AGENDA DOCUMENTS
LEGALI APPROVAL DOCUMENTS
AGENDA DOCUMENTS
( ~ ll:, "'" \rL "i<., l"'~, ~
e ~ "\?- ~ ~:~. \? '-.J't)
C I T Y
o F
BOY N TON
B E A C H
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
AGE N D A
DATE:
Tuesday, February 14, 1995
TIME:
7:00 P.M,
PLACE:
Commission Chambers
100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
Boynton Beach, Florida
1. Pledge of Allegiance.
2. Introduction of Mayor, Commissioners and Board Members.
3. Agenda Approval.
4. Approval of Minutes.
5. Communications and Announcements.
A. Report from the Planning and Zoning Department.
1) Final disposition of last month's agenda items.
6. old Business
None
7. New Business:
A. SUBDIVISIONS
Master Plan Modification
1. PROJECT NAME: Cedar Ridge Estates PUD
AGENT:
Dennis P. Koehler
OWNER:
Condor Investments of Palm Beach county, Inc.
LOCATION:
East side of High Ridge Road approximately
800 feet north of Miner Road
DESCRIPTION:
Request to modify the previously approved
master plan to revise density, acreage, unit
type, layout, setbacks and roads
B. SITE PLANS
NEW SITE PLANS
1. PROJECT NAME: Whipowill Arms
OWNER:
Burton Metsch
LOCATION:
Between F,E.C. railroad and S.E, 4th street,
approximately 100 feet north of S.E. 5th
Avenue
DESCRIPTION:
Request for site plan approval to construct a
20,738 square feet, 2 story, 39 motel
apartments with associated parking and
landscaping.
PAGE 2
Planning & Development Board Meeting
Agenda
February 14, 1995
MAJOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATION
2. PROJECT NAME: Brisson Medical Office Building
AGENT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
C. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
LANDSCAPE APPEAL
Thomas J. Twomey, P,E.
Dave Brisson
Southwest corner of s. E, 23rd Avenue (Golf
Road) and S.E. 2nd Street
Request for site plan approval to convert an
existing, unoccupied bar/restaurant to a
medical office building and upgrade building
and site improvements.
1. PROJECT NAME: Brisson Medical Office Building
AGENT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
D. TIME EXTENSIONS
1.
PROJECT:
AGENT:
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
2,
PROJECT:
AGENT:
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
Thomas J. Twomey, P.E.
Dave Brisson
southwest corner of s. E. 23rd Avenue (Golf
Road) and S,E. 2nd Street
Request for approval of an appeal to Section
7.5-35 (d) of the Landscape Code regarding the
width of the landscape strip along adjacent
rights-of-way.
Tara oaks PUD
Kieran Kilday
Northeast corner of Knuth Road extended and
Woolbright Road.
Request for approval of an 18 month
retroactive and an indefinite time extension
for zoning\master plan approval and
concurrency exemption/certification.
Knuth Road PCD
Kieran Kilday
Southwest corner of Knuth Road and Boynton
Beach Boulevard.
Request for approval of
retroactive and an indefinite
for zoning\master plan
concurrency exemption.
an 18 month
time extension
approval and
PAGE 3
Planning & Development Board Meeting
Agenda
February 14, 1995
3.
PROJECT:
Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD
AGENT:
Kieran Kilday
LOCATION:
South side of the intersection of Boynton
Beach Boulevard and Winchester Park Boulevard,
DESCRIPTION:
Request for approval of
retroactive and an indefinite
for zoning\master plan
concurrency exemption.
an 18 month
time extens ion
approval and
D. OTHER
8. Comments by members.
9, Adjournment
NOTICE
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
BOARD WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED A
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND FOR SUCH PURPOSE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A
VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. (F.S. 286.0105)
THE CITY SHALL FURNISH APPROPRIATE AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES WHERE
NECESSARY TO AFFORD AN INDIVIDUAL WITH A DISABILITY AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO
PARTICIPATE IN AND ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF A SERVICE, PROGRAM, OR ACTIVITY
CONDUCTED BY THE CITY, PLEASE CONTACT JOYCE COSTELLO, (407) 375-6013 AT
LEAST TWENTY (24) HOURS PRIOR TO THE PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY IN ORDER FOR THE
CITY TO REASONABLE ACCOMMODATE YOUR REQUEST.
C:llqp,d..t.q.214
J,A,l,
CEDAR RIDGE ESTATES PUD
MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 95-045
TO: Chairman and Members
Planning and Development Board
FROM: Tambri J. HeYden~/'
Planning and Zoni~rector
DATE: February 9, 1995
SUBJECT: Cedar Ridge Estates PUD - File No. MPMD 94-009
Revised density, acreage, unit type, layout, setbacks
and roads
INTRODUCTION
Dennis Koehler, agent for Condor Investments of Palm Beach
County, Inc., owner of Cedar Ridge Estates PUD, is requesting
approval to modify the previously approved master plan for the
Cedar Ridge Estates PUD, as described in the attached report
(Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 95-026), The
Cedar Ridge Estates PUD is located on the east side of High Ridge
Road, approximately 800 feet north of Miner Road.
RECOMMENDATION
At the February 7, 1995, City Commission meeting, the City
Commission unanimously made a finding of no substantial change
regarding the modifications requested. Staff made a
recommendation that the request be approved subject to the
attached staff comments (utilities Department Memorandum No. 95-
037, Engineering Division Memorandum No. 95-026, Recreation and
Parks Department Memorandum No. 95-040, Recreation and Parks
Department Memorandum No. 95-048 and Planning and Zoning
Department Memorandum, dated February 2, 1995). Due to
agreements that had been reached between Mr. Koehler and staff
prior to the City Commission, staff withdrew comments 13 and 16
from the February 2, 1995, Planning and Zoning Department
memorandum at the City Commission meeting.
The City Commission included in their motion, approval of all
staff comments with several exceptions and setting of a land
value of $30, 380.67 per acre, for the purpose of calculating the
recreation and parks fee to be paid, The deleted comments are
described as follows:
1. Recreation and Parks Department Memorandum No. 95-048,
comment 3.A -
In lieu of staff's recommended timing for payment of the
recreation and parks fee for the 34 single family homes, to
which Mr, Koehler disagreed, the the Commission agreed to
payment in cash of the value of .612 acres of land, on a
pro-rata basis, at time of applying for a building permit
for construction of one of the 34 single family homes,
However, if application for building permits for each single
family home has not been made within 18 months of Planning
and Development Board approval of the master plan
modification, the balance of the value of .612 acres of land
shall be paid in cash.
2. Recreation and Parks Department Memorandum No. 95-048,
comment 3.B (clarification, not deletion) .-
This comment was recommended for approval with the
clarification that compliance with this comment shall take
place prior to final plat approval of the townhouse section.
/
TO: Planning & Development Board
-2-
February 9, 1995
3, Planning and Zoning Department memorandum, dated February 2,
1995, comment 8 -
The Commission recommended allowing a T-turn around at the
terminus of the street between building 2 and 3, rather than
requiring a cul-de-sac, as is required by code, The
Commission felt the number of units served by this street is
too insignificant to require a cul-de-sac, which in turn
would have necessitated a redesign and most likely loss of
units.
4, Planning and Zoning Department memorandum, dated February 2,
1995, comment 13 -
staff requested withdrawal of this comment, since
verification of the purchase price of the property had been
supplied prior to the Commission meeting.
5. Planning and Zoning Department memorandum, dated February 2,
1995, comment 16 -
staff requested withdrawal of this comment to yield to the
Building Official, who will coordinate and ascertain with
the utilities Department what improvements must be completed
by the developer in order to pull a building permit for a
single family home.
Therefore, it is recommended that the Planning and Development
Board finalize the land value at $30,380.67 per acre, approve
this request subject to utilities Department Memorandum No. 95-
037, Engineering Division Memorandum No. 95-026, Recreation and
Parks Memorandum No, 95-040, comments 1-7, 9-12, 14, 15, 17-19 of
the Planning and Zoning Department memorandum dated February 2,
1995 and comments 1, 2, 3C and 4 of Recreation and Parks
Memorandum No. 95-048, In addition, it is recommended that the
Board approve the following with respect to this request:
a) payment in cash of the value of .612 acres of land, on
a pro-rata basis, at time of applying for a building
permit for construction of one of the 34 single family
homes. However, if application for building permits
for each single family home has not been made within 18
months of Planning and Development Board approval of
the master plan modification, the balance of the value
of .612 acres of land shall be paid in cash.
b) compliance with comment 3,B of Recreation and Parks
Memorandum No. 95-048, prior to final plat approval of
the townhouse section.
tjh
Attachments
xc: Central File
A:CRidgMPM
~
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO, 95-026
Agenda Memorandum for
February 7, 1995 city Commission Meeting
TO:
Carrie Parker
Ci ~ Ma!lag..er .
- Z.!"'71".t~ c' O~V~.1 cL..7L/
-yambr1 J, H6yden /
Planning and Zoning Director
FROM:
DATE:
February 2, 1995
SUBJECT:
Cedar Ridge Estates PUD - File No. MPMD 94-009
Revised densi ty, acreage, unit type, layout, setbacks and
roads
NATURE OF REOUEST
Dennis P. Koehler, agent for Condor Investments of Palm Beach
County, Inc., owner of Cedar Ridge Estates PUD, has requested
modifications to the previously approved master plan for the Cedar
Ridge Estates pun. The 40,8 acre residentially- zoned property,
approved for 197 dwelling units (45 single-family, detached units
and 152 multi-family units) is located on the east side of High
Ridge Road, approximately 800 feet north of Miner Road. The
following changes are proposed (see Exhibit A - proposed master
plan) :
1. Delete from the PUD, the acreage encompassing lots 35 -
45 (a decrease of 11 single- family units), associated
streets and a jogging trail located in the northeast
corner of the PUD,
2. Eliminate a 6 foot high wall along the majority of the
south property line of the land proposed for multi-family
development; the property lipe between the PUD and the
High Ridge Commerce Park PID to the south (platted, but
undeveloped; ,
3. Change the internal road system from public to private.
4. Increase the overall height of the units proposed for the
34 single-family lots from 25 feet to 35 feet.
5. Establish a 10 foot corner side building setback for the
Single-family lots located along north side of Forest
Road instead of the previously approved 12.5 feet. (Note:
For the single-family lots the previously approved 7.5
interior side setback and 25 foot front and rear setbacks
will remain unchanged,)
6. Change the multi-family unit portion of the project from
152 rental apartments to 110, fee simple, townhouse lots,
The minimum lot size proposed is 24 feet wide by 95 feet
long. Each unit will have a minimum footprint of 1,200
square feet and an overall height of 35 feet
7. Establish a 20 foot perimeter building setback along the
north side of the multi-family project instead of the
previously approved 40 feet, (Note: The previously
approved 20 foot east, and 40 foot south and west
perimeter setbacks will remain unchanged.)
8. Establish the following minimum setbacks for the
townhouse lots:
Minimum bUilding setbacks:
Front
Rear
Side interior
Side end unit
- 25 feet
- 20 feet
o feet
- 10 feet
..3
Page 2
Memorandum No. 95-026
Cedar Ridge Estates PUD
File No. MPMD 94-009
Minimum pool and screen enclosure setbacks:
Front
Rear
side interior
Side end unit
- 25 feet
5 feet
o feet
- 10 feet
9,
Establish the following
amenities for the pun:
five required recreation
a) meeting hall
b) swimming pool
c) jogging trail
d) childrens' play area
e) turf play field
The following supplemental recreation ameni ties, which do
not qualify towards private recreation credit, are to be
provided: family picnic area and two horse shoe pits.
10. Provide required buffer area landscaping along the south
property line of the PUD and a limited access easement
along the east property line. Install lake plantings
around the water management tract, Install entranceway
landscaping, (Note: The required improvements associated
with the townhouse project such as an internal street
system, parking spaces for the each unit, recreation
facilities, and site landscaping will be shown on the
site plan review submittal required for the development
of the townhouse project,)
BACKGROUND
The Cedar Ridge Estates PUD is property that was annexed into the
City and zoned pun in october 1982, The master plan approved with
the annexation and zoning of the PUD, depicted a 197 unit, 40.8
acre project, The project included 45 single-family lots that were
to be developed in compliance with the RIA zoning district building
and site regulations, a jogging trail (north of the lots along the
railroad R-O-W), a 4,51 acre water management area, a single
ingress/egress off of High Ridge road, a public, internal street
system and 13.43 acres for development of 152 multi-family units.
The multi-family units were to be built in compliance with the R-3
zoning district building and site regulations. The multi-family
development was to include recreation amenities in addition to the
jogging trail located along the railroad right-of-way north of the
single-family lots (see Exhibit "B" - approved master plan).
The pun project is bordered by the following zoning districts and
land uses:
North - RIAA, single-family residential, developed for
private school use (Lake Worth Christian School)
East - seaboard Airline Railroad and farther east, 1-95
South - High Ridge Park PID, undeveloped industrial lots
West - High Ridge Road and farther west, single-family
homes and vacant land in unincorporated Palm
Beach County
In August of 1983, the plat for Cedar Ridge PUD was approved. The
plat included, public streets, 45 Single-family lots, Parcel "A"-
.11 acre of land located at the north side of the PUD entrance off
of High Ridge Road, Parcel "B" - 1,65 acres of land for a jogging
trail located north of the single-family lots, Parcel "C" - a 4,51
9
Page 3
Memorandum No. 95-026
Cedar Ridge Estates PUD
File No, MPMD 94-009
acre water management tract and Parcel "D" 13.43 acres for
development of 1~2 multi-family units, The infrastructure approved
with the plat (ie: roads, drainage, water and sewer service) have
not been fully completed or accepted by the City. Construction
ceased in approximately 1986, The property was taken over by the
Federal Deposit Insurance corporation (FDIC), as manager of the
FSLIC Resolution Fund, as receiver for the Sunrise Savings and Loan
Association and Sun-Op, Inc, sunrise Savings and Loan was the
lending institution for the original developer.
No activity has occurred on the property since 1986. In January
1993, the current owner, Condor Investments, purchased the property
from the FDIC. Cedar Ridge Development corporation has a contract
with Condor Investments to develop the property,
Prior to construction ceasing, a master plan modification was
approved in February 1984, to change the water management tract,
Parcel "C", from a dry retention area to a lake, In February 1985,
a site plan for a 152 unit apartment project was approved, The
site plan for the apartments depicted two story buildings, parking
spaces and associated landscaping. The plan also included the
following recreation facilities: picnic area, playground, meeting
hall, swimming pool and jogging trail. The jogging trail was not
located on the apartment project, but rather off-site on Parcel
liB". Construction of the apartment project never commenced and the
site plan approval expired.
ANALYSIS
The procedure for processing master plan modifications is set forth
in Section 12 of Appendix B, planned unit Developments, of the code
of ordinances and states:
section 12. Changes in plans.
"Changes in plans approved as a part of the zoning to PUD
may be permitted by the planning and zoning board upon
application filed by the developer or his successors in
interest, prior to the expiration of the PUD
classification, but only [after] a finding that any such
change or changes are in accord with all regulations in
effect when the change or changes are requested and the
intent and purpose of the comprehensive plan in effect at
the time of the proposed change, substantial changes
shall be proposed as for a new application of PUD zoning.
