03-15-1993 - Work Session
.,
/
/
,.
,.'
(j CITY OF EDGEWATER 0
104 N. RIVERSIDE DRIVE
P.O. Box 100 - Edgewater, Florida 32132-0100
(904) 428-3245 SunCom 371-7005
March 11, 1993
PUBLIC NOTICE
The City Council will hold a work session on Monday,
March 15, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Center for
the following:
1) Presentation of audit
2 )
Compensation for Dyer,
Riddle,
Mi 11 s &
Precourt, Inc. and Angie Brewer & Associates
re: ClP
3) Goals and objectives
4) Boards and committees
5) Staff report re: Perry Barrett issues - Surrey
Ridge sales signs and lot size and issuance of
building permits for Pelican Cove West
Isk
i
nJ
CITY OF EDGEWATER
* ry * 104 N. RIVERSIDE DRIVE
P.C. Box 100 - Edgewater, Florida 32132 -0100
1! (904) 428 -3245 SunCom 371 -7005
MEMORANDUM
S4TAlIT' G
DATE: March 2, 1993
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: George E. McMahon, City Manager .'M
SUBJECT: Additional Compensation to Cover Remaining Bidding and
Construction Fees for Engineering Services and also for
Completion of Consulting Services for Grant /Loan Administration
I have requested and received the attached letter from Dyer, Riddle, Mills & Precourt,
Inc. regarding more detail relative to their request for additional compensation for
completing the necessary work for the CIP. Their explanation appears logical to me
and essentially results from the use of the construction budget to pay previous costs
at the time they were incurred. This includes items A, B, and C as explained in
DRMP's letter. Although they were incorporated within the original project design
budget, the additional compensation request originally made to the City was $75,000.
This has now been negotiated down to a request of $57,688, which is specifically
intended to cover the remaining bidding and construction fees for engineering services
as related to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation State Revolving Fund
loan regulations. The additional compensation requested has been planned and is
already accommodated in the City's loan and financial plan controlling this project.
After reviewing DRMP services with our Finance Department, City Engineer, and
Utilities Director, the request for additional compensation to complete the project
($57,688) appears to be in line with the services expected. This will be on the
workshop agenda March 15th together with the request of Angie Brewer & Associates for
additional funds in their budget to complete their consulting services necessary for
this program.
The request of Angie Brewer & Associates for additional budgeted funds results from
specific increases of work required from ABA to include new requirements for the State
loan and grant programs, and increased work for the City. Her requests are rational
and reasonable, in my opinion.
I request Council become familiar with the nature of this request and be prepared to
resolve any questions you may have at the March 15th workshop meeting. DRMP and ABA
will be present to respond to any of your questions. Once the workshop meeting has
been completed, I will put these items on the agenda for final Council action.
Based on my knowledge of this project and the historical information I have been
given, I cannot find reason to raise further concern or contest these additional
compensation requests.
GEM:Isk
Attachments
cc: Ron Ferland, Vice President, Dyer, Riddle, Mills & Precourt, Inc.
Angie Brewer, Angie Brewer & Associates
Kyle Fegley, City Engineer
Terry A. Wadsworth, Director of Utilities
f . �•, , . •t,. MILL':• _ 4 D�c E DIDDLE _:MILLS & -( 'RECOURT • - N 1
�IIII1 E N G I N E E R S • SURVEYORS • SCIENTISTS • P L A N N • E R S
February 24, 1993 DRMP #87- 400.15
PA
Mr. George McMahon i lf� R -
City Manager
City of Edgewater , ' 19 9 +
Post Office Box 100 `�
Edgewater, Florida 32132
SUBJECT: Florida Shores Infrastructure Improvements
Additional Services
Dear Mr. McMahon:
Pursuant to our meeting on February 2, 1993, the following
further describes the additional services related to the design
and construction for the City's Florida Shores Infrastructure
Improvements. During the project design and construction,
additional costs were incurred to complete tasks not originally
provided for in the contract's scope of caryir-as
The additional services completed are described as follows:
.4. Design Change from Low Pressure Sewer (LPS) to Gravity Sewer
- $54,500.
The May 15, 1989 Scope of Services (Amendment No.- .1989 -7)
was based on the design and construction services for a low
pressure sewer (LPS) to serve the Florida Shores Subdivision
as approved in the 201 Facilities Plan. Several months into
the LPS design, the project was placed on hold until the
decision to switch to a gravity collection system was made.
Although the LPS system was the lowest cost alternative for
the project, the City Council voted to switch to the gravity .
collection system due to citizen's concerns regarding
operation of the LPS system. This affected the project
design budget in two ways.
1. Before the project was placed on hold, the hydraulic
analysis and system layout were completed for both the
- LPS and the transmission system. The equipment and
material selection was also nearly complete, and the
design details prepared. All of the above was not
,/ usable for the gravity sewer.
2. The change to gravity sewer also required significant
additional design effort. The layout of a gravity
r .<H :� ..rl •y
7r r 1 LI -1 • t.l+
Pleas reply lo* PO. Baer 538505
1505 EAST COLONIAL. DRIVE • P.O. BOX 538505.ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32853.8505 • (407) 896 -0594 • FAX (407) 8964836
PRINCIPALS: DONALDSON K. BARTON • RUSSELL L MILLS • REGINALD L TISDALE
CONSULTANTS: WILLAN B. DYER • A.L PRECOURT • ROBERT A. RIDDLE
Oa .MCO • JK.10OMYRJi • IM La011la! • TAMPA
Mr. George McMahon -
February 24, 1993
Page 2
sewer was more complicated and 113 profile drawings
were required. In addition, FDER approval for the
modification to the previously approved 201 Facilities
Plan was required.
,i Re- design to Remove the Paving and Drainage Improvements -
$50,900.
The drawings and specifications were 98% complete when the
decision to delete the paving and drainage improvements from
the project was made by the City. Removal of the paving and
drainage portions of the project required changes to all 398
drawings. These changes were required to ensure that there
• was no confusion concerning the facilities to be
constructed. The additional services included turning off
the paving and drainage layers on each drawing, adjusting
grades on the profile drawings, revising top elevations of
manholes in the profile and plan drawings to reflect
existing grades, deleting canal crossing improvements,
revising specifications, plotting, prints and additional
quality control checks. Although the revisions took only an
average of four (4) hours per drawing, the large number of
drawings (398) was significant in affecting the project
design budget.
✓3. Dividing the Project into Four (4) Phases - $19,740.
Dividing the project into phases has provided construction
cost savings by making the project competitive for local
contractors and allowing design changes for - problems
encountered in the early phases. However, some additional
design, permitting, bidding and construction services were
required. These include the costs for modifying the
drawings and specifications for each phase, separate SRF
plans and specifications approval for each phase, and
additional bidding, award and preconstruction services.
Over $60,000 of the additional services costs described above
were completed within the original project design budget. The
additional compensation - request of $57,688 is intended to cover
the remaining bidding and ruc ion ase engineering services
required in accordance with the FDER SRF loan regulations. As
requested, we have decreased the number of site visits from six
to' two visits per month. Enclosed is a contract amendment
providing the necessary scope of services changes and
compensation summary information.
Furthermore, it is important to note that the additional
compensation requested has been accommodated in the City's loan
and does not modify the finance p an presently in effect.
Mr. George McMahon
February 24, 1993
Page 3
Your consideration of this request is greatly appreciated. We
are available to meet with you to answer any questions or provide
further information as required. DRMP appreciates the
opportunity to be of continued service to the City on this
important project.
Very truly yours,
Dyer, Riddle, Mills & Precourt, Inc.
,� _ - _.
.Daniel L. Allen, P.E.
Division Manager
- / -f
-
Ronald P. Ferland, P.E.
Vice President
DLA /RPF /psg /2- 24GMl.doc
enclosure
cc: Terry Wadsworth, City of Edgewater
Kyle Fegley, City of Edgewater
Troy Layton, DRMP
,1111►
AMENDMENT NO. 1993 -
ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
FLORIDA SHORES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS,
CITY OF EDGEWATER
This AMENDMENT made and entered into this day of
1993 amends the consulting engineering AGREEMENT for professional
services between the CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER,
FLORIDA (hereinafter referred to as "CITY ") and DYER, RIDDLE,
MILLS & PRECOURT, INC. (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTING
ENGINEER ") to perform additional services for the Florida Shores
Infrastructure Improvements for the CITY;
WHEREAS, this AMENDMENT shall incorporate all of the
conditions and requirements of the original CONTRACT between the
CONSULTING ENGINEER and the CITY, dated October 19, 1987;
Provisions delineated in the October 19, 1987 AGREEMENT
shall remain in full force without modification. In case of
conflict this AMENDMENT shall prevail. Whereas, this AMENDMENT
shall supplement the Services delineated in AMENDMENT No. 1989 -7.
This AMENDMENT provides for certain professional consulting
engineering services relative to the CITY'S capital improvements
program. The services provided in this AMENDMENT, include, but
are not limited to, providing additional engineering services to
the CITY for the Florida Shores Infrastructure Improvements.
As directed by the designated CITY representative to the
CONSULTING ENGINEER, confirmed by the CITY'S work order, the
scope of services and professional engineering compensation as
delineated in Exhibit "A ", is made part of this AMENDMENT.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have accepted, made
and executed this AMENDMENT No. 1993 -
on the terms and
conditions stated in the AGREEMENT dated October 19, 1987.
DYER, RIDDLE, MILLS & PRECOURT, INC.
Witness
Witness - Vice President
CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF EDGEWATER, FLORIDA
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS FOR FORM
AND CORRECTNESS:
City Attorney
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES AND COMPENSATION
ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
FLORIDA SHORES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
EXHIBIT "A"
AMENDMENT NO. 1993
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
FLORIDA SHORES INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF EDGEWATER
Section 1 - Scope of Services
A. GENERAL
The CONSULTING ENGINEER is presently providing basic
construction services for the Florida Shores Infrastructure
Improvements. The CONSULTING ENGINEER has previously
provided the additional engineering services required for
the design changes associated with the change to gravity
sewer, the removal of the paving and drainage improvements
from the contract documents and dividing the project into
four (4) construction phases. The City will conduct the
project performance certification pursuant to the SRF Loan
Agreement.
Section 2 - Payments to Consulting Engineer
A. METHODS OF PAYMENTS FOR SERVICES AND EXPENSES OF CONSULTING
ENGINEER
1. CITY shall pay CONSULTING ENGINEER for Basic Services
rendered under Section 1 as follows:
a. An amount equal to CONSULTING ENGINEER'S Direct
Labor Costs times a factor of 2.585 for all Basic
Services rendered by principals and employees
engaged directly on the Project.
b. For Reimbursable Expenses. In addition to
payments provided for in paragraph 1.a, CITY shall
pay CONSULTING ENGINEER the actual costs (except
where specifically provided otherwise) of all
Reimbursable Expenses incurred in connection with
all services described in Section 1.
c. The CONSULTING ENGINEER'S estimate of the amount
that will become payable for Basic Services
pursuant to paragraphs 1.a. and 1.b. is Fifty
Seven Thousand, Six Hundred Eighty Eight Dollars
($57,688).
2. Times of Payments - CONSULTING ENGINEER shall submit
monthly statements for services rendered and for
,..,,., 1 of 2
Reimbursable Expenses incurred. CITY shall make prompt
monthly payments in response to CONSULTING ENGINEER'S
monthly statements.
3. Definitions
a. Direct Labor Costs used as a basis for payment
mean salaries and wages (basic and incentive) paid
to all CONSULTING ENGINEER'S personnel engaged
directly on the Project, including but not limited
to, engineers, surveyors, designers, draftsmen,
estimators, other technical and business
personnel; but does not include indirect payroll
related costs or fringe benefits.
b. Reimbursable Expenses mean the actual expenses
incurred by CONSULTING ENGINEER directly or
indirectly in connection with the Project, such as
expenses for: transportation and subsistence
incidental thereto; toll telephone calls,
telegrams; and reproduction of reports, Drawings,
Specifications, Bidding Documents, and similar
Project- related items.
2 of 2
City of Edgewater Project No: 87- 400.15
Florida Shores Additional Services 2/4/93 6:47 PM
2.585
335.00 523.20 39.65 312.25 59.60
390.48 359.97 524.95 331.67 324.82
Additional Service Description DIV. PROJ. PROJ. TECH.
MGR. MGR. ENG. IIUIV SECRE. TOTALS
1. Removing Paving & Drainage
Drawings 12 48 400 1122 1582
$1,086 $2,879 $9,978 $35,530 $49,472
Specifications 2 8 20 10 40
$181 $480 $499 $248 $1,408
Subtotal 14 56 420 1122 10 1622
$1,267 $3,358 310,477 535,530 5248 350,880
2. Design Completed For LPS
Hydraulic Analysis 2 32 104 138
$181 $1,919 $2,594 54,694
System Layout 2 40 120 48 210
- $181 $2,399 $2,993 $1,520 $7,093
Equip. and Marls 4 40 80 2 126
$362 52,399 $1,996 $50 $4,806
Details Drawings 2 8 24 48 82
$181 S480 $599 $1,520 52,779
Subtotal 10 120 328 96 2 556
5905 57,197 $8,182 $3,040 550 519,373
3. Additional Design Effort
Layout 2 32 80 114
$181 51,919 51,996 54,096
Drawings 32 20 904 956
$1,919 5499 528,626 531,044
Subtotal 2 64 100 904 1070
$181 53,838 32.495 $28,626 335,140
4. Re -design to Four Phases
Drawing Revisions 2 32 96 200 330
$181 51,919 $2,395 $6,333 $10,828_'=
Specifications 16 48 24 88
5960 $1,197 $596 $2,753
SRF Plan Approval 2 12 36 6 3 4
$181 $720 5898 $190 $74 52,063
Bidding and Award 6 12 72 12 102
$543 5720 $1,796 $298 $3.356
Preconstruction _ 2 24 1 27
$120 5599 $25 $743
Subtotal 10 74 276 206 40 551
5905 $4,438 56,885 $6,523 3993 519,743
TOTALS
Hours 3,799
Costs 5125.136
CO
Q O co,, o ! C � +�ao�aoc � i a c OD J m
F„ N
N Cr) tl, 4-I, N r- ' t0 l'... 0 4, 4, 69 H 69 44 69 N M
2
so a W
r. 1 .... O O O
O N N Q Q O V' O N co N co CO c r O
O O h c.) N in er .— N in , N C", `" Cr, , d ao N aD N t O
4 'a N W 69 '� 49 69 iA 49 69 69 H
CO
ti
m
O cre co a nr
? N I = N a0
V N e7 () N r O Q N CO O �
y r.... T W 44 69 T. V IA
O ..e. 1- M
L
a
co
e /'
O � (' N CO N v o o co •R N co co N O O
`7 O 7 ccn e l r O C) °1 c o o N CD N N N c� C y )
S yr W to f9 " n c•7' Dui P--• o
4s a 69 64 69 69 69 69 44 N
10 4■
N e! ' t� m O O CO c r1 N e7
In 4l (� Q�N�� �vch� O ,_ co (00c (0�
d 69 69 c•-; In �,
69 69 e9 44 69 49
o ID
10 e
ri N N o N O O O u7 co
V! r 0 ,— T 10 r.. 1 v in co O N N R
y W 0 2 fit 69 44, 69 6 69 6 h
V N
co eo
v) Si c E
co
p O 01 C a� O I S ..
«. .- L -
II N G m co N U co E
_ J
c
L L
i9
3 0 aii a Q co o E ag a ° u. U a 2 ~ O
C
Ts L 6. 2 Cf Q O v . C c c °8 N cn 0 F-
LLI y ' C C c L ..) Q cII 0 c II 0
C ca H •N L — c U
` 0 - u� n- c o > '0 0
: n a H v
° aa; CC . - -v m u . 0 a = 0 y
U u. cc u) G] ii in ct co < co u. g
ti er
j r ..
A sa, - .�. ..11aawfwrnl e +m..lrowi/s
707 60th Street Court East, Suite A, Bradenton, Florida 34208
(813) 748 -8700, FAX (813) 748 -7343.
November 11, 1992
Mr. George McMahon, City Manager
City of Edgewater
P.O. Box 100
Edgewater, Florida 32132 -0100
Re: City of Edgewater Grant /Loan Program
Dear Mr. McMahon:
Per your request, I am providing the specific issues which will cause our
contract for administration of the City's grant /loan program for wastewater
construction to be extended and the cost increased.
1. The original estimated substantial completion date as reflected in my t
original proposal was June, 1993. The current estimate is October, 1993 -
causing a minimal four month delay.
2. During the first ten months of the program, staffing changes at the City
and at the consulting engineering firm occurred. We were required to "pick
up the slack" in all aspects of project and program management'to avoid the
loss of funds by the City. The City Engineer left, the Utilities Director J
had to assume all responsibilities during the interim, the Chief Inspector
at the Treatment Plant became City Engineer, a new Inspector was hired,_•the
three DRMP engineers who began the program either left or reduced their
level of service to "very minimal" due to their budget constraints.
We apprised the City staff, with whom we work on a regular basis, of the
situation. Of course, the former City Engineer was one such staff member,
but we also discussed the situation with Finance staff, the City Attorney
and the Utilities Director. The "higher" level of service that was required
during this time was evident from our invoices. We always want our clients
to know where we stand.
If further detail is needed as to the services provided, please review the
detail information we submit with our invoices. We have been and will
continue to make every effort to manage our budget while protecting the
client.
