n ~p UV
~ r g~ m ~a '
11 ~ ~ 57' 1' ~ a ~'dooo ~ »z o~w <°
~~~ ~ Z N06'S6'53"`N 167. ; , ~ ~°c~i~n w ~~N ooh o0
\ ~ ~ i~.~j 1~ THE WEST 29.75' OF LO1 34 =` _ - ~ ~ w ~ g o 0 o W a W z W z wo
CJ W ~ Vl a
~ '~/ a 3 Ir __~ _~~- ~ 1 N Un. jZO ° roo m~~ wm
_ } m
}- p 1~ Jy7y1'1 ~~' ~ ~ I m °o~L-~i4.t z c~ m aW~ ~
.t,~ r a a V = p, m
Z ~ l yd6.~ fir' ~^ O-w°- °w ~°-a rwa '~a
~~._ ~ ~Y ~ rn ~ N~aoc~m z ama ~m'_' ~
~ O • 1 67~ 67 N s~' r' 'in ~v=i~~aG.' u~ m~~ ~ ago ¢~
i
m
Q ~. ~ ~1 . , .~, a z ~ O a'~ o ~ w m
Z ~ ~ z oo ?
~ Z ~T' a ~
O a ~~
j U w >~
J r >>
• W J
w U ~
Q (n Q ~ ~ r o c.i '
0 -~ Z ~ V j W
Z N
~ Q .~ U>CW.7 a.~
O Y ~ V' a7<OW'
J () O Z ~Ut.. UIY
w OwW W~..
0000
J ~ ~ON~rr..rr
m a y ~ 0 4 Z S ~ ~~
~ ~i¢'~` aaaa
F- r
d' O wcntov~wrnmm
~ p ~. ~ooooo00
O Z r W W W W W W W W
U Q U aooooo00
z
C\\ J ~ m wVIW fw.7 OS UrUCC .
I~~VI' ~ ~~= J UR'J 6. 6.da
a ~ Z F- 7
~ W Z msr ~ ~ <0 4
O ~ ov=ir n I v ~ °~
U cn U °za ' ~ 1 wo 0
i
}- zam I ° ~c°~, O,np
~' CD ~ 1=-' =ro Wo I° w o oao ~
U = O o~w o v`-i~ " m a a
~- ~ ~ . ~Lm'~ ~ o cis zo d <; a I ~ I
J W C~ Jwa ~ a °v. aU ~o ~ I ~o ti ~ I
Q ~ d J~a°o ~ Z NOa Iid ~c°~ cwio ilv ~gd ~ ~c°~ I
w U >- o_ D
S O N ~oa a Woo < I mz~ v I m°'
Q ~' NNy, W ~~ I D OWO Z I WN
7m UI W w ~~~ J ~ d Vl
}- ~ O UU~ ~ ~ 03 1 ~ ~ ~O~ n. I ~J
O Zf.72 W Z X Oa.WZ O O
{- m ZZIn W ~ mY WN aZ~~ V ZZ
U O oar U or W~ LziNV z a~
LL ~ ° 7 ,/f0 ~ I ,W~..11Z I ma mQ~ Z ~W
O Z WOO =N = I I1 I °3~ I =°-~, 4Z0 OW I I =a
~ t ° W
J m~''a r ~ ua <~ roo o~ Iwin°
Q p ~~~' m ! ~ am ¢ nJ. moo a>. cm.~¢o
~ ~`J''~ Or I ~ O ¢O ~ 1_n 2• ~wp r ~p 3~Ii
_ W
O ~ Z_ww w I ° r~ w ~ ~°v. ~~~ 0 5 wW°
F- ~ z Jaz a I z z~ ow v aJ a~° ° w ¢ °'oa
o rya z ~ ~'' ! ~ w a
J ~ a a°o J~.. ~ ~m ~z w ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ w v~iaai
v ~zv ~o I ro a rol-' ~.oa ~ ,,,
W (n °w ~zQ ow>- i d zr v~° ~ Fz c~ err ~ ~ ~ m
~ Q o Wiz Wa = ~ 111 o ZoW ~~ -- ~ ~W ~ F ~~~ III ~ o `_~ m
Q a "=W ~ ~ I I Ci ~j7 O`er D OrU ~ O~V I 1~ ~ ~QN O
O O ~ ( I w w O a W > ~ m O U J~ W
O rZ~ w I° I° O ~m~. I}~ O N2 ~ ~ ,n ,nw I x a~ w
F ,ri
a CFO ~ 1~ ~ r ~Oa IQ J a Ng ~ ~ Nola I w < ~a S
°a ~caim? ? ~a a n ~c°~i ~°z¢ < ~< ~ v ~ao~°v 4 v a ~N ~