The determination of what constitutes a substantial
change shall be within the sole discretion of the city
commission. Nonsubstantial changes as determined by the
city commission in plans shall not extend the expiration
of the eighteen month approval for the PUD
classification."
staff has reviewed this request for consistency wi th the PUD
development stande~~~. and the intent and purpose of planned unit
developments, as stated in the following sections of APpendix B,
Planned Unit Development, of the code of ordinances:
section 1. Intent and purpose,
"A planned unit Development District (PUD) is
established. It is intended that this district be
utilized to promote efficient and economical land use,
improved ameni ties, appropriate and harmonious variety in
physical development, creative design, improved living
environment, orderly and economical development in the
city, and the protection of adjacent and existing and
future city development. The district is suitable for
~
Page 4
Memorandum No. 95-026
Cedar Ridge Estates PUD
File No. MPMn 94-009
development, redevelopment, and conservation of land,
water and other resources of the city.
Regulations for planned uni t developments are intended to
accomplish the purposes of zoning, subdivision
regulations, and other appl icable ci ty regulations to the
same degree that they intended to control development on
a' lot-by-Iot basis. In view of the substantial public
advantages of planned unit development, it is the intent
of pun regulations to promote and encourage development
in this form where tracts suitable in size, location, and
character for the uses and structures proposed are to be
planned and developed as unified and coordinated units,"
Section 9,A. Access.
"Every dwelling unit, or other use permitted in the PUD,
shall have access to a public street either directly or
via an approved private road, pedestrian way, court, or
other area dedicated to public or private use, or common
element guaranteeing access. Permitted uses shall be
required to front on a dedicated public road."
Section 9.B. Internal Lots and Frontage.
"Wi thin the boundaries of the PUD, no minimum lot size or
minimum yards shall be required, provided, however, that
pun frontage on dedicated public roads shall observe
front yard requirements in accordance with the zoning
district the PUD use most closely resembles and that
peripheral yards abutting other zoning districts shall be
the same as required in the abutting zone."
Regarding the proposed changes, the reduction of the total number
of units from 197 to 144 (a deletion of 53 units) will decrease the
impact on traffic, water and sewer services generated from the
project. The resulting density is less than the maximum density
permitted by the Low Density Residential land use designation on
the property, allowing up to 4.84 dwelling units per acre. The pun
master plan/rezoning was approved at 4.83 units per acre.
With the recording of the plat, the pun is exempt from concurrency
for traffic levels of service, Since the proposed modification
resul ts in a decrease in traffic impact, traffic from the pun
remains concurrency exempt from current traffic requirements and
levels of service,
With regards to the proposed setbacks for the single-family lots
and the lot sizes and setbacks proposed for the multi-family
townhouse lots, those proposed are no less than the setbacks and
lot sizes approved by the City Commission for other similar
proj ects wi thin the City. The most recent approval by the
Commission of a proj~~~ ~imil~r to the townhouses proposed within
Cedar Ridge Estates is Quail Run Villas.
The proposal to change the internal street system from public to
private ownership and maintenance is acceptable to staff, based on
the future desire to privatize the entrance to the PUD, However,
a security gate/gatehouse has not been formally included with this
submittal, Replatting or abandonment will be necessary to vacate
the internal streets,
Although the buffer wall along the south pun property line is
proposed to be deleted, the code requires a six foot high wall
where an industrial district, such as the undeveloped, PIn to the
south, abuts a residential district. It is preferred to have the
,
Page 5
Memorandum No. 95-026
Cedar Ridge Estates PUD
File No, MPMD 94-009
wall constructed on the PUD property so that the entire length of
the wall will be constructed at one time, However, walls are
usually placed on industrial property. Since, the PID property has
been platted into lots, the wall can be constructed within the PIO,
incrementally, lot by lot and since all the lots are vacant, site
plan review will be required, at which time review of the wall can
occur,
Regarding the buffer area landscaping and littoral zone landscaping
proposed, a conceptual landscape plan and littoral zone plantings
were not required when the 1982 master plan was approved. Since
modifications are requested to the master plan, current codes are
to be applied.
After considerable negotiation between staff and the applicant, the
type, location and size of recreation facilities proposed for Cedar
Ridge Estates are acceptable to qualify for 50% credit towards the
required recreation fees for the PUD (see Exhibi t "C" for staff
comments; specifically Recreation and Parks Memorandum No, 95-048,
comment #2). Staff has also attempted to reach a compromise with
the applicant regarding amount of payment, form of payment and time
of payment for the remaining 50% of the required recreation fees
and timing of completion of the private recreation,
The property was platted over 10 years ago without all the required
improvements being completed and accepted by the city, The bonds
that were posted for these improvements have expired and the bond
company no longer is in existence, Therefore, staff's
recommendation to address the issue of recreation and completion of
other required improvements is specific and unique to this project
and not able to be compared to any other case within the city.
At the time of filing the 1983 plat, a bond, not cash, was
collected for 110% of the recreation fees (minus 50% credit for
private r~creation) owed for all units within the PUD, No other
approvals are required prior to the applicant applying for a
building permit for the single-family lots. However, based on the
type of units now proposed for the multi-family section of the PUO,
replatting is required for the multi-family section of the PUD and
plat (townhouses require further platting, but rental apartments do
not) . Therefore, the issue of how, how much and what time the
unpaid recreation fees are to be paid, must be readdressed and is
being done as part of review of this request,
Normally, land value, for purposes of calculating recreation fees
owed, is set by the Planning and Development Board at time of
preliminary plat approval. However, as previously mentioned,
further replatting is not necessary to construct the single family
homes and the fair market value of the land used to post the
recreation bond in 1983, no longer reflects the current fair market
value of the land.
Pursuant to a comprehensive plan policy, private recreation must be
provided due to the number of unit~ ~~:~~sed; greater than 100 and
this recreation must be accessible to all units within the PUO,
regardless of whether there is a mixture of units or phasing.
Since private recreation is a required improvement, it must be
constructed within 21 months of plat approval and concurrently with
the construction of other required improvements. Also, for
purposes of maintaining unified control within a PUD and
safeguarding against parts of platted land never being built out or
becoming dormant for long periods of time, mixtures of unit types
cannot be treated as separate projects, and only that portion of
the PUD that the developer proposes to develop within 21 months is
to be platted. In addition, by state law and the City's
Concurrency Management Ordinance, no development order or permit
7
Page 6
Memorandum No. 95-026
Cedar Ridge Estates pu~
File No. MPHD 94-009
can be issued unless there are adequate facilities (such as
recreation) available to serve the proposed development or unless
the development order or permit is conditioned on the availability
of public facilities concurrent with the impacts of development,
In consideration of the foregoing facts and the circumstances
related to the status of the Cedar Ridge Estates PUO, staff
recommends the following compromise to address the remaining 50% of
the recreation fee and the private recreation:
1. Rather than paying the full 50% of the recreation fee for
all units within the PUD and paying this fee in cash at
time of pulling a building permit for the single family
units, a bond can be accepted for 110% of the recreation
fee owed for all the single family units in order to pull
a building permit. The fee would be 100%, with no credit
for private recreation at this time, of the amount owed
for just the single family units. The bond would become
a lien on the property and would be paid upon issuance of
the first certificate of occupancy or the transfer of
title to any parcel or unit of the land or improvements
thereto. (Cash at time of building permit, rather than
a bond, has been the standard for years for payment of
recreation fees, however the option is available, per
code, and was the method accepted by the City when Cedar
Ridge Estates platted in 1983.)
2. Master plans are valid for only 18 months and master plan
modifications do not extend the life of a master plan.
Hence, an expiration must be set for the requested
master plan modification, which would ensure that the
private recreation located in the mUlti-family section of
the PUO is constructed to serve the impact of the single
family units that would be completed or partially
completed, prior to the construction commencement of the
multi-family section. The~efore, it is recommended that
the master plan modification expire 18 months from the
date of its approval by the city Commission, in the event
an application for replatting of the multi-family section
has not been submitted or an application for site plan
approval has not submitted or a time extension has not
been filed or a subsequent master plan modification
application has not been submitted.
3. At time of filing a final plat application for the multi-
family section, the balance of the recreation fee will be
paid in cash or a bond for 110% of the balance of the
recreation fee will be posted (for the same reasons
stated in #1 above, a bond, in lieu of cash, is
acceptable for payment of the fee, unless otherwise
stipulated by the City Commission). The balance of the
recreation fee will be computed allowing 50% credit for
private recreation and crediting 50% of the cash paid at
time of the first certificate of "'''''''''~3ncy for a single
family unit within the pu~ (crediting 50% of the cash
paid would be allowed, since private recreation would be
secured at time of replatting),
Regarding setting the fair market land value for purposes of
calculating the recreation fee, in 1983 the City accepted the value
of the land as $25,535.76 an acre. According to the 1994 tax roll,
if the assessed values of single family lots 1 - 34, parcel "A",
parcel "C" (drainage lake), parcel "0" (multi-family tract) and the
.18 acre abandoned right-of-way are totalled and divided by the
total acreages of these areas (27.51 acres) within the pu~, the
assessed value is $44,268.56 per acre. The applicant states that
based on a January 1993 purchase price of $2,075,000 for a total of
S'
Page 7
Memorandum No, 95-026
Cedar Ridge Estates PUD
File No. HPMD 94-009
68.3 acres (this includes the PID property to the south, as well as
the PUD), the value is $30,380.67 per acre, Staff has reviewed the
1992, 1993 and 1994 tax rolls and there has been no change in the
assessed value of the PUD, yet no verification of the purchase
price was received (usually a copy of the purchase contract, at
minimum, is required). The code states that if an applicant
objects to the fair market value determination, he may at his own
expense, obtain an appraisal of the property by a qualified real
estate appraiser, approved by the City, which appraisal may be
accepted by the City, if found reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION
The requested modifications will not adversely affect neighboring
properties and are a decrease in traffic, water and sewer impacts.
Therefore, it is staff's recommendation that the City Commission
make a finding of no substantial change with respect to the
requested modifications and to forward this request to the Planning
and Development Board with a recommendation to approve, subject to
the attached staff comments (utilities Department Memorandum #95-
037, Engineering Division Memorandum #95-026, Recreation and Parks
Department Memorandum #95-040, Recreation and Parks Memorandum #95-
048 and Planning and Zoning Department memorandum, dated February
2, 1995).
tjh
Attachments
xc: Central File
C:CC95026.mem
f
---1\
f'-p "'~ (_ 1lJ" [\'-
LU: '
_1__ 1l -
.., . --
~O -., .~-- II I
'fA1[~= r- 0"1' '11 ~
~ (:1
) l,~ I
:' //
'.; 1 ---
.. \ .-- ----'--
',', ~ ;.;.-~-~---::---
~ - .-
~', ----
\, U ~ T \ \ \\
J --
CEDAR RIDGE ESTATES
I IUlillb.. J L~------' _J L--~ l ~
W;-OF- ~.~~T--~L l~rnJll
7 () I 0r-~:' J ~" l;lJJ ·
rtJ : '4' /r' ,'\;: D \;h~ ~l~;t
./ ~ r:: ~1_~ . Will 1
" '\li.:lJ 1- -I- Q
\ 11 lit.t: I- 6 1 1 ;.,.
......,... PIt . ~\: : 1 \ \=I}.' ~
\ I! 1) ~ t: f ,~':
.... . .....-, I' ~
0.. /bL - ""'t'~"'<Y> n:!::::: lW ~J~tf
..-/ : f- N /1 r \,:-~
O 'v..'" ,.. .. ~ ~- t
. T ;.' ~ p - ;
.. c-.::: I .~t It-I- r-~:- ·
"""',.; , '. "' "If. I>/t ~~ ~,:-< ~ ,-: f: I - i- ' - -
; ~ \-..: !ll \.< "',-c- r- $ I'"
.. t- ~ It\'\. 1- - -
: \ .. :~\""( ,\ \' i;D ~_:,-<---~ .
'\" T 1-1 11 l'lIIlTII fu :'U(' pr;-;,,....'T:
: 'J \ '( 11fT /~) ~ ; 1 ~": - ' .'
_ ~ . T ;( fTTfiT' ,....,
==:=: R1A A : ~;="'" ""~ \ ~ - ,.i.A' --~(~'~:- lt~llill!IIfL].l~~~~ ~
I ~R 3 ~ 1 e-:' if f - . 11 rT"~, (.s .....
.::==; ,'" -1 '.l II '1 / ,1l.;...EillJ"
__._ ~ ~ 11T~ ...d ~ ~T ,) .L - . - 11- I ;-11l::TTI [~"-l' "i;'.: '
, ,__ ~ ~ J-''''' ." . , ,.1 tl:J I' .
': I - ._ ~,J .', tr'. ., ~ ,'.\I~1pI\IUm~!i
\ 1r .,;: ~ T' n,irf \ I ,'~ \111\1 ~nr~-"
~) ~ \ L.'I~~ ~~~ \TI~\! ~'lJ;~j ,I, ;\~~' ,) ~ ..l-~Ill\;! ~~~~,~;
r _ _ . "\ ~-. 1"1~)~ - 11\ 1II1\\\I"~',
; I . ""1:.'- E . ;~ i II! T
~=ElI~;~_J~ \ _,_"~~:l;~~~::~~;' !:nll~1I i;~~
\ ~,~~Jzi i ,~\ '\ ~,~~~~ ,/
, J ~ :N1 T ' "':l .-- {{\\ -- a: PU
''''-~,. vI~11T'(\ Idlw7, , .,
.-;,~. l',~.+t- E /1 ~rri / If.' 1\ \ 1\1\ " \
~ 1": J' '\ t:: lIt (11 I' It '\ \ \',
__ ", . I ~ _ ~ _,-\ \ ~ I - ~ ..... ' ..,
I "il r · '-' J~ i---,~~-=C-r'I.:lj111
....~!'-_ ^_ "' ~ ...... J I : ~I r r-1~ -1 r ~ ] f-- :
.... 1_ _ _ / "0 _ i~ 1 \ i - t -v .'.....1 .-e'T J -...:. l..~
---...... ,/.>----= J' '\~\ i \ 1-5 'Ff/ I=l '~,IJ1]ili? ~
__\ __ '/J - " \.!,,[ LL ~ '"..JfL ' " [: \
/ _ tiil: ~ I.u; ~T .-n-1 Hi+.) [LJ
~ ...".........-JA:!-__B1.~~:J f-----~tm~ ~ I ' '\'- - - ~I- ~.~J
L-/: ( c-- p 11111' J { : ~"1.:1 -jJ~' r-" . ,
... </) c Ii ,'-\,1:.: ; -:" - "'" ;, '-:1:: '
. " " 1_'-' . ~ ',\' I -j.~ /J '
. 'r; ~ \'1 \, ~~ " ;t' i->--, I- ,,', ( ,
~~ ~ ml~ . Tl -,... - - """""""l - ~ LJ,.. LLl- --
V ,,\ ;" -,I r 11 II fl \ 1 111 r:1
o 1/8 MILES, , _ " -,,- '"'" . - : "'" , " n .--' '
\u \ \ \ \. 'J #1 1~_~'\7l!\'. It~~ _I~~
o 4:JO,8~~",~~~T n,."r. H' ,1// R c ~\; ..~ ;' \ ~ J;~':
_ '..~'" I H_ if, ,,1111 ~. \' ~)\J.!J ;:-~J' \ Tr Y'l I
11_ ,v \,Jr\ I I V I ~ IVIM.t"'-
Trr
T
NOT
,1\1
CITY
.L
~I- It
\ - 1
~ 'I
It)
m IJ!IIS
.. .. '
...
o i~...