Please be assured the scope of services has not changed. We contracted to
provide services through closeout and we intend to do so. We simply request
the City consider the acts that have created this situation and recognize
they were all out of the control of ABA. We will work with you to
successfully complete this program.
Sincerely,
Angie R. Brewer
.
dGGk'iCLCP,6
707 60th Street Court East, Suite A, .Bradenton, Florida 34208
(813) 748 -8700, FAX (813) 748 -7343
October 28, 1992
Hr George McMahon
City Manager
City of Edgewater
P. 0. Box 100
Edgewater, FL 32132 -0100
Re: City of Edgewater Grant /Loan Program
Dear Hr. McMahon:
Due to the extension of the bidding phase /construction period
for the Collection System, it has become apparent that my
current contract with the City will not be able to absorb
the cost of this additional time. Also, a higher level of
service has been required due to various personnel changes in
the program.
The attached cost summary restructures the remaining time
involved, with associated costs for each time period. The
four months extension associated with the construction
period accounts for $24,207.28 of the total increase. The
balance of 518,942.47 is attributable to the increased demand
force in the first ten months of the program. The net
result is a shortfall of $43,149.75.
I am submitting this cost summary for an Amendment to my
current contract in the amount of S43,149.75. This will
ensure the continuation of financial management services.
If you need further information, please let me know.
Regards,
Angie R. Brewer
Enclosure
Angie Brewer & Associates
City of Edgewater
Grant /Loan Program
ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION
Services to meet all grant and SRF requirements and full
project management (as outlined in the original contract).
Duration: October 1992 - June 1993
Hours Average Rate
SRF Consultant 20.00 850.00 $42.50
SRF Sr. Associate 50.00 1,200.00 24.00
SRF Associate 4.00 80.00 20.00
Clerical 20.00 260.00 13.00
Labor 2,390.00
Overhead .97 2,318.30
ODCs 1,000.00
Total ABA /Month 5,708.30
* of Months x 9
Total 10/92 - 6/93 $51,374.70
7
EXTENDED CONSTRUCTION PERIOD
Continue services to meet all grant and SRF requirements and
full project management for the extended construction period
that was not anticipated in the original contract.
Duration: July 1993 - October 1993
Hours Average Rate
SRF Consultant 20.00 900.00 $45.00
SRF Sr. Associate 51.00 1,275.00 25.00
SRF Associate 6.00 120.00 20.00
Clerical 20.00 260.00 13.00
Labor 2,555.00
Overhead .97 2,478.35
ODCs 1,000.00
Total ABA /Month 6,033.35
it of Months x 4
Total 7/93 - 10/93 $24,133.40
PRELIMINARY CLOSEOUT ACTIVITIES
Services to assist staff and engineers with preliminary
closeout activities and documentation required to prepare for
the Project Closeout Inspection.
Duration: November 1993 - January 1994
Hours
SRF Consultant 10.00 450.00
SRF Sr. Associate 30.00 750.00
Clerical 4.00 52.00
Labor 1,252.00
Overhead .97 1,214.44
ODCs 500.00
Total ABA /Month 2,966.44
# of Months x 3
Total 11/93 - 1/94 $ 8,899.32
PROJECT CLOSEOUT, PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATION, AND FINAL AUDITS
Provide closeout services to include response to state agency
questions or issues, budgetary comparison of grant /loan
documents to permanent record, attend the Project Inspection
Closeout meeting with FDER representatives, and assist with
the resolution of all outstanding issues resulting from the
Project Closeout Inspection. Assist the staff with
the documentation required for the Performance Certification.
Provide audit services to include response to state agency
questions or issues, assist with the resolution of all
outstanding issues resulting from the audit.
Duration: February 1994 - December 1994
Hours
SRF Consultant 4.00 180.00
SRF Sr. Associate 10.00 250.00
Clerical 2.00 26.00
Labor 456.00
Overhead .97 442.32
ODCs 250.00
Total ABA /Month 1,148.32
# of Months x 10
Total 2/94 - 12/94 $11,483.20
Funds Required to Complete 895,890.62
Remaining Funds Available 52,740.87
in Current Contract
Additional Funds Required $43,149.75
(0 is East Volusia Engineering, Inc.
435 -B1 Air Park Road
Edgewater, FL 32132
(904) 423 -8988
11 January, 1993
n `r
Lynne Plaskett, Assistant Director RECEIVE®
Community Development ,JAI 1 1 1yy.1
City of Edgewater
P.O. Box 100
Edgewater, FL 32132 COMMUNITYQEV.
Re: Police Office Building Cost Estimate
Dear Mrs. Plaskett:
As you may recall, my original cost estimate for a finished
24' x 78' two story building was $117,440 and was based on
using a bar foist /concrete slab second floor. To reduce
costs and still meet the fire separation requirements
between floors, the design was revised to a 24' x 80'
building using a hollow core slab system for the second
floor and roof. The estimated cost for this design was
$106,529, and this is the design reflected in the drawings.
In accordance with your request, I have reviewed the cost
estimate and to check my estimates, I requested a general
contractor review the plans and furnish his own estimate.
His estimate is $123,000 and he believes you should be able
to obtain the building for less than $140,000. Please note
that his estimate is for the items shown in your estimate
that total $174,720 except it does not include provisions
for computer system wiring chases and the computer system
wiring.
To determine the cost of a reduced size building, simply
reduce the cost in proportion to the total square footage
reduction. Also, any altered plan should maintain the
garage door opening width as shown, and the 80' dimension
should be reduced in increments of 3' -4 ", otherwise
structural redesign will be necessary.
I trust this information will be adequate for budget
estimates.
Sin;-rely,
J". D. Martin
lorida P.E. 14527
•
MEMORANDUM
To Mark Karet, Director of Community Development
From: Lynne Plaskett, Assistant Director\.:je
Date: October 26,1992
Sub: Evidence Building
Drawings for the proposed evidence building are substantially
complete. Approval from St. Johns Water Management District has
been obtained. The following is the approximate cost break down
for this project.
SITE WORK: COST:
a. tree removal/replacement s 700.00
b. soil cylinder test & compaction 400.00
c. excavation 400.00
d. utility line extention 245.00
e. relocation of quy wire (antenna) 200.00
f. stormwater/final grading & sod 850.00
TOTAL $ 2,975.00
CONSTRUCTION:
a. building 126,540.00
b. plumbing fixtures 5,A00.00
c. electrical 8, fixtures 1,250.00
d. central heat It. air 8,000.00
e phone lines 610.00
f. computer lines 1,100.00
g. handicapped ramp & stairs 2,250.00
INTERIOR:
a. cabinets/counters 3,890.00
b. two way mirror 120.00
c. security system (door locks) 520.00
d. carpet/tile 8,640.00
e. a/c wall.units (2) 1,P00.00
TOTAL $174,720.00
continued pg. 2
PAGE -2-
OTHER:
a. water 8, sewer impact fees 2,995.00
b. volusia county road impact fees = 1,520.00
TOTAL $ 6,515.00
TOTAL PROJECTED COST $184,210.00
If you have any questions, please let me know.
/LP
LPEVID
r
(NO PLAT DIMENSION)
•
A .
•
•
•
FOUND 1/2" SET 5/8 " IRON ROD
N PIPE WITH CAP NO. LB 3019
0.14%0 SOUTH (TYPICAL)
0.00 0.00 EAST N 66'45'50" E
FENCE
0.6 SOUTH
0.6 WEST NEW SL G L
• / #
'(1 Z 1
( a W
9004.0000041.1000000.0”6160404,0000 .
Ci 't iiiiiiiiiiiiiHElifiiffliffAi \.
:1
• .,f U.
P i ii
F PO PE r( I.1)
LINE
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii E.XISTLKk
PAfZKI WC,
I
Zo F61411'_ ,` LoT
W \ ^Vr/
1
0 400.00000.1.1101.000”044”•04000
iiiiiiiiHiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiii
4.
u CONCRETE CONCRETE
4' STEPS __
v 9.60 6 j ,r - :___•_-- _...
FOUND CONCRETE FOUND 1/2" r
MONUMENT WITH IRON PIPE ."...---1-5.2111- I S
3/8" IRON ROD \ ‘.7. 111------------2- . 0 CONCRETE
PLANTEi
25 FENCE
N 66'45' 50" E 0 . 3 EAST - -' DIRT 175.00'
(50.00 PLAT) - 69.00 PL AT _ N 66'45'50" E
2.58 , El...1e C \.._ r GITy
R1(111
T $ BALL
$A7 v \ 1 STORY Mi
-+ F x --r�J
BUILD!! '
s".... '" - ----ASPHALT P
z g
0
LVEMENT A ____\ > 1
P � \ ul CONCRETE t
O \ 0
Q Z 11.00 6.10'
co
0 N ,o
i - L; (n
cD }
Q POWER J o
_ • POLE
4' CONCRETE WALK
_ 80.20
•- • - 1 1 — NORTH 30.00' OF •
• P A •
-
••••;,__ 1
• 1.---_____ • t• • • ' ..11 -
. . r
• E4 r::, : .0
, • 4 a " .
ni •
- .
•S" I r-••
• 0
KZ •
4.4 • • '''',.,.• •
_
--‹ . • • 4.
• 1
. .• .
, . •LI ),!-_,.. •
• . .
... 7, O
1 .
6 , . •_.??.',f. \ ,
7.17-1\:•,% --........z
•
. _
. • -__
4...
,
8 1 : • _.,.... i ..3 - -B6' . 1- . .
•
is) .
_ .
. • 4:
4) 1--ji ' •• . . , -.... •
• ---..,.. .... -
. • ,a: o
. • , CI '.. • : •
■-
. .
.1...3 ACM 7 0 7°. • . O.
xt
. •
•
ill 1
, .
• ''''1, '.77
..ce • Q)
t ----- • ril . . ' th
t "
t '"••• • .
• ..
,_...._... _ri, A 0 q.
,... .
4 .
• . .v: - -- . n I = - _i_ •
• . ,
1 _ ._ ._. .. .. ••••
1•• . 3 • . :. I 'I' ' 0 1 I
C6
, • __,. ,. "1 0
, .• 7 .: 7 .7 • • ( r- / • TI . at •
.. 1■3 • :
...,
• • "-...
. .
• _ 3''' ' ..' . I. TT —
•
s.'
. • I •
%..).1 . ; ,
Ill :
...' - .. , •
. • • 4:1
1 .
• • -- . . • .
. V ._••• _
•
• - db M (lb . . .
:--1 ___ _ .- ---11•3*- .
UN * - ( 1 ) . • .. 9 f. • P
_ % •. . • :.
9
■..1 .. ,
-T.- --. •,':-
. . . ,-,- ,• :,',. ,,
. . .
• . 1: 1
Pi r • '
•
I ••• •
- • i''' ' I"'
Lts ' •
' . . ' : .. '.'., ';... • ;
: . t :\• , , .101 .. .. --
•:. ..
— , •• s• '`, • ' • 4 ""
. • , -.- -3,,, ; z*.• •
■ I - '
•
I. = .:
.. • •
I • t-
7
I 2.. •
9
q '
.„.• . .,
. c... •
u ..
. •
r .
I
: = 4..
.A. •se .1.: .-
7. 1- 1 0 •tit
• :— M ... ' , •
___ ___,,, •
• a
•
C -
rt ., • . '..
.. . . .... .
_ • '■
0 •
• IP • -• , 9 .. : -
• cr. • ..:1 --7,..--1,
3 1-4
- 1 0 • ii -i--, .
• " •
7 •
*1-L___. •
. .
7--- C. . •
:J 1 •., •
- Ti • 9 . C.) ,
-
2 1
-ktif-1:1- . . - • t
--''',, ,, t I ... •
....-----. • \ • ' • — n
T i
er • • . C \
cll
t.. .
I . ;117.4.:.' ■ “ a .
i ... • ..4Z'" • . . di
; * .
. .
t4
1 1.- •
. . r. _._. _____________I •.:___:.....111... _ ._____ ii ..
. . . Z.i • • .
. ,,:j....•
, 8 elfS/!FO . • ' d C • t . •• . •
. • '" tiP ) C" • . 1 6.11:"?' • 5I trYIKI (3
1 ••• • .. LA mai • II II ti t2
0 . a: V du. ' " • - ..
• r 11 0 • ' ct.co • ' ( N. 1.c. ) `'.- •
, ;:, • . p •E § t • c., 1 . ...., ......._
. . c
• . -q,t•4•••••
• ; . §i ., ,...• . • . 3 q
E. g r cze. ...
c. p. 1 ,,,, • . ,, .A'Crr.r.) . .r. . .
• : .
::"' •• c -,.. - •
..... ' ..... , : . - sdA•, .• ..o. - .
. j • a 0_ j. 1., IT
.... 0 • 7' .
1 , • RT.,- ,
5' . •
- ,,- NE „I, •
........_. , , ,.;
. .
(, ,
. •• c--x,.
--
,... . ._ ,...,
...._____._
-c--r
.. r r i f 41 R4N *7X 4 . • #
• 04•4* itons 44 0 04%0 04 044.4414 4: s• 6
• At.4 fet•Akts.V..0.440,0...V.AW........ Mkt* 0,-4 •
. .
. • • ( , . 4.,
. ' 1)5 rr-- 61 - ‘ .0721 T E 5 )- . 1 e 0 / 11 \ 1-1 Clq. i. C. ). t •4
. "3to"rp.ofri nN. Fc.. •
• • Cc- ti. 4
• . ,•-,4
• •,
• .;. . • • F-.4.• . • .
0441
• . •
•
. • - 00 •
• •
(A po
.. - . • • • •
• 4. At%
. • .
• • . . a • :0•Vi• iii .. • •
. ' R 600 MK (14.1.c) (II to,
. - V.4441 Co
-
: • . . . ill
•
..,
• • • * .t4 . .
Vssi .
•
41 .
. 4
• . •
, .
. • .
R; •,::t1 Z 4: 4 7;Sith . .
. .
h... V.•4 . # * 4- A- 4v 4 v • 4 -Av., v • 444 4.• .
0.4.44. .4.4..11 4,...t. • .4..4 44 4 . . 0.P. 4 4 _ _ NI . •
, .
. .:. . N..: •
9 c
• • .
• •
' • . .
- .
•
• '
•
• .
. .
• •
. • .
•
. • •.: ' •
. . .
tl ' . . . . .
. ' • . f • : p••• "
, . . . ..
, ... . .
. ..
, .. .
: - . .... . . . . .
• • ,•
- . x 1 IA
. ...---
... i 0 •
. c ).. • , - . . .
• (I, •
.-.:. • "c• r
6 , • Vi to
• . • t ' ?......
. '
.. ; !. • .... . • 0 a• ..
.. . .
- i • a
: ., .. • '... . ..
• •. (f 11 • •
. .•
• I . .
. . ;
, . " • • 4L1 .... .
• .
•
.. ....
• .. ....
. .
• . . .
•
•
...
.• . A, . .
I . it l• (1) :
:O. •-‹
• . 511
PA T- . . • • n
PI .
: - 1
. .t.b."..... .
• .
. . if,-
. . ., ..• , .• .
• . . . i •
. ,--• Pr • v . .....
. . ..
. i
0 .
,".1.• r .
. I. . • , '. , 1 ' • s e r. , ' .% .
l f
. • -.-8 . . .
.. .
1 . .
. .
. .
. .
. .. .
,--• 0-•9014 ro Gert_INI 0 ..
4 v.
\..,,,c:2).‘.. siiEL.■/iki 0 (hi 1.c.) s . . .. .
. . - T1 •S' CP
. ' ' •
• • -1P. - . = . M ..
., ••.
• C\ .
•
.. . • Lt ., -IN• . . ..
t •
F r.
. . 3 -45" ■ •
• .. .....
"•.• 1.. ..L. • ,
. .
,..,i - --,
• • ,
. .. •• • •.-; F, . -L. F
....
• • • cis •:.
. ... •
. . • • .s 0,
•
r--
. N .,...
,, Li: tz,
• ,_ r- tit
•
__:3. • • • . . ,.
• •
. cN-
,---- .. .
, •
.1 . .
W. • •
0 . •:.'. . I '
. '
•tA •
V
• • •
• .
. .
• • ,,
• 6
• ./..._. _...._
• •
• ..
• e oco
-, I 1 •
t3Ill . -.. .
--',---
. . ..
. .
. .
•
. . . .
• ' .
. . .
. . .
•
. .
. .
• • .
. .
. , .
.....
. . . . .
,
c•:::-- \
. .
• : 1 : ,
. i • ,
.11!
1 I t I
I \ .
1
. •
.
•
•
•
A .
c
Cs ..
(N .
0
•
1
• Z.71 1;! iii,ik
_i e
- ii.,,,::Hdlil
oN iii;;Thli.
iiii!dlim
11,1
...,..,„ .,
m
...
. ,
21 .
...
IL .,, . III
E_ .' ' -
Z—
.
4 .
...
.[ A. .
1
• ,
i ,.• , ,_,
t.,
• r
. •
-- Q
(I\
• ' Illaillillill
0. 7K
. r
.N4
,,:_( . s ., , . . 1 v ,,,,_..• •
, ,c:
CITY OF EDGEWATER
* ,� • • 104 N. RIVERSIDE DRIVE
" * P.C. Box 100 - Edgewater, Honda 32132 -0100
111 (904) 428-3245 SunCom 371-7005
OQ ' *AUTY
TO: Council
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
FROM: Mayor Hayma
DATE: December 14, 1992
SUBJECT: Offer by Mrs. Sue E. Perry to sell commercial property
to Edgewater as an alternative to construction of new
evidence /records storage facility
Last Friday, the llth of December, after reading about our
storage problems in the press, Mrs. Perry made a telephonic offer
to sell her property located at 200 S. Ridgewood for the sum of
$180,000 as an alternative to the construction of a new Police
evidence facility, detective office, and administrative file
storage area.
She expressed the feeling that this alternative would meet our
immediate storage needs as well as provide the City a suitable
site for expansion at a later time.
Per our request, Mrs. Perry graciously submitted her offer in
writing for our consideration when we address the subject again.
(See enclosures)
*���� CORONADO REAL ESTATE
y!t ' * "Better Than Gold"
"4* _ � * (904) 428.9544
- CB
h.. RE" ins
409 FLAGLER AVE. NEW SMYRNA BEACH FL 32069
December 11, 1992
Mayor Jack Hayman
City of Edgewater
104 North Riverside Dr.
Edgewater, Florida
Re: Present storage problems and future growth of the City
Dear Mayor Hayman:
I enjoyed talking with you this morning, and would like to thank you
again for your time.
As I explained earlier, after reading about your storage problem and
the possible costs the city would incur to build on your own property
to the tune of $180,000.00, I felt I could offer the City a better
deal.
I own the seventeen warehouses and two duplexes that are located at
200 South Ridgewood Ave., Edgewater. I feel that it would be more of
a benefit to the City of Edgewater to own additional land with existing
buildings on them, then to build, pay the impact fees only to get an
additional building with no other benefits. I would be willing to sell
my property to you for the $180,000.00 and I would be willing to donate
my share of the Brokerage Fee on the adjacent piece that is presently on
the market to the City if they also purchased or took an option on that
one as well.
I have enclosed some rough sketches of how the buildings are presently
situated on the property. The location could be utilized in a variety
of ways in the future for your purposes.
I have also enclosed the information on the piece just south of my property
for you to study.
I will contact you again if you would like to discuss this with your City
Manager and the other councilmen I will make myself available.
Sincerely,
Sue E. Perry
Broker
doo c.cix/061_&71./60i) ../s{i/L-:--
)
E cc P -:_leie-y I 7 5 y
.
i
1/ _,_----___—___-...----------------- ------------------ - - T-----' ' L
I
0
/ / / ,
/ .
/ ' , / 1
/ / • * 1
I
i
. Q . '
1 .
‘.. I
•
-
1 1
-.. , . 1
, ...
4,r.) .
i .. „ .. .. ). _ ___ .,
- - - *IpsviworlImPWArgrawar"ir -. f------ • --- it- .
. I
A • 4 .1 14 /
- . ---- ----
'1) ;
! I
1 I
, ,':.-_. / ../ ',‘? •
• („
-
0 .„......• .. I. 1
•• . c..
.-V■ .
1 \ ,
•
. ,
,
1 .
.,-• / .. .
, .
. .. • .
... .
i
____--
��� rq
1 cat
R471----b � y \ k b I�
rl
t o
IN
I
� ( A C7' r+CD r ■ d cD X O
_ _____ 6�• N.) Q. 71 F es, . ►
L ,Q A 1.f
It I-4 J O ( D c0
{� I v
F - 1 c+ , 3 M
0 0 c+ W CJ
O CD 0
0 cD cD c+
�� •
. • 4 o ~
1 c+ r�1 a
+ `� M a
t o Nil r Moc+ H.
■ c9 Ca 0' A M m
A J d ° a, el O
ogoa + F. `D o
40. • of z O
op 1 ∎ N 11 co c* 3 O 7C H
„ . • • 4 O M -d fn
4 • •
• C?cno 4 � C y ..1
O
:.. 4( c o v, (-I; �G I O0 XH u �,1 --N OS
.• 0. N —7 0
.15 I. n x0 o c ° ,
• w 0 a(
-'‘• N 2 n cD
k C S ' M O @ 0 co s
cD
1w A
^ al . • • g n
n 1
i a A
v Cr a) O
. 4: c+ ,---, ►-+ a
» M x
O
yy
,y. c+ � h O
#.1 00.r. 0 c a 0
'... N 7 . / n) Ul
� / 0 , •
` a ,Z4 . e y e
■
�, ,i a-yw.oy
I
/ 5
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 10, 1993
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: George E. McMahon, City Manager
SUBJECT: Perry Barrett Issues
The current issues with Perry Barrett of the Surrey Ridge
sales signs and the lot size and issuance of building
permits for Pelican Cove West have been researched by
City staff and a report will be given to the Council
Monday.
Accordingly, my recommendation will be that the Council:
1) Direct Mr. Barrett to either remove or change
the sign at Surrey Ridge to comply with State
laws and existing City Codes. This may
require removal or modification of the sign
and Mr. Barrett should be required to obtain
a permit as a check and balance for compliance
on his sign.
2) Not approve the extension of permitting lots
in Pelican Cove West for the size requested by
Mr. Barrett. There were under 10 permits
issued for these lots several years ago to J.
C. Carder and the permits were issued in
error. They are not in compliance with City
Code and there is not an obligation on behalf
of the City to continue an error. In effect,
Mr. Barrett has no right under the law to
obtain a permit for the lots of this size.
The City staff believes that the issuance of
further permits will extend this problem and
create an unacceptable situation to the
residents of this area who purchased their
property in good faith according to the City's
Zoning Code.
GEM:lsk
MAR 9 - 1993
%! 1 1'' Mi'\NA3Efi
MEMORANDUM
TO: George E. McMahon, City Manager
FROM: Mark P. Karet, Director of Community Development
DATE: March 9, 1993
SUBJECT: Code Enforcement Action Against
Surrey Ridge, Inc. - Prohibited Sign
Case # 93 -CE -0914
On February 23, 1993, the Department of Community Development sent a notice of
violation to Surrey Ridge, Inc. for a sign that was erected in violation of the Edgewater
code. This notice of violation was sent after a complaint was received from a resident
of the Meadow Lake Subdivision and an investigation was performed by the Code
Enforcement Officer.
The investigation revealed that the sign's content promoted the sale of single family
residences. A photocopy of the sign is attached. In staffs opinion the sign's content
placed it within the definition of a development sign as established by Section 3 -2 of
the Edgewater code. A development sign is defined as a sign designed and intended
to advertise and promote the sale of buildings or lots. A copy of the definition is
attached. It was further determined by staff that such a sign could not be legally
permitted on the "Surrey Ridge" property because the subdivision plat had not
received final approval. This determination was based on Section 3- 7(2)(c)(9), which
permits development signs for subdivisions that have been platted, approved and are
undergoing active development and /or sale. A copy of Section 3- 7(2)(c)(9) is
attached.
On February 26, 1993, the Code Enforcement Officer received a letter from Perry
Barrett in which he complained of harassment and stated he had received
authorization from the City Council to erect the development sign. A review of the
Page -2-
Surrey Ridge, Inc. - Prohibited Sign
Case # 93 -CE -0914
Council records showed that Mr. Barrett did receive permission to erect a sign on the
Surrey Ridge property on May 6, 1991. The tape of the May 6, 1991 meeting
revealed that the Council approved a "Coming Soon" sign only. The Building Division
records indicate that Mr. Barrett received sign permit for a coming soon sign on May
13, 1991. A copy of the permit is attached. The last page of the permit shows a sign
which displays the words "Coming Soon, Surrey Ridge ".
Since the Council approved a coming soon sign and not a development sign, the
question is - what's the difference? Land sales, for good reasons, are a highly
regulated activity at both the state and local levels of government. These regulations
were established in response to Florida's long tradition of false, misleading, and
fraudulent land sales practices. The Florida Uniform Land Sales Practices Law does
not permit Mr. Barrett to offer lands for sale unless he can do so in accordance with
local law and local law does not permit him to sell land until it has been approved and
platted (Article XI(a) of the Edgewater Subdivision Ordinance). Advertising falls within
the definition of offer. So in other words the City must draw a distinction between a
coming soon sign, and a development sign, if only to keep Mr. Barrett out of apparent
trouble? Although, I'm sure Mr. Barrett does not intend to sell, take contracts, or
commitments on land that he can not legally convey to others.
As a result of the above discussion, staff recommends that the May 6, 1991 Council
action not be interpreted as applicable to the present sign located on the Surrey Ridge
property.
MPK/smp
pbarrett
.. ... -...__
•
•
Photo taken on February 22, 1993 at the corner
of Meadow Lake Drive at Roberts Road
•
•
• .: : •� L ..
7t
; ' fir ' . . . •. • r
•
''`� M 11• ♦ J 't L , *, .. - • 5UnREY i • , y ..� r �� •
•
RID6L •`�C`•d r c.,
•
., t. ^Y *. - r t1.. ' . ,,fit v.S A :' • f•r ml i'1` {S, ;' •
.� a.. • y•y,y' � - • �y * * '
• • - l tC�a.fF1 ~1 . ,. . w' •.� °••tYF 'L4 5 4 A -. fir . •
A." ROBERTS ROAD
r "^ c y, tr
. . . •,•,...•...._„r„..„.„..........,.....„:„.... • ' bs • _....• �-, .r ti 1 • ..,„..,
•
•
'i• " • F�i�s�� 1 �•i�tt • 'C • • :,h ,� • t •-,' • N f • �, ♦ ` • •
�..• ,1 "7►" • i • w ..i "'` y f ".' x' �1 + � A fi `�� t • * :` , 4Ch 1x 1 ' _ H f H' t w o ..
• § 3 - EDGEWATER CODE
(b) Beacon light sign shall mean any sign or device
which includes any light with one or more beams,
capable of being revolved automatically.
(c) Bench sign shall mean a sign located on any part of
the surface of a bench or seat placed on or adjacent to
a public right -of -way.
(d) Billboard shall mean a non - point -of -sale sign which
advertises a business, organization, event, person,
place or thing, unless such a sign is more specifically
defined herein.
(e) Bus signs shall mean any sign affixed to the interior
or exterior of a public bus.
(f) Changeable copy sign shall mean a sign that is
designed so that characters, letters or illustrations can
• be changed or rearranged. This shall also include the
changing of copy on billboards.
(g) Construction sign shall mean any sign giving the
name or names of principal contractors, architects and
lending institutions responsible for construction on the
site where the sign is placed, together with other
relevant information regarding such contractors,
architects or lending institutions.
ne shall mean a sign designed and
intended to advertise and promote the sale of
buildings or subdivided lots on the same premises.
(i) Directory sign shall mean a sign on which the names
and locations of occupants or the use of a building is
given. This shall include office building and church
directories.
(j) Flashing sign shall mean any sign with a lighting
device or devices which go on and off alternately, not
including signs giving time and temperature.
(k) Moveable sign shall mean any mobile or moveable
sign or sign structure, not securely attached to the
Supp. No. 2 •
260
ADVERTISING SIGNS § 3 -8
may not extend higher than six (6) feet above the
ground.
(7) Integral signs. Integral signs shall be permitted in
all zoning districts provided the individual letters
or numerals of such signs do not exceed three (3)
inches in height and provided the sign itself does
not exceed four (4) square feet of display area.
(8) Political campaign signs. Political campaign signs
shall be permitted as temporary signs and, as
such, shall be removed within ten (10) days after
the advertised candidate has been finally elected
or defeated or the advertised issue finally decided.
elop f ' „ a nsi One development sign for
each [side] fronting public right -of -way of a
residential subdivision shall be permitted provided
such subdivision has been platted, approved and
is undergoing active development and /or sale.
Such signs shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet
of display area, and shall not extend higher than
fifteen (15) feet above ground level.
(10) Subdivision signs. One sign per vehicular en-
trance to a subdivision shall be permitted provided
that no such sign shall exceed twelve (12) square
feet of display area and such sign does not extend
higher than five (5) feet above ground level. (Ord.
No. 79 -0 -25, 2- 25 -80; Ord. No. 80 -0 -79, § 1,
11- 24 -80; Ord. No. 89 -0 -20, § 1, 8- 30 -89)
Sec. 3 -8. Nonconforming signs.
(a) Amortization of nonconforming signs. Any existing
sign which is in violation of this chapter at the effective
date of this chapter shall be deemed a nonconforming sign.
Such signs may be continued subject to the following
requirements:
(1) No nonconforming sign shall be altered, moved or
repaired in any way except in full compliance with the
terms of this chapter. This provision shall not apply to
the changing of temporary copy of changeable copy
signs, nor to repairs necessary to maintain the
structural integrity or safety of a sign so long as such
Supp. No. 29
273
APPENDIX B— SUBDIVISIONS Art. XI
(B) Exceptions.
The standards and requirements set forth in these regulations
may be modified by the agency in the case of a planned unit
development, group development, large -scale community devel-
opment, or commercial or neighborhood development which is
not subdivided into customary lots, blocks and streets, which in
the judgment of the agency, provides adequate public spaces and
improvements for the circulation, recreation, light, air and ser-
vice needs of the tract when fully developed and populated, and
which also provides such covenants or other legal provisions as
will assure conformity to and implementation of the comprehen-
sive plan. In granting such modifications, the agency shall re-
quire such reasonable conditions and safeguards in conformity
with this ordinance. Before granting such modifications, a public
hearing will be held by the agency with due public notice.
(C) Appeals.
Any person aggrieved by the agency's decision regarding a
preliminary or final subdivision plat, or the agency's decision
regarding any variance or exception, may submit, in writing, an
appeal to the city council specifying grounds for appeal. Such
appeal shall be noted to the city clerk within fifteen (15) days
after the action is recorded in the minutes of the agency, and
shall be heard within thirty (30) days after notice to the city clerk
at a regularly scheduled meeting of the city council. The city
clerk shall give due notice of the hearing by certified mail to the
subdivider appealing and to the agency. They city council may
hear testimony and may sustain, alter or set aside the action of
the agency. (Ord. No. 88 -0 -8, § 9, 3 -7 -88)
ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS
t: , ,. intsdemeanor.
Any person who, being the owner or agent of the owner of
any land located within the city or within the platting
jurisdiction granted to the city, thereafter transfers or sells
such land or any part thereof before such subdivision has
been approved by the agency [and] city council, and recorded in
the office of the clerk of the circuit court of Volusia County,
Supp. No. 26 1738.1
- - , .., , ,,,. '-,... 1 L'47:, ,-.-- : ',,-,;:. —, ,...'.,.. — ' 1 .' i . „I , ‘ , ,..., - ...;vA .,, ,. , ' - . — 1 f' q tv :,.., ;„,,, ,.,,. : , ,a.. , • , , C. .. .. .., '''s "-
- _ ..' .. 1 %. I ' X . 1' 4 ," 1 4 •d• - nc ;',, 1- • ---4 ' - ' • ' " - '. ' 1 ' v '' jf" - ... ' '. iffVf: itt. .e..f •':' •••••'..,, r?.0? 1. • c-•-• •••''..'), .'
..■• , t
: . ,.
f •-,.,• ,- A•ip ,A r. 6 .,. ' 4'.'•• - n' i 'a • i>4. t&t"" .,. ..k‘11'" 1 ...,,,....:.' ' ' i .., ''■-•: Y ' ,; ' .i' , :q.,...! V .4 ; 1 . ",.... ' ■ . ,..., :, '. .., . ,:
' s' • • 4 .1 • ..,4 -.16:;:- 1 e
,.. 1 . . .,2 1: 4?, .•:...;.‘;.' V•„!- " . ,,, t is,. ', ... ....,-.,' _ •',,. ..y.
,,... . .„,,,,,, , .,.„. , ,,..,.., t .,.,1,,,, vi .... ; , ,. , ', , ..\.,ti i . A • ,120.2 ; I •• . 4 h e •,..ixiii!,•,_,;` .,.,••';‘ cive.i - , ,1 • • . 4 r",e4.4•40.:' : ,
,....! i '.. i'. -.. •*;.-,".•••• .: . • • • 1
- , 1 4:V• 1 " 4 . 4 . 4 , , ,t, i .rit • '' .: •• -V,';t!..:,.. 1,..59t t • . r ' :,i4c ' M-Fil.1,',.'',...••1:‘,`‘ i ,;.'' 1 14,..' ! il kl •'•••V' ,. . '::, e': '''' '''.*!:'.' • :. . ''' ' : ::', - 'g : .51 .11. - 1 '
ge',. 7 .q.' 1 7 . .. , 4 ,'•: - ..,... .:;,' .., .. 0..i,•? ... P 1 . , , , . , v . 0._ ,. 4.. el 14, . ' .V, : 1; , , ,, ,, .4 , AA 1744,Ni,,.;-,,!„ , '? , .',';:•.;,:ly ' , 4,T..t 11 e . 4...'...; ,..... ,'.,:1 -,-,..., ., .'
/
: , ., ... D ,F.,. . - ....- k 4' -.. ti :1 - •411,i 4 4 ;:te ' 4 •••Wil .'... 44 q' ''%,),,,10 ,.• ) .:6,1,,C.,..., I ,., ,,— );) 1.; „ ...,; - .'e.- •',.,'
4 'I .. ,•:(' . • • :4•.? - . -", .:.. to.,,,,,
.:14!,•:'' . •` i,.. e. 1' 4: •',• -. v. '.' 1.1':. '''',. ., ., ..*A 4 ,, ./t' ...4.44g ' ft.1041 . 7 9 `. i,. 047 : ,'4'!''; . • 7 :•..:.;.;, . : I rrt,t . :•;: : ', ": ;'. :::' : ,.'!!'. • .:4,1.,..4.:.. v,,.,..- . .