" !!! it Q i ~ 1
.....!:Ifii-. II
e....... ..".
"!C"...!....~!!.- -
. t
..
,;; :
'''\a'''.'. :u
G 1111
Ilh
Ui
!l
.
EXHIBIT "A"
l. a !l,lliI'll i
~ II' P I'
h 9 " I m~
~ t ;..... u;., \
I I
I I
w,- - ."..
i
l
3:
>
(I)
-t
m
:D
"tl
r
>
Z
CEDAR RIDGE
PREPARED FOR JOE BASILE
CITY OF BOYNTON BeACH. FLORIDA ~
PROPOSED
II
LAND.~
DESIGN !
SOUTH "i
t.andsOtlP8 A/CNl8CU8/~
EXH\B\T "B"
_~_.__---- _'_ .__ w'-~"-' ,- .--
~--- ---.--"- ,...... .--"---
#%"
_. c: a
~ :1 ..
~ i ..
0""
~o~
- .
i 0 ..
e;;r\
e \ \
ii
~
\ \ \
\ . I
I ~ ~
...aUl
. (:)
t ;,.
p .
,-,,:N l' f t .. . ~ . ; c:
~ r- i -. :t r'o: _.'-
~. \" t ' - '
~~ ,~~~\l~
~. .\,~. \., ~~.. ~"'~ .
~ J r;~::; V'*
J~ .,,'
.
,
.
J
'\ 1
\\
,
\ \
\ \
\\
ell
~.&
'..I
j,
\
"
.oa
~\
~
~
.
.
~
.
.
II!
t
~ ~
j :r.::
i
t (')
: g
~('1
,~
~~
\0
\a
I g
,-
-0
~ *
\ .s'
f ::l
\
f)
- \
':l' ..-
.-1 ,-)=-,
\
\ '
)
\;'
C>
!l
\
- ,
t
2
'!:l.:J
:; L---
.,
..
t Yk
t" ~ a-
t ~ ~~ I I
.........
-.~.~
..-_....
......
"'''''......
.,.0('\(')
C~~~
'9 ':"'"-
!
-1!-
ij
..
0.
\
Ie
\
.
.
..
;
..
"0
6
"0
c:
.,..,..,. 0,,0
G"
s'S'S" i~
~C~ ::;1/1
o $. ~ "" ~
,,~'9. ,.....
"1\ G to G
\' \, \\
\ \ \ \
\ Ie. \'
\ \ .sa... .sa
... a ... !"' p
~ ~ :. Cl)C'
:. Co)",
.,. r
.. -0
~, ~
" "?:
'!. S'
: U)
~ ~
~ 0
Ul ~
i t
\\
~ \
q\
.. Co)
'g ...
.~
!. .
~1'
.; ~
.. ~
~ Y:!..
1'1
!
c:
~
;;
~c.O
G < '0
('1 -. "
. ~ ~
{'" 01 (It
t: ~ ~ i
;-~OIn
.. U' n ·
UI'OG~
(:) ~ i ~
a " D. 0.
~o.
"
D. \
"" 0. \
~\\...
i 10 ~
~ ~ c.a ~
Cl) g~,.
t t ~
\ \Co) \Co)
109~
, ,...sa
UI~Co)
tt~
. . .
-0-0-0
.. .. ...
000
.c < <
0.0.0.
,
,
, i
\ .
:
.
~
","
i'
:\
..
~i
~\
Yl.
tD
0-
~
~
f ~~t \~ ,
..
\ "
~
_0
, ~
.. ..
o \;
:1
11' i
~~ ~. \
~\%
. I
-J
I
CSI
... UI
en :..a C;g
Co) 10 ,.
", ", r
rr
,..
..
'"
~
n
..
<:
.
"'1:
Q!es,
~ o~
('l -< i
~ ~~
'" o~
a ~~
~ ,=:.
% ~~
;i;'"
~n!l.
;,gr\1
S dO
, '., CEDAR RIOGE EST A TES P .U.o./
. <- tlIGt4 RIOGE c()NIMERCE PARK P .1.0.
;. :I. f~ ..~~~~..~ ~~~'{Jf!,:arr CORP".l':'~~~::
_ _ ~#o .
~
..
......,. ......c~J<I
_...._. ."t..:
.-
APPROVE.O
I~
EXHIBIT lie"
13
MEMORANDUM
Utilities #95-037
TO: Tambri J, Heyden
Planning & Zom
FROM: John A. Guidry,
Director of Utilities
DATE: January 27, 1995
SUBJECT: Cedar Ridge
Master Plan Modification Resubmittal
Staff has reviewed the above referenced project and offers the following comments:
;V~ 1.
o cPo! v!il.Jg l)
Provide stabilized clear access to sanitary sewer, stoml sewer and water main on
south side of project, Utility/drainage easement, (Sec. 26.33 [a D.
;1l,{ 2.
0. nPdn-"1 ,.,)
Proposed side and rear set backs for buildings 4,5, and 6 are not sufficient for
access, operation and maintenance to utility and drainage systems, (Sec. 26.33[a]),
MIl 3.
C' jlolrl'~ ~O)
No walls or fences will be pennitted in utility easements near buildings 4, 5 and 6.
Unobstructed access must be provided (Sec. 26.33[a]).
01< 4.
No trees are pennitted in utility easements, (Sec. 7.5-18.1),
{:7k S.
Will any of the roads within this plat remain public or will all become private?
Ok 6.
We recommend the project developer or engineers meet with Utilities staff to
discuss design options.
It is our recommendation that the plan proceed through the review process.
If you have any questions regarding this subject, please contact Skip Milor at 375-6407 or Peter
Mazzella at 375-6404.
/gb
xc:
ill ~ .~,,~) ~W.~ m rn
Clyde "Skip" Milor
Peter Mazzella ';Y
File
PLANNING AND
ZONING DEPT.
1'/
,--,.
EN(;INEERING MEMO # 95-026
DATE: 1/27/95
TO: TAMRRI HEYDEN, P&Z OIR.
FROM: ~IAM HUKILL, DEV. DIR.
KEN HALL, ENG. AIDE
SUB.tECT: CEDAR RIDGE PUD - RESUBMITTAL - 2ND REVIEW
The following comments are submitted for your consideration:
I. Resolve those items mentioned in the first review datcd 1/17/95 (attached).
/,'
~o tr_
eY"'"
2. For al1 parking spaces, specify a minimum width often (10) feet to comply with standard dwg.
B-91004 (attached).
ol?-
3. Provide visitor and H/C parking spaces for buildings 5 & 18 as provided for other buildings.
OlL
4. The H/C space dimensions may be 12'X 18' in lieu of 12'X 20' indicated on plans.
e)\L.
5. Visitor and HIe parking should not allow backing out onto streets per Scc.5-142(i)(2).
1\.1...,,0(' 014... 6. Indicate on plans the number of proposed parking spaces within parcel "0" and the number
~. required by city code.
& lC- 7. Paving. drainage and site lighting plans shall confonn to city's codes at time of pennitting,
KRHlkrh
cedridge.2rv
IS'
x
m
-"
all
. .
:.~
-.
-r
"_
,!a
--
~$
.~
a_
o.
.-
a"
o
~
o
a
I
. __ _ . " ~ r<+ --
!Jl ))'(1\ ~;l,.:' ,
tllll1" 1,'
f1\ o~ .
~ 0):; I.'t. ~
(:) :; pl _::';.I~ <: ~
'i..... ~l .
h\~~ 11~ ..
~'!ir-- l: \l1 ~
\:Y:t. o' 'h 0
~ .......;:1 0 0
~.~ '"-" '" ~
tJ ~ 1J .~
Ul \ . fl b ~ ~ ~
~ \ f ~G\ 0\0
~ . ,,)IJ ~~
... -.:~ >tl.
o :'"1r,j .
~ ~a
~ ~9\
l>
~
:-\
!Il
)>
~ ~\~
~~~
"'Il\!t\
~U\..
t)l:a
:;t)hlll
~Silt
.~~j!!
, "~
j! \ ~ g
\ '.b " <:.
!\30l~~~~~~
~o~"'tO~..-:.
'l1"o~P~~
,\~~~~roi~~
g\!1t;~ ~~
\ (J)~!n ~~
\ !:~f""~ ~n\
\~~~~~~~
r
- -
,-
~+:: ......
m.~.~ --i
()~ I I I ~
~~ tb llo. S =ti
_r-
~~ ~""n "'0
~- ~~~ ~%
~~ ~!liU)
~~ ~;t1~ o)i
. ()
, t\ :n-lll ...
-111 ~
~ ':'t
:t: tI\
U\ I
.. . .. ~ " I \t
a
a . i
.
c ~ .
t . r \\
. .
.
r
II t:J ~ ~
())~iQ~
-- -
~ ~ ~
1e ~n ~
~~:;
; ""'<
~ill\ a
~
cr--::-t 01
~ l ~'b n
, . ~ ~ ;t.
to ~~ ~
- tl))
() Itto Gl
~ 1\1\ ~
.....' m
I 71:: :Q
.!^ ~
~
~
~ tl
11\
f") ~
\:::
....
a>> ;-'~ ~ r~!"':-
~~=~i~~~;~a~a
~\\t~\ii'g~~'
\! J~ a;~~i~~
~\~!=\~\~l%~'
t:l !S"'\i~i!nS::=~...
~i!li "'~t:I~t:itn
i~s'O' '~:%I~a ~
~lll~ii'~~tli~
,., ~i~~S~i~tAil
~!li~ ~iss
~~~;( a~i.n
~ ': = s f il"'~\il i
;;\ @l....o"'''' ~ IAIA
~ !i~:'; IL..a~
~ "'l:!:Z: N ....n
.. ~~!d ~ ~~~~
~ ~2 '" ~a. ~
~ ~~~ V> s~
ta ~ ~ z~
'"' CII\! 0 d
tE~ : i ~
~~
a
o
r-
ti
~
G\
'V\
~~~
m~C)'.
~~~ ~
s"'<:~
~~B~
~~
)l~~
;:::...1\)
,,'\ '
~~~
11l~
~~M
5~~
n,~"1
Ulc:t\
ti
1\).
~
~
G\
~
~
..r"<:)
i:,<"'~
-v<:
of-
\JJ-
NO
~ ~.
:b-
x.~
. .
~L
" }.,
. G\ /, )-
~ y ~
~ ~
U\ Cl
~ ~
. =-'
a
'1l
~
~
"
'"
In
o
III
~
b
...
)I;
8
~
?i
'~
~-
~
~~
o
[A
u..
-(
~
'(
r-\\--
"i
,I,
-l
~
:u
~
~
S:
fl\
2:
-\
f'\
C::
-; VI
~
:t>
Ul
()
~
In
~d
;
. i
, ~
3
I
" 0
, ..
.'
C
4
.
o
.
.!!
",
~
,/
ENGINEERING MEMO #95-012
DATE: 1/17195
TO: T A~~~~EYDEN, P&Z DIRECTOR
FROM: ~AM HUKILL, DEV. DIR.
SUBJECT: CEDAR RIDGE, P.U.D. MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION - 1ST REVIEW
The following comments arc provided regarding the subject development:
I, Replat the subject site to show all roadways. units. easements. etc. to meet the requirements of
~rV-e?c" F.S. 177 and city codes.
() V- 2. Indicate location of all sidewalk on both sides of streets throughout both developments.
App.C. IX. Sect 1 I.
\ r;(}!-(/7 3, Provide a master stonn water management plan. Obtain re-approval of S.F.W.M.D. for
'(.1" drainage plan ifneeessary. App,C. VIII. Sec. 4C.
of.-
4, Depict street and pedestrian lighting within the townhouse development similar to that shown
in S.F.R. area.
f'\0< v:>~
~ t>P
Or::-
1
II)
5, Provide a note indicating that all utilities arc available and have been coordinated with all
required utilities. App.C, VIII. SecAC ( 17).
6. Indicate the names of all public and private streets, App.C, VIII, See 4C (8).
7, Indicate all existing easements and their purpose. Sec.4C(9).
l?\~ 8. Drainage inlets hall be installed within ass areas for re-treatment of stonnwater.
C.X.Sec.58. Also, show proposed drainage of80' entrance roadway, ('<Of Stf-OvJ ^f
1
*'
9. NOTE: If the trip ger!c!'!!~:~~ :-:~~~ used in the 1991 T.I,A. are different than those used in a
current analysis, then a new T.I.A. should be required rather than an analysis of the old rates in
relationship to the reduced number of units shown in the MTP Group. Ine.letter dated 12/26/94.
ill
JAN I -:
m ill,
KRHlkrh
cedridgc.rcv
rn@rno\V1
PLANNING AND
ZONING OfPl
/7
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM '95-040
TO: Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
FROM:
Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist ~i1 It-
RE: Cedar Ridge PUD - Master Plan Modification
DATE: January 26, 1995
1. The applicant should show a cross section of the
Ii ttoral/upland planting scheme on the plans. It should
include species, specifications, spacing, quantities and a
management plan document for proper maintenance of the area
(referenced on the plans).
2. A management plan for the preserve area should also be
developed and referenced on plan. This would be for proper
maintenance of this section of the property.
3. The two management plan documents *1, *2 above should be
included in the homeowner association documents.
4. The tree management plan for the existing trees (reference to
the tree survey included with the MPM) should be created prior
to site plan submittal to the City.
KH:ad
~--<<(S\:'"
\--;~-, ~. ~J~-~...:-:- , '
,\ ~ \ \~:--
. .\ ---
\': U 1\
\. \ (~4.".', .
I \ I.
. \.. ; \ ' .
" 'l\~ "L- _--:::"--- .\:~ ')1
\. _" .. I '
_,-,." ~\.\J
~-.D"\..l-n\I'i;I.:\' (ill. _..-
" ItOW\\G. I
\
If
\
".
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM 195-048
m
FROM:
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Directo
John Wildner, Parks Superintendent
Charles C. Frederick, Director ~~
Recreation & Park Department ,~
TO:
THROUGH:
RE:
Cedar Ridge Master Plan Modification
DATE:
January 31, 1995
The Recreation and Park Department has reviewed the amended (1-30-
95) masterplan modification request for the Cedar Ridge PUD. The
following comments are submitted:
1. Recreation Dedication Requirement
34 single family homes x .018 acres/d.u. =
110 townhouses x .015* acres/d.u.
0.612 acres
= 1.650 acres
2.262 acres
*Per instructions from the Planning Department fee simple
townhouses are figured at the multi-family rate.