V•V? .' .".. l' 7 .. I tIV.,..: 1 . - .. , 4 i__, .'' ' 1 ' . ;; : .'):" ".' ":.; lili . j . 0 .*,', ; 4',.*''xi-A '. f-'1,:ti .. Y .,. .. ,, ;441i. t. 4.,, ,, „.....:.;;;,,.',1 . ..,.... , 14; - i.,...,rfk.,:?0".44:°: u
. .e.int-i'li . r, ; ..;:.:10,7 li,■, 14 •, ' • ill 'ds.' , •• .. - x, - -!Pq 4 1,,,• ••. ■• , .
p 4 E. It 11 ... ' ' •';',.. • - , .4 ....u......,:. , .„ ., .
6„..,....,, , ...) ,4(4.-, fr-N... .: , J.;
-;,- .*. • v, i: -- .' , ..-0' . .1' . - '. . e••• ' ' •••" ••:-ir . tl■ . -0 1 ,. T. .. - ..,,... 4.- .;...o,.:,-... (. - „:0? 1 - i , -, ...Y. r, . ,, .f .!... .1.?:.3.7; V. • t t.
v r
. ,.,.., ,; ,j.' -N7 ..,T,i..., ,,,. r ..4,, '1.4 t ‘ •A . lf..;.7. •■••,..,:'..v.V.,.',Ite•T,- •,
f ,' ......‘ - ' .., ; , , •,,, yo. 4.. •,i' ;'.010:;':.■,' 4 '! c't A ' .` *1*,'
'.:,: ' A... , ? tp,i.,:t arj . (a • • "'. C;;4+1 I ,'-' 1 1? V:, , k.l s. ST. %;41 OW- ' , -141Z„'4 : f'.'' $4 l'i 3 it.4.:VV. Wii ' ' .„' ••,1;
0 1,
411,fl.”.) ' , •,*".•,,, ,••• '_ i r!At.i. 04', ,P. r'A, lee:;•Qt.,„,.C4-',.. . %,' ,i ' f 7 ,' ' yorf.'S, . , • 1. .: ) • ?? tf.o.. -, r1:.., • ''.1. •
1.1:_fr 'i-- .,,,,„. t , ., ? ,it I ,•.r. :4•4 ;.,' l', • ',' .C.i:41 i:' - .N.'• 1 , ' ," - il.: .,9 : 4 ,. . ji, , • .e,0 ., :i ... ,.. t ,. ..
% il k '''. ; 4..11....v.;,4 e . .. . ,• • • - , V' ,,, C1.......111.',Z ... 4.,,_:.1... ,:', te, ' . *44.: tile- • • ,' " i.' .• , ',1 ,' :tkii''.,/ .1,.',ICi.... l.. 't,. 'i 0! t yi ' . ..4.4 1' .....;“, ' :. ' A
1 . v 1 1.% ' . 1 . i'< . 4" 4:141 , :tii! l t ‘t,..T. The,.. app iic an *.• -,,•': .s:..Te't • . ii:-..:zarr t t - • • • .-*. i, 4 ,•?;':,- !&,,,•, ,,,,,:.::;.:. .„....-.. ,,,.., -., • , ,, .. ,,, ,.., • ,..i ,r,,,,, ., ,,,...
i t
' f■il :‘, N•f .. . . ''.. •00 / i , . t Itiaira4.:14....',•,A
\
' 'Ni• .1- 4&.. ' * ?,• ..." ..- '", , t _.,'• N• %-., ' n ''' ' '-''• It - ..• 1 .• ' 1 • f ' . i ' t ' 4 , •ttAt4ViAl-r.ar, .i.:•*.'..
y,.....,..,;(ii ea, • ag3 ,o "
-,:.erec .,.; a ,..-: .5 AF .,., s ,• gn os , ,,. .. , , ....4;1,.,Aw , ,g4.t,
,,,,4., . , ok. .. - , 10 . i .... ....AA . A,. Av 42 , /. .Nee, ,, i
4_114 i. VT . -a •'.; ''' .111 . 7 Vki:r4 L • •‘ i••'".. :1,-•;•-.: i f -. •
'')! ... l':' .r;Ociirlioie - b' . uriaarie 6 .? Of..et.he': , Ci•E: "‘ :af,..4 Ed4eiiaterl-PlOtid - ."-;tr,..Vp,t ' •
0 7
-,.:; -..,. ,1•;:k. ke i,:,% '. '. ' .. f '....^ .'''..., ;: ,". '..":,,,;::,; ,....'''' i .4
• i , • * . ..",4- , 11.7'24. • .4"..
iSr: . '. tio, , AV, . i . ., .. 1., : ia .,t" • '' 1 j 't'f ? .. ::iii.. . • '■• h ...1.;• •ev. II., ,. ',P: ! .,'''' ''' :, ' ,..: ''''''
t0be.',.'e'reeted.,:an.,Ladeordance".„Tiiith.ithe...:drawing ; attach •ow,..*, rila • 43g..5),, •
1
• - , " K ....;t1.4. 4`;' • • ' •14 1 1 , ' . 1?),ilfga . -MIVIr'' r..(7%.; '::'..... ::';'''.''''• ' -- ; ' { ':', •- i . .. :• • • 41.' 't• ■!..0 ' '
,.. ::,;',. Li 4 N 11 1 4gtk, 1'. t t44.. ..". - ' — ''''' ' . .- -1 '''.
4 4..i... 1 .,%'-i i .. foltic...?1 L-e. 1 , ,!..:, ;- '4's •-•. . 4 , A, •f. • . . -0 .--•,... 4. !A* - : J.?, - ,•,.,.. 4: ' 4 . a , • ',:s,. 14.,i1,;,11: • ' • ..s. !•.•
i ...iq pa r t,.: O :ithis - 4By.i . acceptancei g :of ....this nni.t .,;t . .t i ..4 - - , --- , a4L.4..:..- re ...;
?,,• .i., Ig*,44 AkAgif v ,■,, ,fogit: .,.;.„•, , -f'. t 7 T AK :■,7,: ' 1 , , . ; .: kiztt gm 4 , , , :-, i,i'.p
/ ‘1
J .1,001,. ., ..„ , .. .,„ . , ., 1,, ,,e1, . k ,.
-,
Vii- ' ,..to',..complpo.73.t •:- all i'laws. • o ,,-, -th ;411 tate:,.of .. F lor ida an •
z•, . ,
,„ ; • e -,,, -,.
1* 0 ,x. qt f, V4. ''• A .,■ 1•/,ii , • , :' - ='''••`.. ttli,W61 4ViViiii,gi't 't. .;:.. '.'..7
- A,-v :I. k ': IttlW;Pre ' iA • J ' . IA 0 ''W '•: ' 4 ,..:.'•,••'2•1A ,, V '...",. N'■ '..-• ••,.. ',. ''e,• •,--'''''.e4;•,,,, .,:q- :-. ) - .-..-e
;-";''' A • - t?-'8' -'.E (3 '0 tike Y 'in'O •I iid'ilig .''',‘ but.1• ir..I1 ' e• 4 : ' ii1 : 7,,,: '.
, 4 C
; „ ,,. .i., .,,., k . ; ,:,, ' 4 4 „ • 1 1 ' ' . ' ' • ! . ti ' '!, r . ' t i• k i , !" fr ttp,i4,4i1 4;0? iii .i-.P.'„}:' V t)f ; ; ,q7f;V ,' .
. .. T:. ■l 4 .i i ,..*:, -?.! ,,, I , .VA ? ? , j ' ' .7,tr,A ..;','h'4,11 , ,411 '',..,;/ t„i v:?...Cip.4:: 4 "41, 1 ? - rt, ,i' :,•!'...','
: ,11' ., :'6 , -.4-. i - ••,q:lg . ..KF,.." --)." .= 1 4..12' , ' , e!i , -, q' •-• i .'",, . ,- :::?‘" i;17 j.r..t.0 ' .;-' ... .4 -
4 1
...,,,,,.,.. A . 4"4• P lA , , 'IT • 1..' O 0 t: , , ...,. , ,14. , - , a lip,.,,,,, . if , .::!...1,T, -. .it , eipv: 1 1 - 0 %;;, r.
, 4 ,r, '; ,' „ , ? : : , 4? ,, - A ' . - : '... 1 : ■ - •• ••11 4 . 4 .. yie.ti: 0 • .41 ' ., • , -:f ,...: • , ' • ' .....;' , , z.i .,.,: . ' •.„.... oi,o • ■••''',?' • Fi.;;.'' ir 'W.., , ,, ii ii i , •,,,
. ,-.-A .0.'1 i ,f ,ip. :1 ,•,,,..4,, IF, ... ,,. k‘4,.....,.. ,.,• L vi • ;,.,.. ,4 , ?: , ' . pr .'.3,),..i ... `'' : ' .. :.0.:' I '
- ,.., A:...7.4,1. o . : • 0 g No ivy: -, ,, ., l' u. N.; tyt.:`,V4.0 ' , : ilk .f4.1 .:: : : ,.' .i. •I''' • ; . ':' i •'-': l';'" .4iii. ' /.. %/g oh?•• ripi ,,,,,, 441 '-qra, - I'
,00 r t ,* ., ..7,r ..,,,,., ,,.. •,,,,1-...,,i, , ,:ay- ._ . _, ; , ,-, .. , v,1-4 yrit ;, : >- ...-• ,.., 4-• • .,%,.., 79 p -?1-.--:- - •
..: rtulti 0 9 4 1 . 9. 4 ,r , ' ','F ' • Vti /..." ..'''' . ' .•.V.;.• .,40'... •• t.',11 ,•-i.).',,lit.:! .1.-- t4'.4'::::',..•1
yi• . . ,' ,,.., it ..„;,. • . „...7. ..-ti• . .. ',1 '--.. '• .....".i-5..
, ti k .. "::,Z..044'1 . 0 . ..'*: ` '' 41: .- , , •,.1..f. . . •:...c ;X - .1•1, A ' ' - ,
;VI...I `4A'g'•z•ii•4 . ' • ;•' . 9 -' ...* :i 4, ' * 4 ': • {:4 ..;'. 9 ../1J.'e ';::::''e,': t rmiteey- . i.t.i.- =4 , .1 • -.
w
I '' , ' , ^ 1 '..A - e'd.:', 4 4 , i '' ' •44 . ;1i.41,.:••.4,t -,..,‘ i•;;A,,:,,,?L'i: f.,........;-„,i ,..,k,9 . .,,, ,ip..;. ...,;!-A7 ' ...44.4.)f. '..:•4 ,, 4 ,Pgi,':$1,,'=:
k
if
1.iiii;v..c.... ,0:,,...1p.:;.r,,.,. F fk,140' ,' i t . 'NT :! ' 1 5, .pliiii 41 4.44.4.4.. H;* ,„41 '. i? "Y k Ot ' s:O.CP:h v... V' rt0' ' _t_ v4.:-.7.1.7.ft'!; •
, „1 , ,',..V..t,. '..t.„4 f:;,•.., . is ),.x ' -. ,13ilw.).. ' .,..- j.e'.... AL_,IV.=,:c;.:.,..i- ,..,,•: . , ''. 1 ,..;.f•-',Ef.t.n.if 45 t'i'.. AP. Zii e , ... 1 "-;:' ,
&!1.,., • Arte..tmvadgm VA( 4: .'...',' .' I, ,',t, .1. ..,, , tt . '' . ..,F. : P .i;')P. , ..:i.'0-'4.zi' • ....;:.? 1 . '' • i r It': ..ii..: , i:,.4',. . ,;; 1 : . :, :::
; 0:0,0,:,Tl 3 4 z . , Nil ROvED : .4., gi:t.Pro" '',, .,;7 i ii - '!x.:•:c.,44.,, , : - .: , '...i. . ,I * ..., . ,K R , , , Vt
Ar .i..i... . .
i . ,,,,1„ ,, 4,..,,....g.4L,•1, ,7 c ■ , ,lf . 91:;■6 ,„ „ I. .-A' .,, , „L..,,w5tits: 'V ,:,..147."•''f:...Ti$ us ing :, Of f icial:. , 1 -40, • , .,.. %.
ii,"?; 1 0.1,,A 4 ,:l . $ ,. ;,$ : ,..7 - ,,.. , ,, :3 '..',.,.PT ;1,1:!,e RA:i ; :,iNiki.ife.- i.‘t•il'4•-0..r.,:i?). 4 . i''?4‘.k.,•,,i; . . , ::: . ';' , ;;:i•Nir`,..t:...f l `,i4, 4 1.4 , •• , ,g '. A . .. - • - , ''V,.. 444 c ' •
I t ,..,-...-•.;. ; ...,- •., -,.......i.,.;,.! 4. , , !,., 1 .6,46,. , ,,t4.,,,, .1 ,001-A., .,z ,4,,,y4!..,..7 ' . .. , .0 ,.•:, I -I, ' .,, , ' -,")..;.f , ''' 40;,,I. '.:, • -
ki. too,
1 ' ' ..1' . e': e'... .'" • ''''''' • , - ,c: , r 4 ..il' , 5 -44 , 7 ..2 • )7' 4 1 26',4 , ,c , i'''..;‘',.Q. 4, Ni , :h .", •, '.... ` ' - . . t. , r: , ,•0 7 2 . ; . 7■,iL :7 '0) 7 , 4 ' 1 1 7, , ,i, * ' 70* . •,. 7 ') I, * • il.'" tti .,. 4." . 77 .7.,;1 ,.?!,• . .'
... 7 • •N ..' R, ., Date': c.:, nig .. ,., ,, .. : - ,'::,,„. ..,q i' , .; ....,',,,-:,,‘ •,.-FEE:',4 , - w .1 • 0 i -I . •,. • ...s' . ,t4 , —
...:A..,..,,,, - .... , !.-, ,-,,:: .., 2. ... ?..,....;:,,,,....,..!,,,,-,...,..,. :. . : . ...., • , .. .: .-- .:..... t ..,. e.....) ;''.•--ti : •
, ,,.„...iv . !.. 16;:,,..i...1., -- . ,,, . c--,...', , : ,,„ vt. :....,. :: :,.. ..; ,Fi ....,!..,..i....
„, .„„•,,,,14„...,,./00 . ' 0, ''. ii ' ' - ._','•,'.s.',,?..', ":.....C ',.:;,:, r.
....,' 4.:.4,. '. ,....... , ,r2;, A .. ' P .. ii..-' "y...-.• V.) ..,441. ' A, t 1 "t i - ly''`''' . , ■ l'e. ', ' . - g -
vsiii.., i. . .. 0,:v..z., ,-..,,,.,,:,..,..,..,.- ",v; Av, .415,1,..,.. ',, - ... ., . - A y -;:. 1....,! -.; t•A•„,, .,,,,,tA 4 ,v • • ,.i.:"...:;• • . . , , ., -.. • • . •... i • 4 1;
• •
• • • . • •
...';. %.: ...:..::'::::::•-•: ':"..i:'•:• -::::::::::.....•:::::•:::::: i•- :-.:•i<:i: : •:':•::*::•,::::::.::::::: -•:.• ;::......*:'• : :: ' ::-:-.: :. '' :: .:::::•.;.:-: .. :-..;...:,:•••:.•'•-•.:• .--.**•*'-;:•-i.:: :.:T:: . ::: •::• - ;:lfi
-•::: : :.......::•':-.•• ::••••:-:!..••:•:-•••• ;''-:.'. :•''.-..'::::.;::' I ' •::'. :.:: :: .. •• ; • :.: : ' -:.'...'" •-•::.:.• • :. .• :::. - • ...:::"*. . :. . -• • ' - : '''. ' :•:*--. -••: .:. .. :••••••. • . :.....:..'.:.. :-•:,.•::: .: •:*.• '• .*.*:•:: - :;.:''''' . :' '
:- :. !' • :*::•:- ..':' ....:. :*.: - ' •:•: 1: •:-. - .: •::-:::',•:.:...:::: .. . ' ••:::: .: : .•:'.. *.*::.' - ''.. -.•:**.• •: : ' : . .:": . :. /•:. • • ' .. •• .•:: .. • ., ,:. : .:*•:":. ••••.:: :•-:.•.' ..- :*::. .,' ': . ••;;.:•:: •••• •:.:.."•" •'..-..•:.; ::::'?':..;:•:::: 7 ••:• :;* .
.:::,::..::.,;;;;!....-'::::::-;;':"' !:.::••::'::::••••.:-..:•.;.!•:';;•.:-:::::' • ''';'•:*:!:.:.::• :::: :.,...: .•',' •.' -1' " •••••• -:: • :::•• •••':•'• ••'•'' "••'•• :: • +::' :. -:•':',.' : : .• • •-,':':' : • ; •:•:- • :• : :-'•'.•:- •'•:!: • • '• :':'• .1:::::•:•: : • •• •:•:;::': -f :••:- .':::.::',!::::•::::.:;:::::•:'*•::;!:::::••:.::'•'-
. . . . .
.. .• •
•
• • -
• •
• . • •
. . ,
• .
• •
•
- • ..
•
•
•
1. •
•
. .
•• . . . .
• •
•
. -....
• .
•
'• ..- •• ' " • •• ' • • • • • • " • • • • • - • " • ••"•■••••• - • • ' • • • : • •' • . . . • " . . • • •• • • -:•.• . ' ' • '.. • ....-r • • ..• ...:.?.": • •
- : •
• • • • • . • • • • - • • • • • •
.. . • • • • • -• •. .. -•. •. • ..• ..•.- . .•••
. • • • ' '. ••
' . 30 . .
.
• 4 .. 1 - • • • • . . ..
• ..
. • •
•
. '
. • ' •
- . .