2. Credit For Private Recreation
The modified masterplan lists the following recreation
elements:
1) meeting hall*
2) pool
3) childrens playground areas (2)
4) jogging trail
5) turf playfield
6) family picnic area
7) landscaped quiet areas
*provided that the developer agrees to a 1,300 s.f. meeting
hall as shown on the previously approvedmasterplan (presently
shown as 1,000 s.f.) one-half credit for private recreation
provided is recommended.
I'
3. Payment Of Fees In Lieu Of Dedication
A.
since the developer plans on starting the single family
lots first, he has indicated that he intends on paying
the full recreation impact fee on the single family home
section (0.612 acres cash) at the time of the first
certificate of occupancy. While the code requires that
the developer pay recreation impact fees or bond them at
the time of final plat, we recommend that, in this case,
the developer pay the fee or posts a bond or letter of
redit now (110%) and pay the fee at the time of th
ca e of occ 'at he
~ntends to apply for 50% credit for the single family
section once private recreation is available in the
townhouse section.
~~k
~
J~~r
~
B.
The developer has also indicated that he intends to
replat the townhouse section. Although he may pay cash
at that time, he indicates that he intends to post a bond
or irrevocable letter of credit for 110% of the remaining
recreation fees for both the townhouse section and the
single family homes for which they will qualify for one-
half credit. The letter of credit for 110 townhouse
units allowing one-half credit for the 34 single family
units calculates as follows:
1.650 acres = required dedication for 110 units
.825 acres = one-half credit for 110 units
.306 acres = one-half credit for 34 single family units
(cash value of .825 acres) - (cash value of .306 acres) X 110% =
bond or letter of credit amount.
c. Private Recreation Bond
The developer must provide cost estimates for the private
recreation to be provided and post a performance bond or
letter of credit for the cost of the unfinished
recreation improvements. In addition, the developer must
complete at least the meeting hall and swimming pool by
the first certificate of occupancy for the town house
section.
;;0
4 . SUMMARY:
The above listed process for payment of recreation fees in
lieu of land dedication is somewhat unusual. However, in
consideration of the length of inactivity associated with the
development of this property, the payment of fees described
seems appropriate and was arrived at after considerable
discussions with the developer. The Recreation and Park
Department is comfortable with its implementation. Actual
recreation fees to be paid will be set once the Planning and
Development Board determines the fair market value of the
land. A letter from Dennis Koehler, Attorney for the
developer is attached which discussed land values and the
payment proposal.
JW: ad
Attachment
xc: Bill Hukill, City Engineer
Dennis P. Koehler, P.A.
REV. 2/2/95
~,
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Tambri J. Heyden
Planning and Zoning Director
Michael E. Haag
Zoning & site Development Administrator
February 2, 1995
Cedar Ridge Estates PUD - File # HPMD 94-009
Master plan modification (revised density, acreage, unit
type, layout setbacks and roads)
Please be aavised of the following planning and zoning comments
relative to the review of the resubmitted plans for the above-
referenced request for master plan modification approval:
1.
V'<lr ~r.)~ ' ~
11~4::1;)
A(J~.
C~ '(
i
~
vP,
5.
'\/\.{)
6.
q9-y' fl ::r 7 .
~P('-CL
/
"
li,
i
To properly evaluate whether there are enough parking spaces
provided for the recreation facilities, specify on the plan
the gross floor area of the meeting hall, Revise the plan to
show the gross floor area and depict on the plans no less than
the number of parking spaces required for the recreation
facilities by the zoning code.
Show on the plan the total area of the site without the land
being transferred to the school, Also, identify the density
of the PUD after removing the area being transferred to the
school.
Clarify, on the plan, the difference between the 20 foot side
corner setback shown on the typical townhouse lot setback
chart and the 10 foot side corner setback identified on the
typical setback chart. If the width of the end unit lot is at
a minimum 10 feet wider than the interior unit lots, dimension
same on the typical townhouse lot drawing.
With a distinguishable symbol show and label the perimeter of
Parcel "D".
Show and label with dimension lines the perimeter setbacks
around Parcel "0",
On the plan, label Parcel "B",
Specify on the plan the width of the streets proposed for the
townhouse project; a minimum of 22 feet of pavement is
required.
The subdivision and platting regulations require streets to be
terminated with a cul-de-sac. All but one of the streets
(between building 2 and 3) has been revised to replace the T-
turn around with a cul-de-sac. unless otherwise permitted by
the City commission, the remaining T-turn around shall be
replaced with a cul-de-sac meeting city standards.
Place the following note on the plan: "All parking spaces,
with the exception of the two (2) spaces required for each
townhouse unit, shall be designed in accordance with the
requirements of the parking lot regulations.
Replatting is required to subdivide the multi-family portion
of the PUD into townhouse lots.
The 1983 recorded and legally constituted maintenance
association agreement needs to be revised to require
improving, perpetually operating and maintaining all common
facilities; including streets, drives, parking areas, open
space and recreation facilities depicted on the requested
master plan modification drawings, These documents are
submitted to the Engineering Division, which coordinates
review of the documents by the Planning and Zoning Department,
Engineering Division and legal staff. After approval by
~~
Page 2
Cedar Ridge PUD
File # MPMD 94-009
February 2, 1995
tC~'d. )
~ staff, the documents shall be recorded, prior to final plat
A approval,
~ All previous, unresolved conditions of approval for the
~rOject are still in effect.
The approval of the master plan modification to omit lots 35
'- through 45, associated streets and Parcel liB" is sUbject to
~. approval of the recently submitted rezoning application for
, assemblage of these lands with the Lake Worth Christian School
to the north.
~
~
,
A revised master plan which reflects all staff comments and
conditions approved by the City Commission and Planning and
Development Board shall be submitted in triplicate to the
planning and Zoning Department, prior to permits being issued
for any of the residential developments within the PUD.
Upon approval of this request, the City Commission shall
establish the fair market value of land within the PUD for
purposes of calculating the recreation fees owed, To do this,
it is recommended that verification of the 1993 purchase price
be 'received.
Per the comprehensive plan, roads within development projects
shall align. At minimum, Redwood court and Elm Way shall form
a proper intersection.
The private recreation area shall be accessible to all units
within the PUD.
~ With the exception of item #1, which is superseded by
~ Recreation and Parks Memorandum No. 95-048, the attached
I
, November 18, 1994 letter from Tambri Heyden to Dennis Koehler,
itemizes additional requirements that must be fulfilled, prior
to applying for building permits for any of the single-family
units within the PUD.
I~
o
~Ey6MMENDATIONS
~. It is recommended to replat the entire project to vacate the
blocks, lots, easements and public rights-of-way desired to be
extinguished as depicted on the master plan submitted with
this request. In lieu of replatting, an abandonment
application shall be submitted and approved.
l(
~
It is recommended to only have one chart that represents the
setbacks for the project.
It is recommended that this master plan modification expire 18
months from the date of its approval by the city Commission,
in the event an application for replatting of the multi-family
section has not been submitted or an application for site plan
approval has not been submitted or a time extension has not
been filed or a subsequent master plan modification
application has not been submitted.
NOTE: If the above recommendations are approved, compliance
shall be incorporated with the submittal of the revised master
plan.
~
() I'Y' I r (P.""'-' /" <-; ,-j S
/' )
Np ., '/ /),p. '1,/y<.6"",.....il!i/()
I ~ .. /4/ rt= - l,. / I . ~
I !, "JVI'l(')~
/ ../"' . /}hv,)~ 0<. 1 -
/lIt~/.d/i' (.\<-'":t~
a: MPMDCedar.mem
'1Jie City of'
'Boynton 'Beach
100 'Eo '.Boynton 'Beam 'Boukwrtl
!!"O. 'B~310
'Boynton. 'B~ 1fori4a 33425-0310
City 1foli: (407) 375-6f)()()
~J.tX: (407) 375-6090
No~emter 16, 199~
Mr. Dennis P. Keehler, Esquire
1:30 Ncrth Congress Avenue, suite 213
W~sc Palm B~~C~, Florida 33409
RE: Cedar Ridge Estates - construction =ommencernent ~f si3g1a-
family lots
D~a~ Mr. Koehler:
As communicated to your of f ice by phone on tlovembel- lCth, i -: Ha~
~ec8ssary for me to coordinate a response from the :~ty's
development department (building and ~ngineering divisions),
utilities d=p3r~men~, legal departmen~ and the p~anlling cnd
zoning department regarding your i~qui~y as to what must b2 dc~e
prior to applying for building per~its for the single-family lets
within the cedar Ridge Estates PUD. The following respcn~e is
pro'/id-:d:
1.
Payment of the recreation and pa:.-k::- f'3.: in the amOUllr.
J:e-;.:uired fOl- all units curren-:l'l est~bl1shed \-lithi): the PU:J
or furn~sh a bond in the amount cf 110' of the f66
referenced, which shall bec~mE 3 lien upon che PUD property
and shall be paid upon issuance Jf the first certi~icate of
cccupancy.
2 .
Ccmpletlon and acceptarice of a:1 lmpro.'e~en~3 (3tr~eCs,
swalas, ucilitie5, streec lighting. dra1nage struccur~5,
cornmcn area landscaping and irrigation, re~u~rej wictlll the
?UD. In exchange, the City will Wdlve the stre~t li~ttlng
f~e which is equal to 125% of the value of th~ Et~e~t lights
(51,200.00 each). With regard to utilities, cert~fy tjE
e:{isting water and SeWE;l" systems, priol- -:0 turuin-;r ')'1-:1" :c
tho: City.
.,
At time .:)f city accep::anGe:lf an-{ required imprt)vc:mel-. t. 1
ivarl".;.nt~l bond fc.r a Oil:: year gua::anc:e P81-~:Jd. 31-,0.11 be
d=live~:,=d ~o the :i;:y in acc:Jl-jall''::: t'lith Al:cicle ;.::r.
S~.:ti~n 1 of the Clty's SUbj~v13~Cll an~ plattlng
r~'Julations .
"'"",ma, galwmy l~~ gulfslream
TO: Mr. Dennis Koehler
-2-
November 16, 1994
A~ previously discu3sed with YOll and Mr. Joseph Basile, Jr" the
property owner, the desire to delete from the PUD, the land are3
encompassed by single-family lots 35 - 45 and switching the
m:~lti-f~mily portion of tt.e PUD to a different unit type (may
requi=e further rapl~tticg. rather than site plan approval,
dependent on the type of unit proposed), requires replatting, a
PUD m3S~Er plan modificaticn ~nd rezoning of the deleted lot area
la&d for incorporation in~o the Lake Worth Christian School
property to the north (additional approvals will be required for
=onstructicn of tha scheel's expansion). In exchange for
ccm~liance with items 1 - 3 above, the city is willing to ~llow
~~ilding permits to be applied for, prior to filing applications.
fer the aforementioned procedures,
Ple~se contact me if you have questions or concerns pertaining to
t 11 i s r.1 ~ t t e r .
Sincerely,
J~"Q.~
Tambri J, H~en
?lanning & Zon~ng DirectJr
tjh
xc: Peter Mazzella, Assistant to the utilities Director
William Hukill, Development Director
James Cherof, City Attorney
Carrie par}~er, Ci ty Mall~ger
C:Kcehler
~
-:J-,
l',
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 95-026
Agenda Memorandum for
February 7, 1995 city Commission Meeting
FROM:
Carrie Parker
Ci ~ Ma?a~er .
_ 7&,?~'L' 0_ .7 J. ~1t'i-l.-,,_/
lfambrl. J. ~y~
Planning and Zoning Director
TO:
SUBJECT:
February 2, 1995
Cedar Ridge Estates PUD - File No. MPMD 94-00'~
Revised density, acreage, unit type, layout, setbacks and
roads
DATE:
NATURE OF REOUEST
Dennis P. Koehler, agent for Condor Investments of Palm Beach
County, Inc., owner of Cedar Ridge Estates PUD, has requested
modifications to the previously approved master plan for the Cedar
Ridge Estates PUD. The 40.8 acre residentially- zoned property,
approved for 197 dwelling units (45 single-family, detached units
and 152 multi-family units) is located on the east side of High
Ridge Road, approximately 800 feet north of Miner Road. The
following changes are proposed (see Exhibit A - proposed master
plan) :
1. Delete from the PUD, the acreage encompassing lots 35 -
45 (a decrease of 11 single-family units), associated
streets and a jogging trail located in the northeast
corner of the PUD,
2. Eliminate a 6 foot high wall along the majority of the
south property line of the land proposed for multi-family
development; the property line between the PUD and the
High Ridge Commerce Park PIO to the south (platted, but
undeveloped j .
3, Change the internal road system from public to private,
4. Increase the overall height of the units proposed for the
34 single-family lots from 25 feet to 35 feet,
5. Establish a 10 foot corner side building setback for the
single-family lots located along north side of Forest
Road instead of the previously approved 12.5 feet. (Note:
For the single-family lots the previously approved 7,5
interior side setback and 25 foot front and rear setbacks
will remain unchanged.)
6. Change the multi-family unit portion of the project from
152 rental apartments to 110, fee simple, townhouse lots.
The minimum lot size proposed is 24 feet wide by 95 feet
long, Each unit will have a minimum footprint of 1,200
square feet and an overall height of 35 feet
7. Establish a 20 foot perimeter building setback along the
north side of the multi-family project instead of the
previously approved 40 feet. (Note: The previously
approved 20 foot east, and 40 foot south and west
perimeter setbacks will remain unchanged,)
8. Establish the following minimum setbacks for the
townhouse lots:
Minimum building setbacks:
Front
Rear
Side interior
side end unit
- 25 feet
- 20 feet
o feet
- 10 feet
Page 2
Memorandum No, 95-026
Cedar Ridge Estates PUD
File No, MPMD 94-009
Minimum pool and screen enclosure setbacks:
Front
Rear
Side interior
Side end unit
- 25 feet
5 feet
o feet
- 10 feet
9. Establish the following five required recreation
amenities for the PUD:
a) meeting hall
b) swimming pool
c) jogging trail
d) childrens' play area
e) turf play field
The following supplemental recreation ameni ties, which do
not qualify towards private recreation credit, are to be
provided: family picnic area and two horse shoe pits,
10, Provide required buffer area landscaping along the south
property line of the PUD and a limited access easement
along the east property line. Install lake plantings
around the water management tract, Install entranceway
landscaping. (Note: The required improvements associated
with the townhouse project such as an internal street
system, parking spaces for the each unit, recreation
facilities, and site landscaping will be shown on the
site plan review submittal required for the development
of the townhouse project,)
BACKGROUND
The Cedar Ridge Estates PUD is property that was annexed into the
City and zoned PUD in october 1982. The master plan approved with
the annexation and zoning of the PUD, depicted a 197 unit, 40,8
acre project. The project included 45 single-family lots that were
to be developed in compliance with the R1A zoning district building
and site regulations, a jogging trail (north of the lots along the
railroad R-O-W), a 4,51 acre water management area, a single
ingress/egress off of High Ridge road, a public, internal street
system and 13,43 acres for development of 152 multi-family units.
The multi-family units were to be built in compliance with the R-3
zoning district building and site regulations. The multi-family
development was to include recreation amenities in addition to the
jogging trail located along the railroad right-of-way north of the
single-family lots (see Exhibit "B" - approved master plan).
The PUD project is bordered by the following zoning districts and
land uses:
North - R1AA, single-family residential, developed for
private school use (Lake Worth Christian School)
East - Seaboard Airline Railroad and farther east, 1-95
South - High Ridge Park PID, undeveloped industrial lots
West - High Ridge Road and farther west, single-family
homes and vacant land in unincorporated Palm
Beach County
In August of 1983, the plat for Cedar Ridge PUD was approved. The
plat included, public streets, 45 single-family lots, Parcel "A"-
,11 acre of land located at the north side of the PUD entrance off
of High Ridge Road, Parcel "B" - 1.65 acres of land for a jogging
trail located north of the single-family lots, Parcel "C" - a 4.51
Page 3
Memorandum No. 95-026
Cedar Ridge Estates pun
File No. MPMD 94-009
acre water management tract and Parcel liD II 13.43 acres for
development of 152 multi-family units, The infrastructure approved
with the plat (ie: roads, drainage, water and sewer service) have
not been fully completed or accepted by the City, Construction
ceased in approximately 1986. The property was taken over by the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as manager of the
FSLIC Resolution Fund, as receiver for the Sunrise Savings and Loan
Association and Sun-Qp, Inc, Sunrise Savings and Loan was the
lending institution for the original developer,
No activity has occurred on the property since 1986. In January
1993, the current owner, Condor Investments, purchased the property
from the FDIC. Cedar Ridge Development Corporation has a contract
with Condor Investments to develop the property.
Prior to construction ceasing, a master plan modification was
approved in February 1984, to change the water management tract,
Parcel "C", from a dry retention area to a lake. In February 1985,
a site plan for a 152 unit apartment project was approved. The
site plan for the apartments depicted two story buildings, parking
spaces and associated landscaping, The plan also included the
following recreation facilities: picnic area, playground, meeting
hall, swimming pool and jogging trail, The jogging trail was not
located on the apartment project, but rather off-site on Parcel
"B". Construction of the apartment project never commenced and the
site plan approval expired,
ANALYSIS
The procedure for processing master plan modifications is set forth
in Section 12 of Appendix B, Planned Unit Developments, of the code
of ordinances and states:
Section 12, Changes in plans.
"Changes in plans approved as a part of the zoning to PUD
may be permitted by the planning and zoning board upon
application filed by the developer or his successors in
interest, prior to the expiration of the PUD
classification, but only [after] a finding that any such
change or changes are in accord with all regulations in
effect when the change or changes are requested and the
intent and purpose of the comprehensive plan in effect at
the time of the proposed change. Substantial changes
shall be proposed as for a new application of PUD zoning.
The determination of what constitutes a substantial
change shall be within the sole discretion of the city
commission. Nonsubstantial changes as determined by the
city commission in plans shall not extend the expiration
of the eighteen month approval for the PUD
classification. II
Staff has reviewed this request for consistency with the PUD
development standards, and the intent and purpose of planned unit
developments, as stated in the following sections of Appendix B,
Planned Unit Development, of the code of ordinances:
Section 1. Intent and purpose.
"A Planned unit Development District (PUD) is
established, It is intended that this district be
utilized to promote efficient and economical land use,
improved amenities, appropriate and harmonious variety in
physical development, creative design, improved living
environment, orderly and economical development in the
city, and the protection of adjacent and existing and
future city development, The district is suitable for
Page 4
Memorandum No. 95-026
Cedar Ridge Estates PUD
File No. MPMD 94-009
development, redevelopment, and conservation of land,
water and other resources of the city.
Regulations for planned unit developments are intended to
accomplish the purposes of zoning, subdivision
regulations, and other applicable city regulations to the
same degree that they intended to control development on
a lot-by-lot basis. In view of the substantial public
advantages of planned unit development, it is the intent
of PUD regulations to promote and encourage development
in this form where tracts suitable in size, location, and
character for the uses and structures proposed are to be
planned and developed as unified and coordinated units. II
Section 9.A. Access.
IIEvery dwelling unit, or other use permitted in the PUD,
shall have access to a public street either directly or
via an approved private road, pedestrian way, court, or
other area dedicated to public or private use, or common
element guaranteeing access, Permitted uses shall be
required to front on a dedicated public road. II
Section 9.B. Internal Lots and Frontage.
IIWi thin the boundaries of the PUD, no minimum lot size or
minimum yards shall be required, provided, however, that
PUD frontage on dedicated public roads shall observe
front yard requirements in accordance with the zoning
district the PUD use most closely resembles and that
peripheral yards abutting other zoning districts shall be
the same as required in the abutting zone,lI
Regarding the proposed changes, the reduction of the total number
of units from 197 to 144 (a deletion of 53 units) will decrease the
impact on traffic, water and sewer services generated from the
project, The resulting density is less than the maximum density
permitted by the Low Density Residential land use designation on
the property, allowing up to 4.84 dwelling units per acre. The PUD
master plan/rezoning was approved at 4.83 units per acre.
With the recording of the plat, the PUD is exempt from concurrency
for traffic levels of service. Since the proposed modification
resul ts in a decrease in traffic impact, traffic from the PUD
remains concurrency exempt from current traffic requirements and
levels of service.
With regards to the proposed setbacks for the single-family lots
and the lot sizes and setbacks proposed for the multi-family
townhouse lots, those proposed are no less than the setbacks and
lot sizes approved by the city Commission for other similar
proj ects wi thin the City. The most recent approval by the
Commission of a project similar to the townhouses proposed within
Cedar Ridge Estates is Quail Run Villas.
The proposal to change the internal street system from public to
private ownership and maintenance is acceptable to staff, based on
the future desire to privatize the entrance to the PUD. However,
a security gate/gatehouse has not been formally included with this
submittal. Replatting or abandonment will be necessary to vacate
the internal streets.
Al though the buffer wall along the south PUD property line is
proposed to be deleted, the code requires a six foot high wall
where an industrial district, such as the undeveloped, PID to the
south, abuts a residential district. It is preferred to have the
Page 5
Memorandum No. 95-026
Cedar Ridge Estates PUD
File No. MPMD 94-009
wall constructed on the PUD property so that the entire length of
the wall will be constructed at one time. However, walls are
usually placed on industrial property, Since, the PID property has
been platted into lots, the wall can be constructed within the PID,
incrementally, lot by lot and since all the lots are vacant, site
plan review will be required, at which time review of the wall can
occur,
Regarding the buffer area landscaping and littoral zone landscaping
proposed, a conceptual landscape plan and littoral zone plantings
were not required when the 1982 master plan was approved. Since
modifications are requested to the master plan, current codes are
to be applied.
After considerable negotiation between staff and the applicant, the
type, location and size of recreation facilities proposed for cedar
Ridge Estates are acceptable to qualify for 50% credit towards the
required recreation fees for the PUD ( see Exhibit "c" for staff
comments; specifically Recreation and Parks Memorandum No. 95-048,
comment #2). Staff has also attempted to reach a compromise with
the applicant regarding amount of payment, form of payment and time
of payment for the remaining 50% of the required recreation fees
and timing of completion of the private recreation.
The property was platted over 10 years ago without all the required
improvements being completed and accepted by the city. The bonds
that were posted for these improvements have expired and the bond
company no longer is in existence, Therefore, staff IS
recommendation to address the issue of recreation and completion of
other required improvements is specific and unique to this project
and not able to be compared to any other case within the city.
At the time of filing the 1983 plat, a bond, not cash, was
collected for 110% of the recreation fees (minus 50% credit for
private recreation) owed for all units within the PUD. No other
approvals are required prior to the applicant applying for a
building permit for the single-family lots, However, based on the
type of units now proposed for the multi-family section of the PUD,
replatting is required for the multi-family section of the PUD and
plat (townhouses require further platting, but rental apartments do
not). Therefore, the issue of how, how much and what time the
unpaid recreation fees are to be paid, must be readdressed and is
being done as part of review of this request.
Normally, land value, for purposes of calculating recreation fees
owed, is set by the Planning and Development Board at time of
preliminary plat approval. However, as previously mentioned,
further replatting is not necessary to construct the single family
homes and the fair market value of the land used to post the
recreation bond in 1983, no longer reflects the current fair market
value of the land,
Pursuant to a comprehensive plan policy, private recreation must be
provided due to the number of units proposed; greater than 100 and
this recreation must be accessible to all units within the PUD,
regardless of whether there is a mixture of units or phasing.
Since private recreation is a required improvement, it must be
constructed within 21 months of plat approval and concurrently with
the construction of other required improvements, Also, for
purposes of maintaining unified control within a PUD and
safeguarding against parts of platted land never being built out or
becoming dormant for long periods of time, mixtures of unit types
cannot be treated as separate projects, and only that portion of
the PUD that the developer proposes to develop within 21 months is
to be platted. In addition, by state law and the City's
concurrency Management Ordinance, no development order or permit
Page 6
Memorandum No. 95-026
Cedar Ridge Estates pun
File No. MPMD 94-009
can be issued unless there are adequate facilities (such as
recreation) available to serve the proposed development or unless
the development order or permit is conditioned on the availability
of public facilities concurrent with the impacts of development.
In consideration of the foregoing facts and the circumstances
related to the status of the Cedar Ridge Estates PUD, staff
recommends the following compromise to address the remaining 50% of
the recreation fee and the private recreation:
1. Rather than paying the full 50% of the recreation fee for
all units within the pun and paying this fee in cash at
time of pulling a building permit for the single family
units, a bond can be accepted for 110% of the recreation
fee owed for all the single family units in order to pull
a building permit, The fee would be 100%, with no credit
for private recreation at this time, of the amount owed
for just the single family units. The bond would become
a lien on the property and would be paid upon issuance of
the first certificate of occupancy or the transfer of
title to any parcel or unit of the land or improvements
thereto. (Cash at time of building permit, rather than
a bond, has been the standard for years for payment of
recreation fees, however the option is available, per
code, and was the method accepted by the City when Cedar
Ridge Estates platted in 1983.)
2. Master plans are valid for only 18 months and master plan
modifications do not extend the life of a master plan.
Hence, an expiration must be set for the requested
master plan modification, which would ensure that the
private recreation located in the multi-family section of
the pun is constructed to serve the impact of the single
family units that would be completed or partially
completed, prior to the construction commencement of the
multi-family section. Therefore, it is recommended that
the master plan modification expire 18 months from the
date of its approval by the City Commission, in the event
an application for replatting of the multi-family section
has not been submitted or an application for site plan
approval has not submitted or a time extension has not
been filed or a subsequent master plan modification
application has not been submitted,
3. At time of filing a final plat application for the multi-
family section, the balance of the recreation fee will be
paid in cash or a bond for 110% of the balance of the
recreation fee will be posted (for the same reasons
stated in #1 above, a bond, in lieu of cash, is
acceptable for payment of the fee, unless otherwise
stipulated by the City Commission), The balance of the
recreation fee will be computed allowing 50% credit for
private recreation and crediting 50% of the cash paid at
time of the first certificate of occupancy for a single
family unit within the PUD (crediting 50% of the cash
paid would be allowed, since private recreation would be
secured at time of replatting).
Regarding setting the fair market land value for purposes of
calculating the recreation fee, in 1983 the City accepted the value
of the land as $25,535,76 an acre. According to the 1994 tax roll,
if the assessed values of single family lots 1 - 34, parcel "A",
parcel "C" (drainage lake), parcel "D" (mul ti- family tract) and the
,18 acre abandoned right-of-way are totalled and divided by the
total acreages of these areas (27,51 acres) within the PUD, the
assessed value is $44,268.56 per acre, The applicant states that
based on a January 1993 purchase price of $2,075,000 for a total of
Page 7
Memorandum No. 95-026
Cedar Ridge Estates PUD
File No. MPMD 94-009
68,3 acres (this includes the PID property to the south, as well as
the PUD), the value is $30,380.67 per acre. Staff has reviewed the
1992, 1993 and 1994 tax rolls and there has been no change in the
assessed value of the PUD, yet no verification of the purchase
price was received (usually a copy of the purchase contract, at
minimum, is required), The code states that if an applicant
objects to the fair market value determination, he may at his own
expense, obtain an appraisal of the property by a qualified real
estate appraiser, approved by the City, which appraisal may be
accepted by the City, if found reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION
The requested modifications will not adversely affect neighboring
properties and are a decrease in traffic, water and sewer impacts.
Therefore, it is staff's recommendation that the City Commission
make a finding of no substantial change with respect to the
requested modifications and to forward this request to the Planning
and Development Board with a recommendation to approve, subject to
the attached staff comments (utilities Department Memorandum #95-
037, Engineering Division Memorandum #95-026, Recreation and Parks
Department Memorandum #95-040, Recreation and Parks Memorandum #95-
048 and Planning and Zoning Department memorandum, dated February
2,1995),
tjh
Attachments
xc: Central File
C:CC95026,mem
'_OCATION MAP-
CEDAR RIDGE ESTATES
J UillJ ~
~
filJlJ 1.11
- \ ffiilllll
-II
.
&1
t
~,..,
-- ,
.- ~. .. 'lo ...~\
:f
; \
':
";
I .', .
,
NO"-
IN
CITY
{/
,I
l .
~ 1~::/~'::
//..- :
. .