. - .
. , - • .
• . . .
• ' " : . , • ":.• .
k
/ / Li VJ LvbLwnJ[.n, JJA.PAIVh %
CERTIFICATE OF ZONING
•
• -' / OR RESIDLNCE INFORMATION:
rty Owner: i2 ��Address: �,h - S
/ ck One: I ) Residential I ) Business I ) Industrial I ) Other S• 5,4;
/ame of Business: SCA rzA2.4. 2, r,,e-
f
Phone: 424 fo30 City Location: Sou -i Se 7.f.:- er/206;27S
(Example: East side of Magnolia between Second I. Third)
APPLICANT INFORMATION:
A
Name: P`� -4'-i 4'/4>Z/Li�T'
Address: (.AO 2- /w /Rw g/a i3c.v /Da-e....-ca v"-e._
REQUIRED ZONING:
Zoning District: B 3 Setbacks: Front Side Rear Side /Corner
Reason for Permit:
ce.-tis r sty .1.1
-- i.0e/i -
IILO J.. :f.. t/ .IPA:. i .it i i/,, dut
I. /. .i..04iii %1/1i..! r ,rte J. :BAs /Jo
/ 1
COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL BUILDING CHANGE IN USE: to r/ D�y1)
Previous Use: '
Proposed Use:
PLOT PLAN
Street Name P 41-
Depth of Lot feet.
. . COWn-et-6 aeditt4, , ,--e
V
g 4-
, ti 76, qu: hiegta 14Li
(.1
1 w
. k I ) , W •
V 0
EE
• R "It
V C
M O
N k
W 1
1 :9 -
V
p / 24tQ
Street Name ap,g.�,� -S AV .
g 7 S f Fjrurin u S /
(
The ve informs n is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
1/ Z ' ?(
Applic nt Signature Date
A certificate of toning is hereby issued confirming that said use conforms with City
Toni g ptions.
,i,,Viid 5 - -I 3-9 f
Planning Director or Planning Assistant Date
White Copy - Planning and Zoning Department •
Yellow Copy - Present to Building Department /
Pink Copy - Retained by Applicant
Revised 12/05/88
.07WMAID SCAM MUST AC ANY THIS APPLICATIWN.
•
APPLICATION FOR BUILDING SIGN PERMIT
1. Name of Applicant /Contractor 002.12 ia 601
2. Address of Applicant /Contractor (c' 2. ( .v i /fit d 44-4/D
3. Telephone Number of Applicant /Contractor 4Z(5 ,PD 3 O
4. Owner of Sign: 2 6,14,2„1„,-
5 . Owner of Property: Aigite..t 4 6. Address Address of Property:
7. Legal Description: to r S /6, /7 /Y , / y
4 /tit r I X co,eviA/ 7v A 7 ,P ecrzzvst) / �v
it /'o /c 1 / # 44-4- 7-V 7 7i 4 h c i c , v, 2 oC' o% (.4.i
Cou1JT 644 •
8. Drawing to scale, in duplicate, showing the size, height, struct ral
details and dimensions of the sign and sign structure attached
9. Drawing to scale, in duplicate, showing the position of the sign and
any other existing advertising structures in relation to:the build-
ings or structures on the premises and to the boundaries of the
property (attach) /yi}G,a,.ir
10. Electrical permit attached hereto e
11. Additional information as may be necessary to demonstrate compliance
with Section 3 -5 of the Edgewater Code of Ordinances or other City
codes or ordinances, including, but not limited to, engineers'
drawings
12. Each application for a sign permit for a sign containing no electrical
wiring or lighting shall be accompanied by a fee in the amount of five
dollars ($5.00) for the first five (5) square feet, or fraction
thereof, of the advertising display area of the sign, and thirty cents
($0.30) for each additional square foot.
Fee attached: 60. 3D
App scant
ner, or written evidence of owner's
permission for the erection of the sign. �,
•
1
•
rf`t f '`f"" t
'fin, r, t t l l r t'+�C� °
J
•
:? 1 '. 1 4 , *,IY.t t( .
• � 'i pr, ; f '�r
• •
•
1.). 4. 3
• r I : t
• i t
r e � b • !Ij - , - i t ..
lNi ,tl �ki t _ it ' • I .r }�� ' ; r Sri} f r a
to ) i h I
r f r t, , ww t .'1 r ' . % •
0 .... f'' 2 m '1.•,„,:;,•,,,,,,,,;.„,•- �#f ,'
�t! t »y r .„
><
4 k tJ� 1.4' 1
•
1 . N I•c
• 5 t
_ W ali„ •
it 1
4
t 1 Yw +� •
Cf 4•°.''' . I
I.r lt., ..-.
, /
'.r i Yatltt.0,1, r,
,Y y 1 vi t , th/ 1 4
w ri t "' "E B.4j1 pb � �� '. .0.1',t. � r 1 1 1 r ' •
. - ...:
r]
t, 5 I. ,p rh„ n t t
J 1 ?; .1 .:-,;:et: ff ! Tf Vi42'4,4 tl Xy , }
[t
'N' 4 ' }I� ; I Y
` ,k tr. rarr � r .
-. .Sri `.a ,
H' i iw. N' ,. ./ R v h ''r#:"1,..' r .' 1 1 ',
/ .<I �4 ; 7 t `a y H �:. 9 . � ° L, Y,C K+ r „r • ..
S ti �' 4(1.41 44C,;;;:.
s .k!C "1 +� t
r � t 1 # h ..+ r �t '�
,v ��rr, � t --1' a 4 `.i t
�� ,
Pt � t ):4";,,, _� 1d�y' a'�4 ' l � +y � r YfYY ` L � ) ) ,
,i 4 +< 1 ,rh 't# ,, 0,1 r• J� *) W I i , 1 .�. h 44 . t ;
fs ' � t+3A''t'r+' , ?`, 11' : ,( „; F/'F a .,tilat•1 •, i.d '! o.
F• 4° rLI � t � . li��� . • ;,„„ x'r. l Fr .t t r r y. �1' + . f r ,,)z :,a- ty r + ? >t •
+c� fear} id le, 5 �.� r > 0,.! . .,,
1�, J'S, zgwf • 1 � "tea , 1 t . •
M ? tt� . r 4' 7,i � Y + p .• I t^ r7'y • 1 -.i't y; J 5•.- sr �� •.rA, �' .f }Y' i .7Yr 4 i,t • f I;t Cill d . •
11 •
• '
• . I %rig 7. , ' AI. , .. ''''
/ II
• 11111r,.. e ; 16 V I," , „. -
it • 111 , .,i4 v/r . r i . 411‘•,'
• V.` 4 4.4 i .. 'W • Iv- '
' • 0 '
''' I a. t , .. ) itt....) Id .,. . ..L, 10 • . :!".... . ' ' '
• . 1 .
; ..
i I 1 " ! tl ■ : p9111* :....4. 4 4 4;0111;1 ;; / i '
•
.....". • ...., " 4+ 4,* ,.' f0K.3 fr n i trai ill I
. •
I:2 ■ 1 ell ' • ' I: 14.irtk 1 1, 4 ••Y• ' •
MI • . • • I ... •
4101111 I it tt . V4,444 0 441
rm., n , • ■ .is ..1011, , • --... ,!!„14,i,„ , ,,,,..: iih. 14. - - ..1 14...
.. .^ • . . j., ' 41111014 ..., -..-
WI • -
•-_, ,-T-, yi , ,-... — • S , . ' , ' ; - • ''.',':-,• ' ' ••• - - ''''' '''. • `." ••"' ^ . qa1 --'' I _-•-
,‘,, . Vet No, ..... •• ..14
j ,,,,,, s . < • , 14 .., 4 , ' ` • ''.' • IV \ \ • 'A• ■ .
1 • " , I . , ' ' 4 , .„,,,.,.......,, , ,
••••••-• .4 ' . . •• •• f •• • ' ` s t r. l•'4,,.
' -
• . ... .4.
C •,4 '. jr. ''' ". '. S'Atte . ,-..
cif;:r............ 4••■■••• •
....■ 1 .41 . - :_:-
.., ,74 A . • , - .... pr -.- 4., , Pc: •-,"'-
..,. ' •,„:,,, , '"" , .,-04-'r- • '"'''''' - -
. 1 ' • •• " ' ,.. , , - . , ,
• '.; ,.., - - ,' - `A•T•tals''' . ,„.....
... , ,` „:" ,-.. , 7; ■ . ..; , •• ...... v.*-:•....„ • .....__,,
. ' ., ■ - .to. ..._ ,..,,„ , , ... rp.
. ' " . ..4: t ei•t'l ' p .:". .,•.'• .,:„ , • ' - 41.* 1:.• 1. •'!" "4 -,..'.. '. -./;,,
'
` 'i ., 4....:. • , '7. D. ,----___ . --,,,,-,..,-,:-. , _
• -• ,,,- ' -,,.,.- „‘ - . -, -il ''..' --- -"iik,
• -' .. s s„..,11 "..,A ' .„ ,;'• 4 , t , ,„,,,, p ‘.• ; , 00 1 , , ,
- • , i* : , ''. , , ,11 v. t ii. , Ir. ., ,_ -,.- , .,,• •4s. • ••.,
•.'', N 4. ,.. i • ( '1 1 ,..• ".' .1.e-A ',..Y,401, • ,„.7.s t -, . - t . '"'' . I`f
.. ;••'1 'AA 'ii,i "---,‘ ''.+ '' ''-', '•'.'" 4.!‘ ' ' . ' 1 • 4 •`.. - ' ■
. .
•• ..". • , , • ' •.> al' • • itr0.44:%'2.4•: ^1-.4 --- I• '',` • t -
, - ' 1 ' ;• - A tl: . ' • . es.,,,i, ;, .1 ,t ..1. • i• 6 ' '. - - *
Photo provided by F. Munoz taken on
1
August 1992 of Surrey Ridge
. .
. ,
• . , .
. .. .
. - r d.
•
..
. It, ..40 • ....s . .-. . ....71„ 0. .„ , * .„A. t..,, ,. , , • il,
. ..,. aort,:' ', , , • . 4;4.4 v ii#,, lilt %.: ' ,,', • ■111 0
4 • .. ill: •,', . . li A:.: nitio .. ...:,. 2 , , .:. 0 .,,.. ..,. ••• i 7 -. , .44 4:. ..... .
i ' ' on ' ' ' ' -4 .1:. r• '
• • : . . ' . , . ' ' .' r ;,...• . . ..0 .-.... . :,-> , <-4§•
.. • ‘,...,
., . p 1, fa .‘1.,1,„ er 4 f„ '. $:.
. , •
: .• : ,. 4; • . ,. •• .' ', ' ' '•,■kzed 4 Ct rx r
,• M 44; k • • .• a • • - ''
. k. ... . • . % .1 '' - 4tr i A tSiot.%? '. .,- . ... ''. . - , 4 '4';,
—.-. -. Ji, i • 1 .4k. n,:.-. :•"2.. ..
....,,‘ . ...,. •k.,4.•t,spto ,
, ;64 . P ••
1 r ii)i :IP ' 1 ••• 't . 4 .. ..‘ '4,f ;116.
410
in
. • • • l' 1 0 .4 ' ' ' I
I . " , ..4.7. • 1,' .t. . . . ' • ,
1 I ... • . ..
51,7
ft, tr '' '' 11 .::. ,... "74. i : . ..:, : ..
...„: i * . ,,:h • ..i,&- . .4 1 4
. .
!iii • i ' I , 1 { 1 '1 V ; a : , I
'.. 1 kl A Irak III 1 I •
11 • ' !- ri , . ...1. .
t
itiDG ,.....6, .,,,,. ,..
' 1 * . . ) tti ,x . , Z°. 1,1 •
1 .... iotitr 4.? •., a. , • .
5 71 ' 421.9900 1 : 1 11,70 1 : - ... - --:**-- ----:•- - ' --- ' 4 4-...... r `,..-' 6 - •-■ - -
,4= -`.....,,, - •••••••••--_,...._ _...
-1 .. — - .. ' _ '""'""', ••
....,‘, ••
• ■4.-• 4'10 3 , 4 1 . ""' s 4 '111' 11 . ' ;••-'44.• -•- • , - • .
. ' , . . , ' I , : ,1 , e ': - .• .... - . • -..7 4,. t - ,. . 5 . - A-":„. -** ^"': ' -
,, . ....,;".i Sift' .,..c.' ;;,:.;-. .-- ' ' - _ . , ,- , .. ,_ - - ,f ,b,., - - - , „,..),;-,,,,,,
• ...ri"ett 4.- -...1-f I *. ..- :'. ,..v. " - ..,,,_ - . Ic-i * Or, v•,,e ../.„'`. e..-_. • 4VA4,... , • -
' • • c•*1:-: ' i... . •'''‘' ..7,',) ' '-f , - • . , , ,' ..., - e••••• 4 ••••• •% ••• . • ' • •.` . -44 • J •••• ,,- •••• -
... - . ' .• -. --.., ,,,:-.= ffi-Pt • . t-.....-; . t .
a, er..... .I.. .
• '' ':':. r. ens 40 i ; • , , , i , eq''''. r,' '", s Z t ' i *'• . : ... •
' ' • ....y . • . .." " ' •'•4•• . ' , •fi'
1 ' ' ' t .' *', ; '' * •• :0' 4 A ;V a Ntlr'.nr„..:Z,...::' ; W101 .' -1 . : • . s *
0 ... .., t . 4 k*I"' *.'''• • 7i '•-•••• 'e • , ''. 0. " , . • -. ,....., •,,-**, ' : ''•
Photo taken by City of Edgewater Code Enforcement
Officer on March 4, 1993
. •
. •
•
• .
, _ •
zr 1 r • - - . ' '
fi i , ,0
• t. ■, ..."? • r
! .1 • • • , lc 4
• / i‘r "•e.
'fr. -
1,
*1M \
t .1
. •
• Pqr..0.4.4,..P:..fia • '
1.11. is • • . • 4, 1 . •
• Cis v Vit./y •
e ;
•
•
A . .
. -
" — , L.7•,1
•
•
•
•
•
. .
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
MEMORANDUM
TO: George E. McMahon, City Manager
FROM: Mark P. Karet, Director of Community Development
DATE: March 12, 1993
SUBJECT: Lot Sizes for Single- family Residences in Pelican Cove West
As you know the Department of Community Development declined to issue a building
permit for a single - family residence proposed to be built by Ponderosa Homes, Inc.,
on a 55 foot wide lot located at 421 Sandpiper Court in the Pelican Cove West
Subdivision, Phase II. This permit was not issued because it failed to meet the 75
foot width established for single - family residences in the R -4, Multi - Family District.
This was explained to Mr. Barrett in a letter dated February 24, 1993 from Lynne
Plaskett. •
On March 1, 1993 an employee of Mr. Barrett's dropped off a letter, demanding that
the Department of Community Development (DCD), state in writing, that permits will
be issued for lots 50 feet and 55 feet in width by the close of the day. In support of
this demand Mr. Barrett attached a copy of minutes from a March 24, 1986, City
Council meeting. Mr. Barrett's letter implied that the Council had approved the
construction of single - family residences on lots that were less than 75 feet in width
during the March 24, 1986 meeting. When the DCD did not prepare the statement
requested by Mr. Barrett, he appeared at the March 1, 1993 meeting.
The March 24, 1986 meeting was held because the Building Department had 9
permits pending for single - family residences on 50 foot wide lots. At that meeting
Dennis Fischer, who was then the Building Official, told the Council that a variance
had been granted in 1982 to permit construction of single - family homes on lots 50 feet
by 105 feet instead of 75 feet by 110 feet. Mr. Fischer gave assurances that if the
permits were approved, a density cap of five units per acre would not be exceeded.
After much discussion the Council decided " to continue development of Pelican Cove
West in accordance with actions of the 1982 Council ". Unfortunately, the
representation that the 1982 Council granted a variance to the 75 foot width
requirement was false.
•
Subject: Lot Sizes for Single- Family Residences
in Pelican Cove West
Page -2-
In 1982 the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council did grant a variance
from the dimensional requirements of the R -4 District. However, this variance applied
only to the depths of 83 Tots. The 83 lots did not comply with the district regulations,
because the subdivision was originally begun in Volusia County prior to annexation.
These 83 lots measured approximately 50 feet by 105 feet or 5 feet short of the 110
foot depth required by the City. The width was not an issue because the plan was to
construct duplexes on two 50 foot wide lots.
Mr. Barrett, in his letter and before the Council, referred to a permit issued for a
single - family residence located at 436 Sandpiper Court. He stated that this lot has a
net width of less than 75 feet. It is true that a portion of the lot is less than 75 feet in
width. The reason for this is that the lot is located on a curve with a 50 foot radius.
The lot is pie- shaped. The narrow part of the lot part, its frontage, forms a portion of
the curve's arc. Moving towards the rear, the lot widens to approximately 95± feet in
width. This is compared to the lot's 50 feet and 55 feet in width that Mr. Barrett
wishes to build which do not vary in width.
Since the March 1, 1993 Council meeting, staff has reviewed permits issued within
both phases of the Pelican Cove West Subdivision. There are currently 203 dwelling
units in the Pelican Cove West Subdivision. Duplexes account for 138 of the dwelling
units. Single- family residences comprise 65 of the dwelling units. Staff has
determined that 9 of the 65 single - family residences were issued in violation of the
code. Seven of those 9 single - family residences were in Phase I of Pelican Cove
West, which is completely built -out. The remaining 2 are in Phase II. Those 2 permits
were both issued in 1988. No similar permits have been issued in the last 5 years.