.,' I'
,
. r-E~
Iy-llr\],
,i 1\ _-------.z~ - - - - - - --
_______--r=--l' ---,,-..'.... ,,'''''J'- <to."...,. . - - .....-.,- - - - -' -
_~..-, . __' ~~~ \ _:= _~_-\~.....JO',..~.,~;..::..-...-~.~-r--
. _---~:- ~,.A.;;:/..- · I I
:::m-~ .": _..::::::;~ -:: ;::-::-:.~~., ~ ~\\\' ~ v (-:, I I ~ " . ~
.' . ,_ -~-1~r?...~-- \' I, ,\ G D''-'' 0 \ ~'O'\' ~
. _ . _:':' > _' \ ~ 'Ii. " ',' "" \ "" , '" \ "" \ \1""'''~
~__ ~ __ -": f.:--. __ .~ \ \\~i.:.\~ G ,;;:" .. ' I ,A:. G \
0t-:' _, ~\'..,U\~~-e - \ \~\1\~-~"t~t- - .' .:', ,~~ - ~.d;~-~~~ tr - --\
__ _ . .-' ~ _ \ \\ ~. r.. -. ,,"' ' . ' ---~ ---./, '
- ",_ ,:::)_" _.~' \ . "~" . ~ .' C'. '~.' /::-://,::.- " "" '~
~. ._ ___ :;\_ X\s- ._'. ',~ _ .~\.'. \ '. '..;. r:;/"// I I I ,,"" \'i
. ___~ I:' _ _ '. ' " ' ..... _ '/' , I.' ,/ "" I ",,' ,
. j _ . -::'.' . c' .' _ . ,\,~" . (j " ." / 1@I,e,Q"\'
. /"). . l~ I \.., 'I I., '" I j"
.Q _.. ,_ , . ,-, ," ' . ,'" .. ..' ., '"' I I ' "
j _--) __ \J ....." I ~.,....;;::._ __~ _._ ~ ' J"
.._' \'" . ,," J />t::- -."~-:-cs.::;;..',, ',.', -- \.. I" .. -\ .. .." I'
. '. n' - A .'/ .-- ..-""..:;,;-"~_ ._. ..'- "
.. . . . .' _ '_-", ",,' /. :,,;='J.<~' · _. <.: ~ -:- ..' ~ -.:.:', / I \.. - - , \
_~~ . . ;...' '~'3~~--~~ ':" f'-~-"q+'7,<. 'C.~~,;,'i:~ @I@I@"@'"
:~~. ~ _ ~\..r:~i;';'.1 c: - i:: h · 4-UfO' c,. ";'~ \ \ I . - ,@"
J<-- - -,,;~ ,~r.;\1 ' - h~ .." ,/-'~' \
. _--- . r....;......"'* <>f _ .-'\~ '\!l i' - ,:" ~,,:'. ....' ~\.-...,.:. +.-- ,;;::: r '( .. -" ,
,,~~ "\ .;d,' ~_. ._ _\~ ~_ :( - :Dill;:-=-' - r" ::::1"-~_::!.--_:::::-- /-;- \
. I -'- ;J\l~ ,>> .. - ... - " / ~> '
, , _ :-"'\......:: _ "~~ \ I, - 1 .,- .... - 1\, .' ,~~------ ..// @ \
(, I' r ? c- -'f 1:- . ,- : d ..~ \ \ \ (II! \ "--,/ ,Oi ..~
~ \._ ~::P\~lc;.::.. ,_ __I _ \.\:- '. ::11' 'r'''' - c !l, \ I ~ ' ' aa
'" _--- 1- _ ~:r:.:., .\1' " :--' "," 0' \~' ~ t:1, <.~ \\ \-\
,,' ..), L _ . -I ~_ . ' . L_".~.. '" -' · . \ N' 11 @) ~l .;;1 "l ..
vt ,.... '\ .-,,' ~=;= - -Jt+ . ""~ ·
1 ~',. _ <\J ' . _.--""-."',,:00-.'. ' ' \' f ..
~ ,,'_ _ '-:;J.~iF~"';:" . '. _..L \
.1'\ "-- ------- -=~- -.. " ,., '
.' -" ' . _..-- -'" ." ~~ ," "
." ,\':~;-:'7:-7! [.1 U' ' '! , ", :,..,:::;7~'::"-' (ill
\\' I . ,;ol C!J' ,.:-' - -:;:=,",-:.. -- . Q""Y. ,.;:;, r,;,\ ~ \
, I. .~, .' ,,- - ~.-' >I.' ~, ""
',4 I .. " ' .. '.. - -.... . \ ' ,~" (\!\ '
t. I \\ i,'.' \. ",. c' ~ . - h "" C,
oo ,\ \: I ~_ _ _\ _ _ _","_ ( J " ..:.,,~' l'
..., , ' ,.\ 'Q - L-"- -\ --.-.... '
" I", \ ~\ \ . ., '" .. . ' , -I-- \' -- i.. ~;il"~~':':::- --- ..' -- ,(.
'\ I \ ,'\ ' ~..-- . ,---:::" ..-' -.--- ~
l' _ ,.>-.'" .. ... -. ........ -.----. '" ~
." ~ .. ',F'" .,;>.1 _--- '__ . ," , . . J -.\II ,.
, . ... ._~~." ~. - .-. .. 0\ ' ~
... ,/-,._.=..=<.~"", ' \' .
'~~\ ' r ". : ,c:..-:3':::-~'a" ". ., _.,::: !- . ~ . - ,. '-0) ~\:!, \
.. \ '.,,_ ~ _ L ". ' o' ," ." J
{\ 'i[ · ,... ~...... · ,~...-
~ I" _ ~ ~. ~-;~;>~'ift-;~~l:"~ ,-=-~:;;>' \ ."
_~'~~.. . . Ii /. ;1" ..~,..::_:::':S~':':' \
,. .... .. .....'. ,...
, l---\y~---\":~--~~'-~ - I , iQ' -' . \"\\,\ "
I . /'. ..,.,..' ' ,j \
.' '. ~./ .' ~ ~ _' ~\' . '-"<., (. \ .~ I;
\."~~"'~~ . . I - ___.~-.-i.;-\ "
~n""\" \ . -, ." .' I\;)
i~~f~\t,.~- \~ .-' - \I ~.
.' ...\'" 'I. · ,\
;~""",,;lr. \ ' '\ Y,. \ \" It ,1'
. -I' ~, ,. . · · "
"","" .'i) " \ I . " . ~ t.
,l ,'i, , . _ ' .. ,I'" ,\ / I" \,)
"\"0"''\ " '>':' \' ~1 ~. '\ e '
\.'0....' .. "." ., .,. ·
~. r' \ ~}. " ',1;\1 \1,' ,>\\ ~ t
i' \ '/c '\ i' \. ' /; , ' "
,i~, '1\ \\ -'.,' j
i\" " .,.1 ---
\" ., _~_..~..,.".....,:, : ,,,', c: .' . _1.--- __ _ ___ ...--- -...------ i
1"'''''- ~",,' ",. ...... ....... ~ ... --- ,- ",.".-""'f"
C..,: .~,. .,,,,,,c..''''':'- - -.".. " . : ' · ..- -- - - . ~----- '
'\i~ ..-"0= ~".." ~- ....0;- \\~ -- ~-- ~"a7~ ~--~ ~I;~l~
.. ~ \IlI""I\\! \ . \ i :x~\\\ \ I...-----L ~ \t\~f\\\\j\WI\ i~~~t'\\\
_~ .. \i' I" ". " I' Wllt\ I.u-. ,l \\~tl\"w.\\u !\\\\\\\\
~.. ~'" \ \ ,., . ..,H H \a\ ~\J\\' ~.' \, ~~ \ \\~\ul\\\'\~ ~\ ~\
, \ i I~ " t,' \' .,' ~". .,' "'\\'.~ :\" ",
~'{~~!!-- _ \ \ .." ;: \ _ . h HI \\ ~\~~ -~\ 1\
" : ... . ..... 'J. ." q ..".. '. :,': 't ~\ ~\ ~.r \ .. ~t
~_".. ..' ' I , I .., ,,,~,,,
I \ ' , ",
EXH\B\\ "p..."
,
,
\
t' "~
t I. \!,
\~- "
.-' \
\t)
\ \'! \ \ \ n\\
.J>- .. 1l 1\\\
~ i\\l~l~~ i\'
;
,..
~
~
"0
r
~
CEDAR R\DGE o~~~~
PR~~:~~~y~~ReE~~~'~~:~.~
PROPOSE.D
~XHIBIT "B"
- .---..--..--. '~.'.' j'" ....,.....; .,"-----
EXISTING HOASE FAAM ~.l-g
I ':.. .", ~ _ COUNTY .A.- ~..~
--.J , _ ..... ': ........, ...-.. ... ,- ""'" I
.-- .. <b. ~~ -." ~ .7t'__~ H!9~ld{!!"~o.ad-
5i..;~!.~
l:'i;lto
i-!:i!1
.~i:!!
!;~:
~
II
.
~
i
~
,I
I ;
I !
I
I
I
. .......-..-.-. ..'- -_.
~ 1""'. ,. ."... a........ .. ,---- L.....
-...- IO'A/W
. --6f!-- 10' PAVINQ ..:
HIGH RtoGE SUBDIVISION
PLA' BOOK 21 PAGE I
COUNTV ~RS.
~
~
~ .
I~ .
.." .. n
~.. .. C
'J1~ ~
!~C
':: ..
..
.2 a ;,
~ '1'
~
~
"
..
," ..
~ i .. ~
0 .. "
i !
.. .
it
..
"
~ :=.="_ . ~-= ~-;-: ~:-; 82~~_O~ -=---:: ..:...:
"!
:Ii
~lr. -J;
(') r,
g ')'
o ::J~ ','.,
III 1 J-
'0 ' 1
C I )
!!!.
&> 'L'
tJ
o
::l
o
III
en
Iii'
~
"w
~r; :
-{::.
~
.~
n
~
!
~
.
..
s
..
t
...
6
~.-
i!
"
..
q
"0
6
~ZCil
c ..
5' 3 ~
:13 lr III
o .. ,.
:\IE 0 n
C : :
III 0 ,
a. ..
HI
I I !
, I
I I\) I\)
.....OUt
en 0
~ ,.
f"rr..~,.~-.. .
:t. ,"; .,...
t~r;---''''
t~~~~~1h
\ rrtrr~ ' ,:
rr.::---~-~~
,'''~~'' ~~<p ,
~...;:. \ I, \....
.J ~~~, l~~
~~
-=
g~ ~
5L. ...,.w z
=> ............' 0
.MNN
I ....ID_~
............. ..
N.I:..
'" nNNN ..
9 :--' :.-ann
C~!:~
.' CEDAR RIDGE ESTATES P.U.D. /
. ~ HIGH RIDGE COMMERCE PARK PJ.D.
~. '\ POINT MANA LAPAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
, PO BOX fL I........... -. .~f1.._ 585-2515
,,-,
=~=Se;board AI; Une-R~ilroad ==~~== === =~= ~-=:- ~
.
l. . ... 131105' . ... -, .w
1."&---e-~C30~e=~Q...:ai:-'Cf. 0 U9-'~0l~1~
. i
..
i
"0
c:
CCilC
CD"
~O
Ill'"
::;:111
-Cm
n
-..
--CD
"'lit
en
."
L.!D
. W
~I\)
,.,.
n n
: i I
I W W
IDP~
. '" '"
UtI\)W
,:a- > ,.
!' !' !'
~~'1l
000
< < <
ririri
~~~
5' 5' 5"
:133:(1)
o c 5"
:\IE=lQ
;i'
Cm"
CD 3 m
9:=36"
~ ~ i ;
i !
I I I
I '" '"
... 0 .....
I\) ~ :".
:".
~
-
'"
'"
;:
."
c
!I
I~
f'"p
(l)(l)
W,.
!'
c
~
::;:
APPROVED
:1:3:
ca'S'
:rill
::a"
-:13
g-p.
il
I ,
I '
Cil
..
i'~
lit III
lit III
o =
::11
III m
:;: ;;
III m
~I
I
...
Ol:..a
WID
:a-,.
!'!'
01
Ut
m
,.
!'
<
o
,'. '
r~'~t".t ,~
';.l'.'"
~,
"';:
Q !ls.
en 0 =.
n-<Di
g ~~
!!t '0<
2 mCT
n Me
- I:::
g' !~
.."
...
II
"
Q.
/II
n
II
~
"
CD
'<
~a.-...n site
I...AJ planning
~n landscape
architecture
site
S 10 graphics
~-.:;, .::;:.7,~":7"',:~"-~,:~
EXHIBIT "e"
MEMORANDUM
Utilities #95-037
TO: Tambri 1. Heyden
Planning & Zom
FROM: John A. Guidry,
Director of Utilities
DATE: January 27, 1995
SUBJECT: Cedar Ridge
Master Plan Modification Resubmittal
Staff has reviewed the above referenced project and offers the following comments:
1. Provide stabilized clear access to sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water main on
south side of project, Utility/drainage easement, (Sec. 26.33[a]),
2. Proposed side and rear set backs for buildings 4,5, and 6 are not sufficient for
access, operation and maintenance to utility and drainage systems, (Sec. 26.33[a]).
3. No walls or fences will be permitted in utility easements near buildings 4, 5 and 6.
Unobstructed access must be provided (Sec, 26.33[a]).
4. No trees are permitted in utility easements, (Sec. 7.5-18.1).
5. Will any of the roads within this plat remain public or will all become private?
6. We recommend the project developer or engineers meet with Utilities staff to
discuss design options.
It is our recommendation that the plan proceed through the review process.
If you have any questions regarding this subject, please contact Skip Milor at 375-6407 or Peter
Mazzella at 375-6404.
/gb
xc:
ill rn.~ 1 rn, ~ ,W,~rn rn
Clyde "Skip" Milor
Peter Mazzella ,;y
File
PLANNING AND
ZONING DEPT.
ENGINEERING MEMO # 95-026
DATE: 1/27/95
TO: T AMBRI HEYDEN, P&Z DIR.
FROM: ~IAM HUKILL, DEV. DIR.
KEN HALL, ENG. AIDE
SUBJECT: CEDAR RIDGE PUD - RESUBMITTAL - 2ND REVIEW
The following comments are submitted for your consideration:
1. Resolve those items mentioned in the first review dated 1/17/95 (attached).
2. For all parking spaces, specify a minimum width often (10) feet to comply with standard dwg.
8-91004 (attached).
3, Provide visitor and H/C parking spaces for buildings 5 & 18 as provided for other buildings.
4. The H/C space dimensions may be 12'X 18' in lieu of 12'X 20' indicated on plans,
5. Visitor and H/C parking should not allow backing out onto streets per Sec.5-142(i)(2).
6. Indicate on plans the number of proposed parking spaces within parccl"D" and the number
required by city code.
7. Paving, drainage and site lighting plans shall conform to city's codes at time of permitting,
KRH/krh
cedridge.2rv
,.~~ g -a~~
- () (]~7)....
~ . ~- ~~~ r-
--~ ~ ~~~~
ff\ ' ",':\' ~ UI .-
,;i U'l "::b~ ~. :, . )> l:a ~ ~"'<:.~
04 tI\ "," 'I.I! l%~ ?'t~~
.~ ~ Gl
... '" O~ ' r 'li\
';, '?::. 0):0 I.'~; t ~~
..." G....~ ~.I: <:: ~ ,:<.~~
....
..~ ~~1 0'
.~ ",~Ul '\ . .. · r'
,,~ 'X: .,' ()
O. f ,.. I
.~ @rf\r- ~.. tn .
,," ~O . _ ':b I;) f . / i \ ~ \:~ :!!~.::::..
0
.. (J\~ ..~ 01;) f ,,_N
0 t- ~ '\
- _'~ ln~ ""~ \/ \ \3 1)), \ S. ~ 6\, ~ ~:t.~
. o ~ 0
0)\' I O~""% ~~~~~~ 1"\1~ ~
t!\ ' ~ (I) U\ .'S\ ~1i\~
~ ' "\)';It1 ~t. \1\'2.. f 0 \\~~~~ ~~ U\"lt- ~
-.; <~ ):z, -~'\ ~ .~\!1' ':t. 6~'<: r-- f\)~
t) :-\ ~,~ "'~""\ -
':2:. -cl\.a \tir-li ~~ UlR\ ~ ~
, \J\ ~ ~ t:i '. !! 0 *-
):. ~tb \ \C.~r-'~ ~~
"- \ % o' n\.
. . It\ ~oi.~~
):> \~~'i\\"!r\~~
'?:.
~
~
- -
"
-
"" + -
(1), . . ""-\
, ' \ '
'.bo ~ :'Q
lnr-O
~r-n
fl\Cl>
_~r-
~"'U\
~/J ~
"h-\l\
_\I - \l\
~ "':'\
:t. U\
U\
",0
..0
~~
O~
. C)
f""
4
Vt
"
.. ...
"
o
~
';
-
.... 0 ~\\
~ ~
\ l \\
n
~
0> ...... V' :-~~~
i\\ \l. ~"i\\ t"S ~ ~'e \\ II
~\\%~\i\tB~~\
~\~~~ CA~~\~\~
~\~~ \l. ,\ \ ~~\:l
; ~es~~~i"~~~':
~id~ fII",~d~~ CA
~~i. ar~~~~"
~ i a... ~ ti r' "'!.~ ~ jiI a ~
~e.~~~\~\t\i-;
~ :i~~~~\2"'t\t:\
\ "'~CA . ~~ ~
:~~\~ ~~~a
g~~",>' '8~~~
~ ~~~~'e ~"'~s
, ...>,\:\' \~~
!""'otIJoS r- ~
~~~. a ~ t'I~
~ '~04 ~ ~ s'"
;.I ~~'a ~ ~n~"\
~ ~g "I ~...
t s~~ ~ ~~
" "'t:\~ '<l 0 '"
",r;;~ '" "" ~
~~' ... ~ ~
o .... ~
.... l> .... ..
....; ~ \'.
l! ~
~ ~()
\~;
~ v -<
~ilr.
~r-~
~ \ ~':b
,-..<:'
\0 \A~
_ tlJ3
() ",0
o ~\J\
+ ~,
\ ~
Y'
~
~
~
n
<:::
.....
~
\b
~
Z.
a
c:.
~
"!=-
~
III
~
Rl
III
Xl
Z.
Q
tJ
ll\
~
S
l>
o
..
i
-----..
m
~
~
..r....~
~
("1'-
--
Ul-
~, c).
~3
;b-
?<~
1.1'1
o
It\
~
b
f""
it
B
~
""
-\'
~
.,
\
~\
o
4
\fI
~
:a
~
1>
~
$:
"'
Z
-\
n
c::
~ Vl
~
~
Ul
o
~
ri'l-
t
~
~
\ :.
..~
.~
r
~
,/
ENGINEERING MEMO #95-012
DATE: 1117/95
TO: T A~~~A~EYDEN, P&Z DIRECTOR
FROM: ~AM HUKILL, DEV. DIR.
SUBJECT: CEDAR RIDGE, P.U.D. MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION -1ST REVIEW
The following comments arc provided regarding the subject dev~lopment:
I. Replat the subject site to show all roadways. units. easements. etc, to meet the requirements of
F.S. 177 and city codes.
2, Indicate location of all sidewalk on both sides of streets throughout both developments.
App.C. IX. Sect I ).
3. Provide a master stonn water management plan. Obtain re-approval ofS.F.W,M.D. for
drainage plan if necessary, App.C. VIII. Sec. 4C,
4, Depict street and pedestrian lighting within the townhouse development similar to that shown
in S.F.R. area.
5, Provide a note indicating that all utilities are available and have becn coordinated with all
required utilities, App.C. VIJl. SecAC (17).
6, Indicate the names of all public and private streets, App,C. VIII. See 4C (8).
7, Indicate all existing easemcnts and their purpose. See.4C(9).
8, Drainage inlets shall be installed within grassy areas for pre-treatment of stonnwater.
C.X.Sec.5B. Also. show proposed drainage of 80' entrance roadway.
9. NOTE: If the trip generation rates used in the 1991 T.I.A. arc different than those used in a
current analysis. then a ncw T.I.A. should be required rather than an analysis of the old rates in
relationship to the reduced number of units shown in the MTP Group. Inc.letter datcd 12/26/94.
KRHlkrh ill m@rnOWl ~ ~!
cedridge.rev
JM,! I -:
PLANNING AND
ZONING DEPT.
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM 195-040
TO:
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist ~i7I~
FROM:
RE: Cedar Ridge PUD - Master Plan Modification
DATE: January 26, 1995
1. The applicant should show a cross section of the
Ii ttoral/upland planting scheme on the plans. It should
include species, specifications, spacing, quantities and a
management plan document for proper maintenance of the area
(referenced on the plans).
2. A management plan for the preserve area should also be
developed and referenced on plan. This would be for proper
maintenance of this section of the property.
3. The two management plan documents #1, #2 above should be
included in the homeowner association documents.
4. The tree management plan for the existing trees (reference to
the tree survey included with the MPM) should be created prior
to site plan submittal to the City.
KH:ad
-~-'\;~.\."';'
~~ ~ \\ f\ ~ 'XL. .-J;;;-1~ , .
\-~. \\ -,~ ; , ,:
r'-', 'to _ _'~' , '. "
" ~ \ \.:'-- ,
..1\~. "
\' l.
.1, \) } \ . . \..
!;. .... i
\\;\\\ ::, ,
''''\\~ ~.\~ ..
. I.l .. .' -'~ "1) V '
.,..~l--Y0J~~\\;~.)€?1. _...~
\ 10\-\\\'\G.
\
\
'~"
W FfB 2UI:!~' ~ ill
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM 195-048~,
TO:
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Directo
FROM:
John Wildner, Parks Superintendent
THROUGH:
Charles,C. Frederick, Director ~~
Recreat10n & Park Department 'Z~
RE:
Cedar Ridge Master Plan Modification
DATE:
January 31, 1995
The Recreation and Park Department has reviewed the amended (1-30-
95) masterplan modification request for the Cedar Ridge PUD. The
following comments are submitted:
1. Recreation Dedication Requirement
34 single family homes x .018 acres/d.u. =
110 townhouses x .015* acres/d.u.
0.612
= 1.650
2.262
acres
acres
acres
*Per instructions from the Planning Department fee simple
townhouses are figured at the multi-family rate.
2. Credit For Private Recreation
The modified masterp1an lists the following recreation
elements:
1) meeting hall*
2) pool
3) childrens playground areas (2)
4) jogging trail
5) turf playfield
6) family picnic area
7) landscaped quiet areas
*Provided that the developer agrees to a 1,300 s.f. meeting
hall as shown on the previously approvedmasterplan (presently
shown as 1,000 s.f.) one-half credit for private recreation
provided is recommended.
3. Payment Of Fees In Lieu Of Dedication
A. Since the developer plans on starting the single family
lots first, he has indicated that he intends on paying
the full recreation impact fee on the single family home
section (0.612 acres cash) at the time of the first
certificate of occupancy. While the code requires that
the developer pay recreation impact fees or bond them at
the time of final plat, we recommend that, in this case,
the developer pay the fee or posts a bond or letter of
credit now (110%) and pay the fee at the time of the
first certificate of occupancy. He indicates that he
intends to apply for 50% credit for the single family
section once private recreation is available in the
townhouse section.
B. The developer has also indicated that he intends to
replat the townhouse section. Although he may pay cash
at that time, he indicates that he intends to post a bond
or irrevocable letter of credit for 110% of the remaining
recreation fees for both the townhouse section and the
single family homes for which they will qualify for one-
half credit. The letter of credit for 110 townhouse
units allowing one-half credit for the 34 single family
units calculates as follows:
1.650 acres = required dedication for 110 units
.825 acres = one-half credit for 110 units
.306 acres = one-half credit for 34 single family units
(cash value of .825 acres) - (cash value of .306 acres) X 110% =
bond or letter of credit amount.
c. Private Recreation Bond
The developer must provide cost estimates for the private
recreation to be provided and post a performance bond or
letter of credit for the cost of the unfinished
recreation improvements. In addition, the developer must
complete at least the meeting hall and swimming pool by
the first certificate of occupancy for the town house
section.
4 . SUMMARY:
The above listed process for payment of recreation fees in
lieu of land dedication is somewhat unusual. However, in
consideration of the length of inactivity associated with the
development of this property, the payment of fees described
seems appropriate and was arrived at after considerable
discussions with the developer. The Recreation and Park
Department is comfortable with its implementation. Actual
recreation fees to be paid will be set once the Planning and
Development Board determines the fair market value of the
land. A letter from Dennis Koehler, Attorney for the
developer is attached which discussed land values and the
payment proposal.
JW: ad
Attachment
xc: Bill Hukill, City Engineer
Dennis P. Koehler, P.A.
REV. 2/2/95
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Tambri J. Heyden
Planning and Zoning Director
FROM:
Michael E. Haag
Zoning & Site Development Administrator
DATE:
February 2, 1995
RE:
Cedar Ridge Estates PUD - File # MPMD 94-009
Master plan modification (revised density, acreage, unit
type, layout setbacks and roads)
Please be advised of the following planning and zoning comments
relative to the review of the resubmitted plans for the above-
referenced request for master plan modification approval:
1. To properly evaluate whether there are enough parking spaces
provided for the recreation facilities, specify on the plan
the gross floor area of the meeting hall. Revise the plan to
show the gross floor area and depict on the plans no less than
the number of parking spaces required for the recreation
facilities by the zoning code,
2, Show on the plan the total area of the site without the land
being transferred to the school, Also, identify the density
of the PUD after removing the area being transferred to the
school.
3, Clarify, on the plan, the difference between the 20 foot side
corner setback shown on the typical townhouse lot setback
chart and the 10 foot side corner setback identified on the
typical setback chart, If the width of the end unit lot is at
a minimum 10 feet wider than the interior unit lots, dimension
same on the typical townhouse lot drawing,
4, with a distinguishable symbol show and label the perimeter of
Parcel "D".
5, Show and label with dimension lines the perimeter setbacks
around Parcel "D",
6. On the plan, label Parcel "B",
7. Specify on the plan the width of the streets proposed for the
townhouse project; a minimum of 22 feet of pavement is
required.
8. The subdivision and platting regulations require streets to be
terminated with a cul-de-sac. All but one of the streets
(between building 2 and 3) has been revised to replace the T-
turn around with a cul-de-sac, Unless otherwise permitted by
the City Commission, the remaining T-turn around shall be
replaced with a cul-de-sac meeting city standards.
9, Place the following note on the plan: "All parking spaces,
with the exception of the two (2) spaces required for each
townhouse unit, shall be designed in accordance with the
requirements of the parking lot regulations.
10. Replatting is required to subdivide the multi-family portion
of the PUD into townhouse lots.
11. The 1983 recorded and legally constituted maintenance
association agreement needs to be revised to require
improving, perpetually operating and maintaining all common
facilities; including streets, drives, parking areas, open
space and recreation facilities depicted on the requested
master plan modification drawings. These documents are
submitted to the Engineering Division, which coordinates
review of the documents by the Planning and Zoning Department,
Engineering Division and legal staff, After approval by
Page 2
Cedar Ridge PUD
File # MPMD 94-009
February 2, 1995
(cont'd. )
11. staff, the documents shall be recorded, prior to final plat
approval.
12. All previous, unresolved conditions of approval for the
project are still in effect.
13. The approval of the master plan modification to omit lots 35
through 45, associated streets and Parcel "Bll is subject to
approval of the recently submitted rezoning application for
assemblage of these lands with the Lake Worth Christian School
to the north.
14. A revised master plan which reflects all staff comments and
conditions approved by the city Commission and planning and
Development Board shall be submitted in triplicate to the
Planning and Zoning Department, prior to permits being issued
for any of the residential developments within the PUD.
13. Upon approval of this request, the City Commission shall
establish the fair market value of land within the PUD for
purposes of calculating the recreation fees owed. To do this,
it is recommended that verification of the 1993 purchase price
be received.
14, Per the comprehensive plan, roads within development projects
shall align. At minimum, Redwood Court and Elm Way shall form
a proper intersection.
15. The private recreation area shall be accessible to all units
within the PUD.
16. with the exception of item #1, which is superseded by
Recreation and Parks Memorandum No, 95-048, the attached
November 18, 1994 letter from Tambri Heyden to Dennis Koehler,
itemizes additional requirements that must be fulfilled, prior
to applying for building permits for any of the single-family
units within the PUD.
RECOMMENDATIONS
17. It is recommended to replat the entire project to vacate the
blocks, lots, easements and public rights-of-way desired to be
extinguished as depicted on the master plan submitted with
this request. In lieu of replatting, an abandonment
application shall be submitted and approved.
18. It is recommended to only have one chart that represents the
setbacks for the project,
19. It is recommended that this master plan modification expire 18
months from the date of its approval by the city commission,
in the event an application for replatting of the multi-family
section has not been submitted or an application for site plan
approval has not been submitted or a time extension has not
been filed or a subsequent master plan modification
application has not been submitted.
NOTE: If the above recommendations are approved, compliance
shall be incorporated with the submittal of the revised master
plan,
a: MPMDCedar.mem
'l1ie City of
r.Boynton r.Beacn
100 'E, 'Boynton 'Beadi 'Boulevara
P,O, 'Bo~310
'Boynton 'Beadr., %niaa 33425-0310
City!JlaU: (407) 375-60()()
1"JU: (407) 375-6090
November 16, 1994
Mr. Dennis p, Keehler, Esquire
1:80 Nerth Congress Avenue, Suite 213
West Palm B~cc~, Florido 33409
RE: Cedar Ridge Estates - con3truction =ommencern~nt of singla-
family 10t3
Dear Mr, Koehler:
As communicated to your office by phone on November 10th, it was
necessary for me to coordinate a response from the Clty'S
development department (building and engineering divisions),
utilities d3partmen~, legal department and the planning and
zoning department regarding your inqui=y as to what must be dc~e
prior to applying for building permits for the single-family lets
within the Cedar Ridge Estates PUD. The following respcnfe is
provided:
1.
Payment of the recreation and pa:.-k~ fee in the amount
re~uired for all units currentl~ established ~lith1~ the PUD
or furn~sh a bond in the amount of 110% of the fee
referenced, which shall bec~mE a lien upon the PUD property
and shall be paid upon issuance )f the first certi~icate of
cccupancy.
2.
Ccmplet10n and acceptarice of all impro?ements (str3etS,
swales, utilitiea, street lighting. drainage structures,
commen area landscaping and irrigation: re~uired withln the
?UD. In exchange, the City will waive the street light1ng
f~e which is equal to 125% of the value of the stre~t lights
(Sl,200.00 each). With regard to ut1lities, cert~fy t~e
EXisting watEr and seWEr systems, prior -:0 tllrlUng OVEr :.c
the City.
~
At time of City accep:.ance of any required improvement, 3
warr~nty b0nd fer a OD2 year glla~ant~e per~od, sh~ll be
d2live::,,-'=d ~o the city in accorjal1'.::2 t-'lith rll-ticle z::r.
S2~ti~n 1 of the C1ty's subi~V13~Cll an~ platting
l"e':Julations.
jifmerUa s (jateway to the (juf/stream
TO: Mr. Dennis Koehler
-2-
November 16, 1994
AE previously discu3sed with you and Mr. Joseph Basile, Jr., the
property owner, the desire to delete from the PUD, the land are3
enc8mpassed by single-family lots 35 - 45 and switching the
mt:lti-family portion or tte PUD to a different unit type (may
requi~e further repl~tti~g, rather than site plan approval,
dependent on the type of unit proposed), requires replatting, a
PUD mas~er plan modification and rezoning of the deleted lot area
laLd for incorporation in~o the Lake Worth Christian School
property to the north (additional approvals will be required for
~onstructicn of the scheol's expansion), In exchange for
ccm~liauce with items 1 - 3 above, the city is willing to allow
building permits to be applied for, prior to filing applications.
fer the aforementioned procedures.