The question is - do we have to continue to issue permits for single - family residences
on 50 foot lots simply because 9 out of 203 were issued incorrectly? In my opinion
the answer is no. The City is not bound to continue making the same error. No
mistake makes legal development activity that is prohibited by the code.
Pelican Cove West is comprised of 45.07± acres. On this acreage the 203 dwelling
units yield an overall density of 4.44 units per acre. If Mr. Barrett is permitted to
build -out the remainder of Pelican Cove West on 50 foot lots it would produce 26
additional single - family residences. This would increase the overall density to 5.01
units per acre, just over the established density cap. If held to a 75
Subject: Lot Sizes for Single- Family Residences
in Pelican Cove West
Page -3-
foot width, 16 units would be permissible. The overall density would then be 4.79
units per acre.
It is my recommendation that the City reject Mr. Barrett's request to construct single -
family residences on Tots with widths Tess than 75 feet.
c: \mark \pcw.pb
•
A
•
0'1993
March 1, 1993
Mark Karet
Lynne Plaskett
Dept. of Community Development
City of Edgewater
P.O. Box 100
Edgewater, FL 32132
Please find enclosed copy of your certified mail, P 360887917.
Also enclosed is copy of minutes from a "special meeting and
workshop" held on March 24, 1986. After reviewing the minutes
of this meeting, please put it in writing that you will process
the permits that we have applied for on the 50' and 55' lots in
Pelican Cove West. I would like this done by the close of bus-
iness today so I might expedite the permits I have applied for
so we may construct these pre -sold homes. Please keep in mind
you just processed one permit for 426 Sandpiper Court and it
was also on a lot "that had a net width of less than 75'.
Sincerely,
Perry R. :arrett
Ponderosa Homes, Inc.
Hand - delivery
I1 ttw s ' `cle) CQ 4Ctton s 0.Q ( tca Count, \
Jn s-\ w, %f — \ 4 ►5 F) Cou "c,
Onl oa lc4 dept- mPk
•
D O E W 'o T�
CITY OF EDGEWATER
•
104 N. RIVERSIDE DRIVE
P•O. Box 100 - Edgewater, Florida 32132 -0100
s - - (904) 428 -3245 SunCom 371 -7005
February 24, 1993
AUT`r
• a f
•
c..
•
Perry Barrett„ • �_
C/O Ponderosa . Homes inc.,
602 Indian River Blvd. ,
Edgewater F1. '32141
Dear Mr. Barrett,
This department recently received an application for a building' 5
permit for 421 Sandpiper Ct. Please be advised t hat the survey
submitted indicates .a lot width of fifty five X5' feet.The code
requires a minimum of seventy five (75') for a single family
home. The permit can not be processed until the minimum
requirements have been met.
•
Sincerely,
rte`` /�(• //( // // /�- , ' ;$� { r1� ;
Lynne Plaskett,
Assistant Director of Community Development
{
- r
. {
•
' 7
i'n D
•
CITY OF EDGEWATER
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
APRIL ?!. 1982. 7 :00 P.M.
CHAIRMAN NOLAN CALLED THE REGULAR MEETING TO ORDER AT 7 :05 P.M. IN THE
COMMUNITY CENTER.
ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: MESSRS. NOLAN, BENNINGTON, WINTER, TOWERS, HETU.
MR. YACKEL WAS EXCUSED. ALSO PRESENT: MR. HENDERSON, CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MR. HETU MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 7TH MEETING, WHICH
WAS SECONDED BY MR. TOWERS. MR. BENNINGTON REQUESTED THE MINUTES BE
CORRECTED TO INDICATE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 17TH HAD NOT BEEN APPROVED.
THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -o.
MR. BENNINGTON MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 17, 1982, WHICH WAS SECONDED BY MR. WINTER. MOTION CARRIED 5 -0.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
SP -8201 - PRELIMINARY /COMPLY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - LUIS C. GEIL -
232 UNIT MULTI - FAMILY SUBDIVISION. 'PELICAN COVE WEST'. 2124 S. RIDGEWOOD
AVE.. R -3 COUNTY
MR. JAMES C. CARDER, LUIS C. GEIL AND ATTORNEY PAUL KATZ WERE PRESENT
TO REPRESENT THE PROJECT. MR. NOLAN REVIEWED THE DEPARTMENT HEAD COMMENTS
REGARDING THE REVISED DRAWINGS, ALONG WITH THE LETTER FROM THE CITY ENGINEERS.
MR. BENNINGTON QUESTIONED FALCON AVE. BEING A COLLECTOR STREET VERSUS A
LOCAL STREET; THE SETBACKS ON THE CORNER LOTS; STREETLIGHTS AND SIDEWALK
AREAS. MR. WINTER QUESTIONED LOTS SIZES AND THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT.
MR. HETU NOTED THE APPLICANT HAD SUBMITTED A VARIANCE APPLICATION, AND
MR. TOWERS STATED THE ADDITION OF SIDEWALKS COULD BE A LONG TERM
MAINTENANCE PROBLEM FOR THE CITY. A LENGTHY DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE
MAIN THOROUGHFARE THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION FOLLOWED.
MR. HETU MOTIONED TO CONSIDER 'FALCON AVENUE' A LOCAL STREET, WHICH WAS
SECONDED BY MR. TOWERS. UPON ROLL CALL THE MOTION CARRIED 3 -2.
MR. BENNINGTON AND MR. WINTER VOTED NO.
THERE WAS FURTHER DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE ACCESS ROAD BETWEEN THE
SILVER RIDGE SUBDIVISION AND THE PROJECT FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES. MR,
CARDER STATED THE PRESENT EASEMENT IS ON THE SILVER RIDGE PROPERTY, HOWEVER
HE WOULD AGREE TO LEAVE A TEN FOOT EASEMENT ON THE EAST SIDE FOR THE
MOSQUITO CONTROL AND EMERGENCY ACCESS.
CHAIRMAN NOLAN CALLED A SHORT RECESS.
SINCE A VARIANCE APPLICATION HAD BEEN FILED, THE CITY ATTORNEY CLARIFIED
THE PROPER PROCEDURES FOR THE COMMISSION TO FOLLOW.
MR. BENNINGTON MOTIONED TO RE -OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING OF APRIL 7, 1982
WHICH HAD BEEN CONTINUED AND TAKE TESTIMONY RELATIVE TO THE REQUESTS OF
THE VARIANCE, WHICH WAS SECONDED BY MR. TOWERS. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0.
MR. HOLAHAN, MR. COCHRAN, MR. PHINNEY AND MR. GARTHWAITE DISCUSSED AT
LENGTH THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE 110 FT. LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENT
ON THE 83 LOTS WHICH DID NOT MEET THE REGULATIONS. SINCE MR. GARTHWAITE
HAD QUESTIONED MR. TOWERS EMPLOYMENT BY MR. CARDER, FOR THE RECORD THE
CITY ATTORNEY REQUESTED MR. TOWERS FILE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM.
THE COMMISSION FURTHER DISCUSSED THE LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENTS AND IT WAS
STATED THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 8,250 SO. FT. AND 75 FT. LOT WIDTH HAD
BEEN MET, AS WELL AS ALL SETBACKS.
MR. CARDER HAD ALSO REQUESTED A VARIANCE FROM THE SIDEWALK REQUIREMENT
SINCE THE STORM WATER RETENTION ORDINANCE RECOMMENDED SWALES AND IT WOULO
BE DIFFICULT TO HAVE BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. THERE WAS FURTHER INPUT Blf'
)4R. HOLAHAN OPPOSING SIDEWALKS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES AND MR. PHINNEY
SUGGESTED A BIKE PATH FOR PUBLIC TRAFFIC IN LIEU OF SIDEWALKS.,
CHAIRMAN NOLAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
•,t. 4ETU TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL TO GRANT APPROVAL OF THE C
/6ARI1NCEFROM THE TERMS OF ARTICLE IX, SECTION B1 CONCERNING THE MINIMUM'
110FT.,,,,LO REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 83 LOTS IN QUESTION, WHICH WAS
SECONDED BY MR. TOWERS. MR. WINTER STATED THIS DID NOT COMPLY WITH4�
AR`fICLE:X (PAGE 1735). UPON ROLL CALL THE MOTION CARRIED 3 -2 WITH]
MR. BENNINGTON AND MR. WINTER VOTING NO.
MR. TOWERS MOTIONED TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL TO GRANT APPROVAL OF THE
VARIANCE, TERMS OF ARTICLE VIII. SECTION E CONCERNING THE
SIDEWALK REQUIREMENT. UPON ROLL CALL THE MOTION DID NOT CARRY 3 -2, WITH
A MR. BENNINGTON, MR. WINTER AND MR. NOLAN VOTING NO.
MR. HETU MOTIONED THAT THE PLANS WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AND TO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SP -8201, REV. #3, WHICH WAS
SECONDED BY MR. TOWERS. UPON ROLL CALL THE MOTION CARRIED 4 -1, WITH
MR. WINTER VOTING NO.
A BRIEF RECESS WAS CALLED.
SP -8212 - PRELIMINARY /FINAL. COMPLY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - WEAVER/
WHEATON - COMMERCIAL BUILDING ADDITION. 1730 HIBISCUS, B -2
MR. EARL GORDON AND PAT WHEATON WERE PRESENT TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED
BUILDING ADDITION. THE DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW WAS DISCUSSED REQUESTING
SECURITY LIGHTS BE PLACED ON THE BUILDING, SCREENING OF THE GARBAGE
AND DRAINAGE AREA AND LANDSCAPING. THE DEVELOPER STATED A FENCE HAD
BEEN CONSTRUCTED AROUND THE PRESENT GARBAGE AND DRAINAGE AREA AND
SUBMITTED A PICTURE; FLOOR DRAINS AND SECURITY LIGHTS WOULD BE ADDED AND
A SKETCH OF THE LANDSCAPING WOULD BE SUBMITTED.
MR. TOWERS MOTIONED TO GRANT PRELIMINARY AND FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
SITE PLANS SP -8212, SINCE IT WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN, WITH THE STIPULATION SECURITY LIGHTS BE ADDED, FLOOR DRAINS BE
ADDED AND A SKETCH OF THE LANDSCAPING BE SUBMITTED, AS RECOMMENDED BY
THE DEPARTMENT HEADS. MR. HETU SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION
CARRIED 5 -0.
$P -8213 - PRELIMINARY /FINAL. COMPLY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - FRED
VANZIN - 12 UNIT COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSE. 2504 HIBISCUS, B -2
MR. VANZIN WAS PRESENT TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED PROJECT. THE BOARD
REVIEWED THE DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW AND STATED THE PROJECT WAS IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MR. BENNINGTON QUESTIONED THE
GARBAGE COLLECTION AREA IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH WAS
REQUESTED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. MR. VANZIN AGREED TO PLACE
THE LANDSCAPING AS INDICATED ON THE SITE PLAN.
MR. BENNINGTON MOTIONED TO GRANT PRELIMINARY AND FINAL APPROVAL OF
THE SITE PLANS WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE GARBAGE COLLECTION AREA
REMAINS IN THE REAR OF THE PROJECT FOR AESTHETIC REASONS, WHICH WAS
SECONDED BY MR. TOWERS. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -0.
DUE TO THE TIME OF THE EVENING THE CHAIRMAN REQUESTED THE DRAFT OF THE
LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE UNDER OLD BUSINESS BE TABLED UNTIL A SPECIAL MEETING
ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28TH AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE. THE SECRETARY WAS INSTRUCTED TO NOTIFY ALL MEMBERS TO CONFIRM
THIS MEETING.
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 10:40 P.M.
MINUTES SUBMITTED BY:
PATSY L. MCCANN
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4/21/82
PAGE 2
., •
C O OC1 J ........
Approval of Variance - Pelican Cove West. The City anagertread
' a memo'from the Planning Commis a pP
lot depth requirements for 83 lots in this proposed subdivision.
ouncilman Wilbur motioned to take the Planning Commissioncslman
ecommendation and approve this. variance, seconded by
odico.
ouncilman Lodico said he believed people wanted smaller yards.
ouncilman Pendleton. said. thaaWi� .burrpointed0outfthats
ubdivision was too much. Councilman
ubdivisions in the area had received some variances. •
otion DID NOT CARRY 2 -3. Councilmen Ledbetter and Pendleton and
ayor Christy voted NO.
he City.Attorney informed the
Planning Cornmission
the
o approve an appeal from ordinances not t
ayor Christy said he believed this applied to
lieued t to on ordin ccees n sfe o tnt
ecommendations. Councilman Ledbetter and also the
n the number of. votes it takes to pass
elegating of authority by elected officials to appointed board
embers.
unciln to Ledbetter motioned to hold a special meeting of the
e p oi i o f the Council,tseconded ;byn conflict
Councilman LodicO.
e powers of t
e City Attorney read Article XI of the Subdivision Or din al e w
ives the Edgewater Zoning Board authority ,to pp
ats and perform all the functions prescribed in the regulations.
added that that authority is now with the Planning Commission
r subsequent ordinance. He then asked the Councilmen to put in
icing sections of. the Code. they feel should be reviewed.
ouncilman Lodico left the meeting 10 :50).' It<:was suggested that
'a Council wait until the net meeting to set a date for a special
eting. Motion for a special meeting CARRIED 4 -0,.
MISCELLANEOUS - Mr.M ontesano , spoke on drainage problem off of Park
Ave. Mr. Dean told the ouncil he also had a :.serious ponding problem
on his property in Wildwood. Mr. Opal requested the cost of copies
of
5a at City Hall be reduced. being Hazelwood
for
trash on property that is
informed that the owner was burning on property in the County and
. had a .permit. .,There . was a lengthy discussion on this ".clatter.
by Present laws do not permit this. Mr. Geho asked if the water in the ditches could.be Benning ed.and used
• .
by the City.
questioned the final deCsio�henC��y Cove that a there
and asked that it be clarified.
did not appear to be a final o£t�heiPlanningnGommissionewas deniedt�on
to accept the recommendation to
In view of the motion by Councilman Ledbetter, the Council wantssto --
give additional consideration o�poncburningbpermits w and p the Building
division plats. Mr. .Rei� spoke
Official. The.City Manager the isrinCthe£
had checked on the burning in q
County. Mrs. Hazelwood dsnninnFlorQdanShores�ng
permits .She also complai ried about stray dogs
Mr. Muller.:. questioned the absence the decision.
meeting. Mr. Ken Winter b rbu g htu p the
5b The City Manager stated hevaxeandeawassuph :�ldoorntuxned down. The Attorney
as to whether or not this
City Attorn explained that the st l t and th he had emheewearlieikead been
questioned by members of: the
take this matter under advisement e letter ofVresic�'natiQn f�om�the Planning
Winter said he would like resignation about
Commission submitted to the Council. Mr sario. c omp
..� to pik u
. someone leaving garbage near his place of business for the City
This matter will be investigated.
Councilman Pendleton motioned to adjourn the meeting, seconded by
Councilman Wilbur. Meeting was adjourned 11 :55 P.M.
Council Meet . - 6 -
S
A
I 4
b •
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Commission
From: Legal Department
Date: June 16, 1982
Re: Pelican Cove West Subdivision
At the regular Planning Commission meeting of May 19, 1982, the
Legal Department was directed to provide a written legal opinion
to the Commission regarding the legal status of the Pelican Cove
West Subdivision.
Statement of Facts and Case
Prior to the enactment of Ordinance No. 81 -0 -40, the 50.48 acre
tract commonly known as the "Diocese Property" was located in the
unincorporated area of Volusia County adjacent to the City of
Edgewater. As such, the parcel was subject to the Volusia
County Land Use Plan and the District Regulations of the R -3
Zoning District, except the easterly 350 feet along U.S. Highway
1 which was zoned B -4, pursuant to the Uniform County Zoning
Ordinance.
The R -3 District Regulations of the Uniform County Zoning
Ordinance is entitled "Single Family Residential Classification,"
although cluster subdivisions are listed as a permitted special
exception. In addition, it should be noted that the dimensional
requirements for the R -3 County Zoning District include a minimum
lot size areaof 10,000 square feet, width 85 feet, and no minimum
lot depth requirement. It appears that the lot depth is based
upon the rear yard setback requirements which must be no less
than 20 feet.
•
The requirements for municipal annexation are clearly set forth
in the Municipal Annexation or Contraction Act of 1974. Therein,
it is clearly stated that this statute pre -empts local action
which must be consistent with the Act. Fla. Stat. 171.062
clearly states the effect of municipal 'annexation. Therein, the
legislature has mandated that if annexed property is subject to a
County Land Use Plan, then the density of the area may not be
changed without the approval of the governing body of the County.
It must be noted, however, that this Statute speaks in terms of
"density" rather than "zoning."
On or about January 9, 1982, Dan Holohan, as agent for the
Catholic Dioce'se of Orlando, presented to the Volusia County
Council a request for a waiver of density pursuant to the
aforementioned statute for the purpose of developing the parcel
under the R -4 Edgewater Zoning Ordinance. In his letter, Mr.
Holohan points out that the density within the Edgewater R -4
District varies from 4.5 to 12 dwelling units per acre (DUPA),
depending upon the plan used.
On January 13, 1982, Don Sikorski, Assistant. Planning Director,
and Bob Keith , planner, directed a memorandum to County Manager
Dr. Thomas C. Kelly regarding the application for a county
waiver of density. The County Zoning Department determined that
the requested R -4 Zoning in Edgewater is a medium density
multi - family classification. As such they determined there is no
density limit per se. It appeared to them that density is
limited by the setback requirements and the 60% open space
requirement. The Planners found that the proposed development on
the 50.48 acre tract was consistent with the County Comprehensive
Plan and would not adversly impact the Florida Shores or Silver
Ridge Subdivisions. Accordingly, the Planning staff recommended
the request for waiver of density to allow a maximum of 5.0 DUPA.
On January 21, 1982, the Volusia County Council approved the
waiver of density to allow maximum of 5.0 DUPA for the Diocese
Property. Following receipt of this information, the Edgewater
Legal Department conversed with the County Legal Department
concerning the procedural effects of the vote. We were advised
•
that for a period of two years, the proposed development would
proceed pursuant to the procedural requirements of the Edgewater
Zoning Ordinance and consistent with the compatible R -4 zoning
ordinance, so long as the proposed development did not exceed
the 5.0 DUPA requirement.
On February 3, 1982, Louis C. Geil, of Geil Development Corpor-
ation, representing Belmont Homes, Inc., as successors in
interest to the Catholic Diocese of Orlando, submitted a sketch
plan to the Edgewater Planning Commission for approval or
rejection. The Commission considered the plan and unanimously
approved the sketch plan. Article 7, Section d(3) of the
Edgewater Subdivision Ordinance provides that approval of the
sketch plan indicates acceptance of the general overall develop-
ment scheme of the subdivision and indicates conformity with the
comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and regulations.
On March 24, 1982, Louis Geil presented an application to the
City Planning Department for preliminary site plan approval. The
site plan review check sheet indicates that on March 30, April 6,
and April 20, 1982, that various department heads of the City of
Edgewater reviewed the preliminary plan. In addition, written
comments were provided by the City Engineering Staff. The
comment sheets indicate general approval by the City Department
Heads of the proposed development.
.A,pr'°111#.98$=°the Planning Commission held a public hearing
concerning the request for preliminary site approval for Pelican
Cove West. At that time the comments of the department heads
were read into the record together with the comments from the
consulting engineers and legal staff. If addition, testimony was
taken from a number of citizens residing in the neighborhood of
the proposed subdivision. Upon termination of the public
hearing, the Legal Staff advised the developer of eight ob-
jections to the proposed plan, including:
1. the requirement for a decorative wall as a buffer
between Pelican Cove West and Silver Ridge,
2. minimum lot depth of 110 feet,
3. reduction of 62, units to comply with the 5.0 DUPA
requirement imposed by the county.
4. providing adequate landscaping to replace the large
number of trees which were uprooted from the property
...5"-§s....4e.d- tc,.at i,ng 5,% -o,f ,Nt °ea so t he Git.y, recre
6. providing for sidewalks on the dedicated street,
7. increasing the storm water retention area as per the
comments of the consulting engineers, and
8. seeking an engineering determination regarding the
capacity of the sewer lift station.
Following the public hearing, the City Attorney advised the
developer that the only avenue for relief under the subdivision
ordinance was the mechanism for variance. In addition, the
developer was advised that additional requirements needed to be
met. First, the ditch maintained by the Volusia County Mosquito
Control must be cleared and maintained. Second, a small strip of
county land within the parcel has been designated Flood Zone A
per the National Flood Insurance Act. Third, the developer must
exclude from the plat that area of the property which was in the
County.
1
On April 21, 1982, the developer appeared before the Edgewater
Planning Commission seeking preliminary site plan approval
together with a request for a variance under the terms of the
Subdivision Ordinance. The Planning Director certified proper
application and notice for the meeting. The specific variance
requests included lot depth variance and sidewalk variance. The
Commission considered the requests together with the revised
comments of the City Engineer indicating their approval, and
opened the matter for a continued public hearing. During the
hearing, the developer, on the representation of Attorney Paul
Katz agreed to comply with all matters which had been previously
mentioned by the City Attorney, except for the request for a
variance.
Upon conclusion of the public hearing, three motions were made.
First, a motion was made to grant approval of the request for a
variance from the 110 foot lot depth requirement which carried on
a 3 -2 vote. Second, a motion was made to grant approval for the
variance from the sidewalk requirement which failed to carry.
Third, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed
site plan was consistent with the Edgewater Comprehensive Plan
and granted preliminary approval on a 4 -1 vote.
On May 3, 1982, the written report of the Planning Commission was
delivered to the City Council. The motion was made to approve
the Planning Commission recommendation and to approve the
variance. After considerable discussion, without consultation
with the City Attorney, the motion did not carry. No affirmative
vote was approved by the City Council.
On May 6, 1982, the time period for appeal of the Planning
Commission decision expired. No appeals have been taken from
either decision .
ISSUES PRESENTED
I. WHAT ZONING RULES OR REGULATIONS MAY A CITY IMPOSE UPON NEWLY
ANNEXED PROPERTY?
II. WHAT IS THE PROCEDURAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL
AND PLANNING COMMISSION CONCERNING SUBDIVISION APPROVAL?
III. IS THE CITY COUNCIL ESTOPPED FROM DENYING FINAL SITE PLAN
APPROVAL TO PELICAN COVE WEST?
OPINION
I. WHAT ZONING RULES OR REGULATIONS MAY A CITY IMPOSE UPON
ANNEXED PROPERTY?
ART. VII of the Florida Constitution provides a grant of
broad home rule power to municipalities; except, however, that
the state may impose by general law the requirements for annexa-
tion. Upon the adoption of the Municipal Home Rule Powers act of
1973, it was clearly pointed out that the Legislature had
preempted the area of annexation to the state. In the following
year, the Legislature enacted the Municipal Annexation or
Contraction Act which provided uniform procedures for altering
municipal boundaries. In 171.022, Fla. Stat. it is clearly
pointed out that all provisions of municipal charters effecting
annexation are repealed.
The effect of annexation on zoning regulations is clearly
expressed in Fla. Stat. 171.062. Therein, it is specifically
stated:
if the area annexed area was subject to a county land
use plan and county zoning or subdivision regulations,
said regulations shall remain in full force and effect
until otherwise provided by law. However, a municipal
governing body shall not be authorized to increase,
and is expressly prohibiting from increasing, or
decrease the density allowed under such county plan
or regulations for a period of two years from the
effective date of the annexation unless approval of
such increase is granted by the governing body of
the county.
Therefore, the municipality is bound by the actions of the county
with regard to the increase or decrease of density of the annexed
territory.
It should be noted that the above stated paragraph deals
only with "density" and does not generally speak of "zoning."
Although some municipal zoning ordinances are phrased in terms of
density, the Edgewater Zoning Ordinance is not linked to density
at all. In Edgewater, density must be determined by evaluating
the open space, parking, and set back requirements in order to
make a density calculation.
The advice from the County Legal staff on this matter is
that following annexation, a parcel is under the density set by
the county with the procedures set by the city.
In the instant case, Pelican Cove West was within the R -3
County Zoning District which provided for 85 foot width, 10,000
square feet and no lot depth requirement other than a 20 foot
rear setback. Upon the waiver of density to 5.0 DUPA, the parcel
came within the Edgewater R -4 requirements so long as a 5.0 DUPA
was maintained.
•
It should be noted that the 5.0 DUPA requirement will only
be allowed for a period of two years from the date of the
annexation ordinance.
II. WHAT IS THE PROCEDURAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL
AND PLANNING COMMISSION CONCERNING SUBDIVISION APPROVAL?
The Edgewater Site Plan Review Ordinance, 80 -0 -59, provides
a minimum standard for approval of all site plans and designates
the Zoning Board (now Planning Commission) as the authority for
review. It should be noted that Section 7 of the Ordinance
provides that recommendations of the Commission may only be
overturned by the City Council upon the vote of four members.
Although the Ordinance makes specific references to Ordinances,
it is very persuasive that the Ordinance includes the words
"decision or recommendation," and is included in the Site Plan
Review Ordinance. Most cities which have delegated responsibil-
ities to a planning commission have a four vote reversal ordi-
nance in order to guarantee its independence. By analogy,
various decisions of the Board of Adjustments are not reviewable
by the city council and may only be reviewed by the Court.
Accordingly, it should be noted that in most instances it
requires affirmative vote of four members of the City Council to
reverse actions of the Planning Commission.
It should be noted that there is a direct avenue of appeal
from decisions of the Planning Commission. The Subdivision
Ordinance clearly points out that within 15 days of a decision,
any person who is aggrieved by that decision may appeal it to the
City Council. As such, the City Council has reserved unto itself
certain authority with regard to subdivision plats.
The proper standard regarding any appeal of a planning
matter would be the "substantial evidence test." Under admini-
strative law, the substantial evidence test is a minimum standard
for the review of actions of administrative bodies. Under the
test, there is only one appropriate question to be asked: "Is
there substantial evidence in the record from which the commis-
sion's decision could have been made." In such a test, the
question is not for the Council to substitute its judgment for
the Commission, but rather to determine whether the evidence in
the record substantiates the decision. If the answer is" yes,"
the decision must be upheld. If the answer is "no," the opposite
would be true. With regard of the relationship of the City
Council and the Edgewater Planning Commission, the following
facts should be noted. In order to remove politics from the
Planning decisions, the Council has used its authority under
Chapters 177, 166, and 163, Fla. Stat.to delegate its authority
to the Planning Commission. Under certain circumstances,
aggrieved individuals may appeal decisions of the Planning
Commission to the City Council. However, this must be done
within a period of 15 days. Otherwise, the decision of the
Planning Commission should be final. In any event, if an appeal
is undertaken, the question should be, is there substantial
evidence in the record to justify the decision of the Planning
Commission. Upon an appeal or review of a recommendation of the
Planning Commission, the requirements of Section 716 of the
.' Edgewater Planning Ordinance should be followed. Accordingly, it
should take at least the vote of four councilmembers to overturn
any decision of the Planning Commission.
III. IS THE CITY COUNCIL ESTOPPED FROM DENYING FINAL SITE PLAN
APPROVAL TO PELICAN COVE WEST?
Pelican Cove West has been granted sketch plan approval and
has been given preliminary site plan approval pursuant to the
Edgewater Subdivision Ordinance. In making this determination,
the Planning Commission determined that the proposal was consis-
tent with the Edgewater Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the
property was properly annexed into the City of Edgewater, and the
time period for appeals has expired. Moreover, the County
Planning Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent
with the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan and would not adverse-
ly impact Florida Shores or Silver Ridge. Most importantly, no
one has appealed any of these decisions.
Accordingly, preliminary site plan approval is final as to the
development. Pursuant to general law principles, and the
Edgewater Subdivision Ordinance, if the final development plans
are in substantial compliance with the preliminary development
plans, final development must be approved.
It has been pointed out that the motion before the Council
at its May 3, 1982, meeting was to approve the variance, which
did not pass. Because the motion was taken prior to the expira-
tion of the appeals time, the vote was probably premature.
However, an affirmative vote of the Council has at this time not
been taken to deny the variance. In any event, the Subdivision
Ordinance does provide that the City Council does have the
authority to impose certain conditions upon the developer which
would cushion the impact of the variance. Accordingly, it is my •
opinion that the City Council still retains some power to impose
reasonable conditions or restrictions upon the issuance of the
variance but cannot deny the final plat.
The Legal Department hopes that this memorandum of applica-
ble law is helpful to the Council and Commission with regard to
acceptance of future subdivision plats.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Jane Nettles Henderson
Assistant City Attorney
CITY COUNCIL OF EUG 9 ,r • , i l,& . t
/- SPECIAJ MEETING AND WORKSHOP •t .i. `t �•1.`.ri .
MARCH 24, 1986 `' ti1 • " :. ,
" MINUTES ,
I .• . �
SY`' ' - i tl % t r 1
k Sl , ....
r.a
Mayor Baugh called the meeting to order nt 3:02 P.M. in the Community ' : - ,;� ;;. 1,
Center. He stated the purpose for the meeting was for a review o f the "'` }R ,`;f
., �
P lanning and Zoning Board recommendations and a ctions . taken at their , ? t, , t � • •
t {arch 20, 1986 meeting. ' 'r
it ROLL CALL 1 ' ' .,' k
, J P ''
`` Mayor Earl Baugh Present Councilman James Inman Present' :,,; ;,
:t2',:
,' � Councilman Louis Rotondo present City Attorney Jose'Alvarez Present • , . . •.;. { .+
Councilman Russell Prater Present City Clerk Connie Martinez Present , f(f
i, Councilman Neil Asting Present Chief Lawrence Schumaker Present rr.
(.,v., Mayor Baugh stated that he'd received a letter from Attorney Woods r egarding I lia 9 + :
'' the Planning and Zoning actions taken regarding Pelican Cove West. City. • ' '••
.11 Clerk Martinez read the March 20th letter from Attorney Woods in which he ' '• .
".: requested a special meeting as soon as possible Mayor Baugh said he feels 4 V `
.41
• .:r, this is important and they should discuss it and get it worked out. He : ; ..
,`: asked Dennis Fischer to show Council what he could to clear it up.
'1 :•3
had ^'
.
i�� enn ter. g Building Official, pointed out that Cit Attorney A - '..: '�a ;;•.� r., ; t .
had listed d cae a chronological order of events at the last Planning Board teaating.i y: '•r is
:'. He misplayed a pictorial of lot sizes and guidelines asto requirements. He •:':T!
" pointed out that in 1931 when it was accepted there was a variance for the lot :
sires and in R-4 they called for 75 by 115 lots and a variance was given on ;is '• '• :: , � , , .� -
{
801 of the lots that did not have the 115 foot depth. He said most are 100 to '`: ' ... •
105 foot depth
i �! i3'
,F.� depth. He said they were broken down to 50 foot lots with duplexes
:;.V1 si on 100 by 105 foot lots. He noted that it cones to 4.93 dwelling units per i . i1
':'i) acre which is below the 5 per acre requirements at that time. He said the
;:•,:}
v ariance w as for the change from 75 by 115 to 50 by 105 foot lots.- l , ; '.
•
that R -4 setbacks have changed since 1992 as prior setbacks were 2 .
` "•+ '0 feet in the rear and 10 feet on each side. He said the side setbacks have .''. y ; .�.�`
‘,':'` :.} changed but the front and rear did. He said since the variance vas given :;;,' -�
•. ; : : !...';'} •
t • : , t he setback requirements changed from 25 to 40 feet for R -4 and rear from ;;;°
�' the c g
20 to 25 foot. Be asked if they have to conform to existing setbacks or the �''•..'''t ::'
R ;;'.= existing R - 4 setbacks when the variance was given. City Attorney Alvarez ' • ,,a
"! said they'd go %rich the initial as they can't change rules during the game.. . �. �`
M r. F ischer ststed it would be 25 foot front setback and 20 foot rear and :.•.� , �
7 4: 10 foot sides. ' k`
�' it : fit
iD Hr. Fischer then questioned the 9 permits pending for single family homes. `` 1' ..
.t 4. He said the applications for single family are on 50 foot lots and some d .,,.
" �' l a rger with parr, of the next lot. He stated this will decrease the number ?•� ";
, ;. .-S
5 acre
,. of units per acre and will not violate the cep of 5 per acre. He added that
•^�' the way it's set up with duplexes. it will be per ; ; ' •; 5a
Councilman Asting said they have to honor the Council actions in 1982.
.. 1t% i• Kayor Baugh noted that was the reco=mendution of Planning and Zoning and
1 ;
= .c `: the Council in 1981. City Attorney Alvarez agreed and asked if Council �.��: ��j';'
t had any questions for han, t �` 1 A + y ? ;�i ' ~ a
Council Rotundo a sked if Hr. Car is planning to build a single family ;t;,. „ y
.' homes on this parcel. tar. Carder stated that when they originally applied .: + .'1-_,,-....,,.,•;+.- ; o
ti ' to Pla nning and Zoning for pelican Cove West he'd requested that they vanted �' ,1;
. .. 1 : to do it the way they did in their first, venture of zero lot lines in Pelican N .
V
,: : ; � Cove. Ha said they built 4 unite on 2 lots which were 55 by 90 and eingle;r' +'�.;�:,;; f �'
ro He sai in Pelican Cove :•West '� `'`�•
:� family 50 by 1W and duplexes on SO by 80 ot. .;; •�
't �?•s: o a bout 95 borne' they put single family on 75 foot lots and on 100 foot lots
`•e;' and! duplex's on 50 by 100 and single family •
that went through Planning Board y .• . �';�_ F '
,4� •
on 50 by 110 foot lots. He noted that all met the 1200 foot minimum require
. :'_ �;`, i rr
sent on floor arse, and they'd like to continue to do this in the balance of �• . N' ti
•' e. • the subdivision. He said that from a sellable standpoint they have about.l4;ii . ; � 4
1 do hones available for sale and single family homes, vith.the exception } � ,,,�
R .
`
' ; ' �. ;':• 1, have been sold. He reviewed tho price .ranges for the various size home • A • �
: ►. and the different sized lots for those who wanted lams yard to maintain. !,. � , kip ,,
; peopliLto3,.` . �
H. added that they went to put 8 models n;'.for r ;
choose tram, and they could have 1, ,1i, ! or 2 lots. vhatavar'the Y,:
`' y;'
vant.'� - Ht t. .. ���;
. �, c; . t �
said they grant to do this in developingithe second part otthis;subdiviaion '`�t
^
:,...1 , 1.1' Councilman Mang asked if Phase II will be:mostly singlet.fitaily
4;s , 4 , Mr. Carder replled there would be about 25:to 30',eingle family;hoimi.put\'' 0
..v:. . i. Councilman Rotundo asked City Attorney Alvarez if 'it'would bz fair ..an ::::1.: .?,-,..,..,
' ! ?, feasible 11 they would go to'single family:from duplexes.if•fthiy . .-1-18,...•
/ .,::::,.....irA.:: , - ---i r the building code requirements. City Attorney Alvarez' statid ?
; 1: zoning district in the Code• allows as a principle use :single feat .. r •-...z.„,.
i duplex patio homes and either can be built.$ He addedithat the;clUtstion'AeT
1 / -.......;:. :. . ,. when the project was approved in 1982 there!vas a set..of.'plansithaetindicate`.
. 1 a series of patio homes or duplexes, and When they came in fortbuildiSi
.. - ... ! 1 for single family homes, administration was concerned becauscit.weirdifferint
' '''' -"4.:4-.N..t::': , i' from what's shown. Re said to prevent any .sisunderstanding*;to.Hij.Fischer's10
f .
i :, ,,,,,
approving or not approving was why this meeting was called,lantlitol:eliaii nate -.* . ow
• t '... 1- •-•.. ' .11.:• 1. misconceptions, rumors, and substitutions. '. He ' again statadi,tha t
kr • •?1;oi .. , or duplexes are allowed in:R•4, and the setbackVand side; yardiChili.z1...t
' the ones existing when it was' approved 1 ' as ;:they.'can t.'be changed ,how.,that'ithe';2:
-t:i.44,., • streets are built. Ha noted that single'familyanstead ofiduplikeil:isthiW:
4" '.141.,i,,,'..ii),,,,.,,7Mit advantage with density and demand for,serviCes:Ille" said . iiii'ilong s rasi . ,,thskOall.' ,. ...
4 . buildings stay withinIthe projecti.Was: ipprriyed
' and that Dennis Fischir is coafortabla With; thosi dimensions ind they're 'iri .
1,7- the permitted uses, end density doesn't gti!,beyond what valOillowed in;1982,
a legal point of view, the drawings are approvedand he has a right tcOuild:
. i-ew .,,v;', ' . 4 , i
;.. 4,1. I, t?.; , . - . Counciltaan Asting moved that.J. C. Carder be permitted to continue .
of Pelican Cove West in accordance with the' actions of the 1982 Council.':;:; il
Vek 1 , Hlyor Baugh noted that will allow both single and duplex and Councilman ..cl ;ifi
k is :, t 4f 1 , 11',.0i . "'''''' 1 • Asting agreed. Councilman Rotundo seconded the motion. Motion CARRIED:57(FAA
is ....t '2...ri '*.Z.,.4, ctdi, , Mayor Baugh advised Hi, Carder that he can start building. t:: •11:4:toi.OP:1;;:k
thai V.s`.,Noillo..,1 1, - mere leaving. Mayor,Baugh called the meeting back in session at
'. t '• Ylle4rryi. ' Councilman hating stated that when he vas at the meeting on;Thursday . theres-1:•;.:..t,
f 1/4 '1 '`Ic l ikz 4 V '' T i . ,I . , ', ;,• vas a discussion about the upholstery business in B-3 zoning and 1.,
i i;!."...0 .......,,...,..a..„ ,.......: nothing in the Code that had a provision for an upholstery shop Vhich ■tiss,
, ,,,•'.7,:!4pf, - i ' '' compatible with that Zoning. He made a motion that upholstery shops be.i.
' ' itiMAitt .4• • q J• : Councilman Inaan seconded the motion. City Clerk Martinez noted that: a
1 ' 'V .4 0''''''4 . . .:.. upholstery shop vas in the permitted uses of B-3 and when they revised: thi.q''•
•;.,,, ' .1 , ...'' s , :,.,,,,!L:.,4,. • Mayor Baugh stated they have an upcoming suit on the Montesano case, ankhe n.1.1
) . ' .::t like the Attorney to contact the insurance atttorney to continue at the.:' • t-;.....
i t
i . • ... -.,
• : they need Council authorization to have then continue vith tha case,......Z- 11';'.:,r- Pi
ItUf.„7.: 4Pr" ' gif , a* ' ''„ ... 54..:: Attorney Alvarez stated for the record that the name is David Walsh. %Motion -1
' , :61^4:•4`4i•-5?-tg:I'''?. ' • Councilman Rotund," asked if they can appoint a member to'the Board now.and4'.. •
'1,, rv, -, . , .; : ••..: City Attorney Alvarez replied he didn't think so ..Mayor Baugh noted:ft ;
:',40.7•V:i1.(5.6..il:', . :. :: . . Councilman Inman moved to adjourn. Councilman Asting seconded ',the: motfon.'-'c'.1 'IP
;i. Lura Sue Koser .
e:t14.19 4. '''s s.:!:" . . . .. . . • U 111,1111N caw ..,
'1.:.. . :' ..i. '.,,-- my aigg. 0 ; 7. ; : .. '',...COUNCX :—:.. THRERRI ....,.4.,k1, ; . • rAr - :
Address Legal Size Contractor Type Issue Phase
305 Lot 3 & pt 4 80 X 95 Belmont SFR March 1986 II
Sandpiper Blk L
315 Lot 8 1/2 of 7 75 X 95 Belmont SFR March 1986 II
Sandpiper 5' of 9 Blk L
319 Pt 9 Lot 10 72 X 121 Belmont SFR March 1986 II
Sandpiper Blk L Irr
403 Lot 15 76 X 70 Belmont SFR March 1986 II
Sandpiper Blk J C *
505 Lot 13 & 14 90 X 110 Belmont SFR March 1986 II
Sparrow Blk I Irr
311 1/2 of 7 75 X 95 Belmont SFR March 1986 II
Sandpiper Lot 6 Blk L
312 Lot 14 87 X 108 Belmont SFR March 1986 II
Sandpiper Blk J Irr C *
- • 309 Lot 5 -Blk L 70 X 95 Belmont SFR March 1986 II
Sandpiper N 20' of 4 `
410 E31' of 2 75 X 105 Belmont SFR June 1989 II
Sea Hawk W44' of 3 G
311,313 Lot 13 Blk F 100 X 95 Belmont Duplex July 1987 II
Sea Hawk
409, 411 Lot 8 Blk F 98 X 102 Belmont Duplex April 1988 II
Sea Hawk Plat @ 100'
413, 415 Lot 7 Blk F 92 X 101 Belmont Duplex April 1988 II
Sea Hawk
401, 403 Lot 10 Blk F 82 X 139 Belmont Duplex , March 1988 II
Sea Hawk Irr pie
501, 503 Lot 8 & 9 80 X 105 Belmont Duplex Feb 1988 II
Cardinal Blk G R105 C
511, 513 Lot 13 & 14 80 X 105 Belmont Duplex Feb 1988 II
Cardinal Blk G R105 C
502, 504 Lot 6 & 7 85 X 105 Belmont Duplex Nov 1987 II
Cardinal Blk H R105 C
405, 407 Lot 9 98 X 103 Belmont Duplex April 1988 II
Sea Hawk Blk F Plat @ 100'
523 Lot 23 75 X 110 Belmont SFR Dec 1989 II
Sparrow E 1/2 Lot 24 Blk I
525 W1 /2 Lot 24, 60 X 110 Belmont SFR Dec 1989 II
Sparrow Lot 25 Blk I C 85 rear
420, 422 Lot 3 & 4 100 X 110 Belmont Duplex August 1989 II
Falcon Blk I
424, 426 Lot 1 & 2 110 X 110 Belmont Duplex August 1989 II
Falcon Blk I C
416, 418 Lot 5 & 6 100 X 110 Belmont Duplex August 1989 II
Falcon Blk I
406, 408 Lot 4 & 5 105 X 106 Belmont Duplex Sept 1989 II
Sea Hawk 5' of Lot 3 G
504, 506 Lot 2 100 X 100 Belmont Duplex August 1989 II
Sea Hawk Blk F
508, 510 Lot 3 100 X 100 Belmont Duplex Sept 1989 II
Sea Hawk Blk F
500, 502 Lot 1 85 X 100 Belmont Duplex August 1989 II
Sea Hawk Blk F C *
313 Lot 6 & 7 100 X 100 Fred Vanzin SFR Jan 1984 I
Sea Gull Blk C
317 Lot 8 & 9 100 X 100 Fred Vanzin SFR Jan 1984 I
Sea Gull Blk C
321 Lot 10 & 11 94 X 105 Fred Vanzin SFR Jan 1984 I
Sea Gull Blk C
323 Lot 12 36 X 159 Belmont SFR Nov 1984 I
Sea Gull Blk C Irr pie *
400 Lot 13 35 X 159 Belmont SFR Nov 1984 I
Sea Gull Blk C Irr pie *
613 Lot 32 35 X 171 Belmont SFR Nov 1984 I
Sea Gull Blk C Irr pie *
301 Lot 1 & 2 96 X 95 Belmont SFR March 1986 II
Sandpiper Blk L C
520 Lot 1 60 X 100 Belmont SFR Dec 1989 II
Sandpiper Blk K C *
512, 514 Lot 4 100 X 100 Belmont Duplex Sept 1989 II
Sea Hawk Blk F
410 Lot 9 50 X 100 Belmont SFR April 1988 II
Falcon Blk I *
402, 404 Lot 6 & 7 104 X 105 Belmont Duplex May 1988 II
Sea Hawk Bik G
419, 421 Lot 10 & 11 100 X 110 Belmont Duplex June 1988 II
Falcon Blk H
425, 427 Lot 13 & 14 104 X 110 Belmont Duplex July 1988 II
Falcon Blk H
412, 414 Lot 7 & 8 100 X 100 Belmont Duplex Aug 1988 II
Falcon Blk I
317, 319 Pt Lt 11 & 12 81 X 110 Belmont Duplex Aug 1988 II
Sea Hawk Blk F C * pie
402, 404 Lot 27 & 28 100 X 102 Belmont Duplex Oct 1988 II
Sandpiper Blk K
423 Lot 12 56 X 110 Belmont SFR Nov 1988 II
Falcon Blk H *
504 Lot 12 Blk J 75 X 105 Belmont SFR Jan 1990 II
Sparrow 1/2 Lot 13
417, 419 Lot 6 69 X 127 Belmont Duplex Jan 1990 II
Sea Hawk Blk F C * pie
511 Lot 17 Bik I 75 X 105 Ponderosa SFR Jan 1993 II
Sandpiper W1 /2 of 16
516 Lot 3 Blk K 75 X 100 Belmont SFR July 1992 II
Sandpiper 1/2 of 2
514 Lot 4 Bik K 75 X 100 Belmont SFR July 1992 II
Sandpiper 1/2 of 5
424 Lot 17 Blk K 75 X 103 Belmont SFR April 1992 II
Sandpiper 1/2 of 16
410, 412 Lot 23 & 24 100 X 102 Belmont Duplex April 1992 II
Sandpiper Blk K
506 Lot 11 Blk J 75 X 105 Belmont SFR April 1992 II
Sparrow E1 /2 of 10
609 Lot 24 Blk C 50 X 100 Belmont SFR April 1985 II
Seagull
611 Lot 33 Blk C 45 X 108.44 Belmont SFR April 1985 I
Seagull R -70 irr pie
608 Lot 1 & 2 75 X 90 C Ed Hall SFR Oct 1983 I
Seagull Blk D R -100
501 Lots 7 & 8 75 X 90 C Ed Hall SFR Oct 1983 I
Finch Blk D
505 Lots 9 & 10 100 X 90 Ed Hall SFR Oct 1983 I
Finch Blk D
604 Lots 3 & 4 100 X 90 Ed Hall SFR Oct 1983 I
Seagull Blk D
810 Lot 3 Blk B 50 X 110 Belmont SFR Dec 1983 II
Egret
808 Lot 4 Blk B 50 X 110 Belmont SFR Dec 1983 II
Egret
806 Lot 5 Blk B 50 X 110 Belmont SFR Dec 1983 II
Egret
,
812, 814 Lot 1 & 2 85 X 90 Belmont Duplex Dec 1983 II
Egret Blk B
711, 713 Lot 12 & 13 100 X 110 Belmont Duplex Dec 1983 II
Egret Blk B
601, 603 Lot 37 & 38 85 X 100 C Belmont Duplex March 1985 II
Seagull Blk C
409, 411 Lot 11 & 12 100 X 90 C Belmont Duplex March 1985 II
Seagull Blk E
401, 403 Lot 7 & 8 100 X 90 C Belmont Duplex March 1985 II
Seagull Blk E
605, 607 Lot 35 & 36 100 X 100 Belmont Duplex March 1985 II
Seagull Blk C
500, 502 Lot 5 & 6 100 X 90 C Belmont Duplex March 1985 II
Finch Blk E
405, 407 Lot 9 & 10 100 X 90 Belmont Duplex March 1985 I
Seagull . Blk E
520 Lot 31 45 X 171 Belmont SFR March 1985 I
Seagull Blk C irr pie
518 Lot 29 Ex 20' 41.61 X 106.43 Belmont SFR Sept 1985 I,
Seagull Lot 30 Blk C C R -125
504, 506 Lot 3 & 4 100 X 90 Belmont Duplex Sept 1985 I
Finch Blk E
402, 404 Lot 14 & 15 130.04 X 95.44 Belmont Duplex Sept 1985 I
Seagull Blk C irr pie R -102
406, 408 Lot 16 & 17 100 X 95.44 Belmont Duplex Sept 1985 I
Seagull Blk C
410, 412 Lot 18 & 19 90 X 93.64 Belmont Duplex Sept 1985 I
Seagull Blk C irr pie R -105
502, 504 Lot 22 & 23 48.39 X 95 Belmont Duplex Sept 1985 I
Seagull Blk C C R- 143.53
506, 508 Lot 24 & 25 100 X 95 Belmont Duplex Sept 1985 I
Seagull Blk C
510, 512 Lot 26 & 27 100 X 95 Belmont Duplex Sept 1985 I
Seagull Blk C
514 Lot 28 & pt 29 70 X 95 Belmont SFR Oct 1985 I
Seagull Blk C
414 Lot 20 34.74 X 86.69 Belmont SFR Nov 1985 I
Seagull Blk C irr pie R -64.95
500 Lot 21 38.03 X 86.69 Belmont SFR Nov 1985 I
Seagull Blk C irr pie R- 159.95
506 Lot 5 & E25 75 X 105 Belmont SFR Feb 1987 II
Cardinal of Lot 4 Blk H
301, 303 Lot 16 90 X 95 C Belmont Duplex April 1987 II
Sea Hawk Blk F
305, 307 S1 /2 Lot of 14 100 95 Belmont Duplex April 1987 II
Sea Hawk Lot 15 Blk F
415, 417 Lot 8 & 9 85 X 110 Belmont Duplex March 1987 II
Falcon Blk H C R -110
414, 416 Lot 21 & 22 100 X 75 Belmont Duplex Dec 1991 II
Sandpiper Blk K
516 Lot 6 & 1/2 7 75 X 105 Belmont SFR Dec 1990 II
Sparrow Blk J
526 Lot 1 & 1/2 2 65 X 105 Belmont SFR Dec 1990 II
Sparrow Blk J C
406, 408 Lot 25 & 26 100 X 102.1 Belmont Duplex Dec 1990 II
Sandpiper Blk K
* not on list
SFR pt Lt 11
Blk F
•
CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR EVENTS
JANUARY 20, 1982 - PLANNING COMMISSION
Representatives for developers explained that the subdivision would consist of patio
homes not townhomes as some members believed. Representatives also stated that
the 5 units per acre density cap imposed by the County before annexation would be
complied with.
APRIL 7, 1982 - PLANNING COMMISSION
Board members questioned the 50 foot lot widths. Representatives of the developer
explained that lots would be combined for the placement of each duplex. 90 foot lot
depths were discussed. The developer indicated that he would ask for a variance on
the lot depths and sidewalk requirements.
APRIL 21, 1982 -PLANNING COMMISSION
Board members recommended variance on the depths of 83 Tots to the Council. They
rejected the sidewalk request.
MAY 3, 1982 - CITY COUNCIL
Failed to overturn variance request on 2 -3 vote.
NOVEMBER 15, 1982 - CITY COUNCIL •
City Council granted final plat approval for Phase I.
NOVEMBER 21, 1983 - CITY COUNCIL
Discussion of single - family residences being built in Pelican Cove West. Members
noted that the developer had promised that only duplexes would be built.
•
Chronology of Major Events
Page -2-
JANUARY 23, 1984 - CITY COUNCIL
Ordinance 83 -0 -23 adopted by Council. Ordinance changed setback requirements in
the R -4 District, left minimum lot sizes the same - 75 feet by 110 feet.
JUNE 4, 1984 - CITY COUNCIL
Ordinance 84 -0 -9 adopted by Council. Ordinance changed side yard setback
requirements in the R -4 District.. Left minimum lot size requirements the same - 75
feet by 110 feet.
NOVEMBER 15, 1984 - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
Member discussed letter from Dennis Fischer, explaining that he was having difficulty
with the new setbacks in Pelican Cove West. Board decided that the original setback
requirements should apply.
FEBRUARY 27, 1986 - CITY COUNCIL
Council approved final plat for Phase II of Pelican Cove West.
MARCH 24, 1986 - CITY COUNCIL
Dennis Fischer appeared before City Council. Explained that he had 9 permits
pending for single - family residences, on 50 foot lots. Mr. Fischer explained that a
variance had been granted in 1982 that allowed construction of single - family
residences on 50 foot by 105 foot Tots. Council moved to allow development in
accordance with 1982 Council actions.
c:lmajor.evn