Please contact me if you have questions or concerns pertaining to
this f.l3.tter.
Sincerely,
~(1.~
Tambri J. H~en
?lanning & Zonlng Direct~r
tjh
xc: Peter Mazzella, Assistant to the utilities Director
William Hukill, Development Director
James Cheraf, City Att~rney
Carrie par}~er, City Manager
C:Kcehler
County, Florida, more particularly described__as follows:
Commencing ..._ the Southwest corner of said Section 9, thence North
88.41'51- East (the West line of said Section 9 is assumed to bear
North 00.00'00. East and all of the bearings mentioned herein are rela-
tive thereto) along the South line of said Section 9, a distance of
25.01 feet to a point on the existing East right-of-way of High Ridge
Road, as laid out and now in use, said point being the POINT OF BEGIN-
NING of the following described parcel: Thence, from said POINT OF BE-
GINNING, run North 00.00'00. East along said East right-of-way of High
Ridge Road, a distance of 1819.64 feet: thence North 88045'14- East, a
distance of 109.90 feet, thence North 00.00'00. East, distance of
14482 feet, Hlence North 88045'14" Eastl 0 distance of 542.99 feet; thencp North OOo02'44"Eost, a
distance of 15.00 feet; thence North 880~5'14" East, 0 distance of 677,87feetto C DI)\nt on the we'it
line of Tract 'E' a s shown on the Plot of .L INeOloN ME MOR IAL
GARDENS as recorded in Plat Book 23, page 179, Public Records of
Palm Beach County, Florida, thence North 00.05'28. East, a distance of
1318.05 feet to a point beinq the Northwe.t corner of Tract .F., said
PLAT 0' LINCOLN MEMORIAL GARDENS: thence North 88.45'58- East, a dis-
tance of 39.82 feet to a point being the Northeast corner of said Tract
-F., also lying on the westerly riqht-of-way of the Seaboard Airline
Railroad, as laid out and now in use: thence South 01012' 26. Eas t,
along said West right-of-way, a distance of 3295.25 feet to a point on
the South line of said Section 9, thence South 8S041'51- West, a10n9
the South line of said Section 9, a distance of 1442.16 feet, more or
less, to the Po.INT OF BEGINNING.
containing 65.61 Acres, more or less.
DEDICATION
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that Boynton Development Corpora-
tion , owner of the lands shown and described hereon and shown
hereon as Cedar Ridge, a P.U.D. and High Ridge Commerce Park, a
P.I.D. , has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as shown
hereon and do hereby dedicate as follows:
P0A rs
1. ~racts s-l, ~-2, S-~ and S-4 arp ~erehv rledicA~~rl to ~~p
r:i t." of Povnton Pedcn for roarlwav Otlt-nnsps. 'T'h", rOArl 21nrl
nrainaot? f~c:ilitips within s<3irl t-ract~ fire f-hp n~r.npt!];'11
r~intenanc:e nhlia~tjon of sairl city.
PARCELS
PARCEL A as shown hereon is hereby dedicated in perpetuity to
the Cedar Ridge Community Association, Inc., its successors
and assigns, for landscape purposes and is the perpetual main-
tenance obligation of said Association.
PARCEL B as shown hereon is her~by dedicated in perpetuity to
the Cedar Ridge Community Association, Inc., its successors
and assigns, for recreation purposes, and is the perpetual
maintenance obligation of said Association.
PARCEL C as shown hereon is hereby dedicated in perpetuity to
Cedar Ridge Condominium Association, Inc., Cedar Ridge Estates
Homeowners Association, Inc., and High Ridge Commerce Park As-
sociation, Inc., their successors and assigns, as their per'-
spective interests in the property exists, for recreation and
water management purposes and is the maintenance obligation of
the said Associations.
EASEMENTS
The drainage easements as shown hereon are hereby dedicated in
perpetuity for the construction, operation and maintenance of
drainage facilities.
The utility easements as shown hereon are hereby dedicated in
perpetuity for the construction, operation and maintenance of
utilities.
The limited access easements, as shown hereon, are hereby de-
dicated to the City of Boynton Beach for the purposes of
control and jurisdiction ,over access rights.
The buffer easements as shown hereon are hereby dedicated in
perpetuity for landscape purposes.
The access easements as shown hereon are dedicated in perpetu-
A certain.65.80 Acre parcel of land -'ing in the Southwest QU~I I
(SW 1/4) of otion 9, Township 45 Sou...._, Range 43 East, Palm Be'
County, F10ri~, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 9; thence Nor
88.41'51- East (the West line of said Section 9 is assumed to be
North 00.00'00- East and all of the bearings mentioned herein are rel
tive thereto) along the South line of said Section 9, a distance
25.01 feet to a point on the existing East right-of-way of High Rid,
Road, as laid out and now in use, said point being the POINT OF BEGI!
NING of the following described parcel: Thence, from said POINT OF pI
GINNING, run Nortb 00.00'00- East alonq said East right-of-way of Hie
Ridge Road, a distance of 1819.64 feet1 thence North 88045'14- East,
distance of 109.90 feet, thence North 00.00'00- East, distance (
14482feet,~thence North 8S04S"4" East a distance of 542.99 feet; thencp North 00002'44''Eost, (J
distance of 15.00 feet; thence North 88045'14" East, 0 distance of 677.87feetto c p"int on the we",t
line of Troct 'E' os shown on the Plat of.LlNCOLN MEMORIAL
GARDENS as recorded in Plat Book 23, page 179, Public Records c
Palm Beach County, Florida, thence North 00.05'28- East, a distance c
1318.05 feet to a point being the Northwest corner of Tract -F-, sai
PLAT OF LINCOLN MEMORIAL GARDENS, thence North 88045'58- East, a dis
tance of 39.82 feet to a point being the Northeast corner of said Trac
-F-, also lying on the westerly right-of-way of the Seaboard Airl in
Railroad, as laid out and now in use: thence South 01012'26- EasC-
along said West right-of-way, a distance of 329S.2S feet to a point G
the South line of said Section 9, thence South 8S041'51- West, alor~
the South line of said Section 9, a distance of 1442.16 feet, more ('
less, to the Po.INT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 65.61 Acres, more or less.
DEDICATION
I
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that Boynton Development Corpora-
tion , owner of the lands shown and described hereon and shown
hereon as Cedar Ridge, a P.U.D. and High Ridge Commerce Park, a
P. I. D. , has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as shown
hereon and do hereby dedicate as follows:
P0Ars
1. 1'racts S-l, C:-2. S-] and S-I! arc> ~erehv rledicClt:erl tp rbp
Ci 1':..., of P('\vnton Peach for roanwav nlJrnosps. 'T'he roan and
rlrainaoe facilitips within setin tract!" are t:hp ner.n0tIJr11
raintenance ohliaation of sairl citv.
PARCELS
PARCEL A as shown hereon is hereby dedicated in perpetuity to
the Cedar Ridge Community Association, Inc., its successors
and assigns, for landscape purposes and is the perpetual main-
tenance obligation of said Association.
PARCEL B as shown hereon is hereny dedicated in
the Cedar Ridge Community Association, Inc.,
and ass igns, for recrea t ion purposes, and is
maintenance obligation of said Association.
perpetuity to
its successors
the perpetual
PARCEL C as shown hereon is hereby dedicated in perpetuity to
Cedar Ridge Condominium Association, Inc., Cedar Ridge Estates
Homeowners Association, Inc., and High Ridge Commerce Park As-
sociation, Inc., their successors and assigns, as their per-
spective interests in the property exists, for recreation and
water management purposes and is the maintenance obligation of
the said Associations.
EASEMENTS
The drainage easements as shown hereon are hereby dedicated in
perpetuity for the construction, operation and maintenance of
drainage facilities.
The utility easements as shown hereon a~e hereby dedicated in
perpetuity for the construction, operation and maintenance of
utilities.
The limited access easements, as shown hereon, are hereby de-
dicated to the City of Boynton Beach for the purposes of
control and jurisdiction .over access rights.
The buffer easements as shown hereon ~~c
perpetuity foe lands~ape purpos~s.
i,i:~€>;n dedicated in
.-'----
i:,~,<v\,\(~:,~,~gi:,}i~:l!\~~h~~';~~~<,>.
.~~ "j~~l
.t'
K < ," ". .",'1.. .-v
;, '\;.:' ~. '.. ~
/~:
,"'. .
, ("',
(8
-------
---_.. _._..._-~---~~-_._-_. ....
:
A
-
'1
. I
.'
\
I
I
J
, I
~*' ~.'" I
~ . ,,"
,.. \
'j", ,.'.
I
I
,.~" \
; ,'....."
'j ~.~. I
I
I
\
I
I
\
I
I
\~
.~ ~
q
-
~ """')
~
(\) -.
'- ~ "'-.',,-
t
a 1111
OJ \-
~ "
\j "-",
.li::. ~I
cID
~
QI
Zi
::51
c...!
I
a:::
lJ.J
'1-;
cri
<t!l
.:E.
\r,
-z
Q
-...
~
~I
I
II
'S.
-
~
~
....
,- -
-- ~~I'
- -
. ,
~
~
~
~~
~
1&1::= "
t:~ ~
:iUJ Q
~I
~I
:J:a::
~~ 15-
cu
Q
tIO
~
m
11\
~ \ -1 ~
~.1i~~~~
g~' i 5'lJ! ~
~ ~ J ~ ~ J 0" ~
~I~ ~~~ 3 ~ ~~~
~ ~~<rl,"",~
,'\.. ~"""'"
~::. \ I e~\ t
1 '-......
..........
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ it J !.
W
I-
d)
-I
()
()
]:
~
-I
<t
~
t-
o
o
<t
-----_.~_.-----.....
.,
@
G
15-
1!a1S.~
cu II) Q)
C Q 0 I)
~ tIO::: ,~
- c:: _ ~
ii: w ::) _
..
~ !
cu c:: .~ I
Q .!! 0
0-
~ ~ 2
a:UGI:
I
~~
" ./ . . . . .~
~(:'~,':\.. ..' .-:-'---:-=-:-.---;-- ~-~ -:~~.~ .--;--.
/':'/' "
QJ t:: QJ 01 ... ~ ~I
t:+J '0 CD
0 OJ :::1 td ..c: a ItS s::
Q) t: .-I +J.Pi O'Pi
CD Q. I-f
+J3: - :> CD ~'""I ll::~
QJ- '0 l'( :>.<11 ..~ "
~..~ :>
QJ- 0 ~ .aa - 4-4 (1)
..
E- o .a (1) .Pi 0 (,
CJ ..u tJ\ . "1 ~
~ ~
': _.~_...._----_._----
- ------- --- ---- --
------.--
I
I
I
~ I
I
@.
@
t>~~~ ~~~~~
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM #95-07
TO:
FROM:
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
Larry Quinn, Sanitation Superintendent
SUBJ:
Comments - Cedar Ridge PUD
DATE:
January 12, 1995
The Public Works Department has three concerns regarding the Cedar Ridge master
plan. The dead end driveway between building 1 thru 4 has no place for the sanitation
vehicle to turn around. A keyway at the end was suggested as a viable solution. The
dead end driveway between building 9 and 10 needs to be made into a thru street. The
cul-de-sac shown on the plans are 75 feet. I went out and measured them and they are
closer to 80 feet. In either case, with our larger trucks, the cul-de-sacs need to be 90
feet.
--,
Larry Quinn
Sanitation Superintendent
LQfcr
BUILDING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. 95-008
January 11, 1995
TO:
Tambri Heyden
Planning & Zoning Director
FROM:
Al Newbold
Deputy Building Official
RE:
TRC COMMENTS
MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION - CEDAR RIOOE
The Building Division has reviewed the plans for the above
referenced project and advises that the following items are
required:
1. Lot dimensions;
2. All setbacks shown from property lines, not the
distance between structures;
3. Elevations of buildings;
4. Maximum heights of buildings;
5. List of street names and addresses;
In addition, all buildings must comply with Table 600 of the
Standard Building Code based on the distance from property lines
and the distance between structures.
//I'4!l~
Al Ne 0 d
AN: bh
XC: William V. Hukill, P.E.
ill ~ :~I ::~ ~
PLANNING AND
ZONING DEPT.
CBDAR
BOYNTON BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
Office of Professional Standards
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Tambri Heyden, D~'rect
Lt. James Cumming,
11 January 1995
Cedar Ridge / 1st Review
TRC MEMO # 95-0113
Having reviewed the plans for Cedar Ridge, I would like to offer the following comments:
I would request that the plans indicate two separate egress lanes, where the exit meets High Ridge
Rd., allowing for a right turn out and left turn out.
I would request that the roadway between buildings 9 and 10, be brought completely through,
allowing unlimited access for all vehicles and pedestrians. The road is currently drawn as a dead
end.
I would discourage the use of any "T" dead ends. I would suggest that a circular turn around
would be more efficient and safe for those vehicles that are required to turn any vehicles around.
rn rn @ rn n \fJ lli rn
JAN I 2 IDGS
PLANNING AND
\ ZONUi0 DEPT
.......""'- --
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM 195-019
FROM:
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning DJ1'recto
John Wildner, Parks Superintendent
Cedar Ridge Master Plan Modificati n
January 13, 1995
TO:
RE:
DATE:
The Recreation & Park Department has reviewed the master plan
modification request for the Cedar Ridge P. U .D. The following
comments are submitted:
1. Plat ~ingle Family Homes & Town Homes Separately
The plan shows two distinctly different types of development.
A single family home section of 34 units and a fee simple town
house section of 114 units. The recreation needs of these two
types of development are entirely different and really should
be considered separately. By platting these groups
separately, it would be possible to pay the full recreation
impact fee on the first group of 34 units separately and
consider the town house section at a later time. Given this
option:
34 single family homes x .018 acres/d.u. = 0.612 acres cash.
2. Assuming Unified Plat
A. 34 single family homes x .018 acres/d.u. = 0.612 acres
114 townhouses x .018 acres/d.u. = 2.052 acres
Total requirement: 2.664 acres
B. Credit For Private Open Space
The original developer applied for 50% credit towards the
recreation dedication. The original approved master plan
listed:
1. Meeting Hall (1300 s.f.)
2. Childrens Playground
3. Jogging Trail
4. Turf Play Field
5. Family Picnic Areas
Nt-I\t-IGr>.t-IO
\'~N\NG ot.\'1.
The modified master plan lists the following recreation
elements:
1. Fishing Pier
2 . Tot Lot
3. Jogging Trail
4. Picnic Areas
5. Horse Shoe Pits
All elements appear to be on isolated locations spread
ou t in the town house section only of the P. U . D. Minimum
acreage requirements do not appear to be met. Two horse
shoe pits and a small fishing dock are of minimal
recreation value. At this time, 50% credit for private
recreation is not recommended.
C. Suggested Recreation Improvements
1) Restore meeting hall
2) Consolidate recreation elements in a central
location accessible by all residents.
3) List acreage for all recreation elements to meet
code requirements for maintenance purposes.
4) Construct jogging trail of asphalt, concrete or
other permanent hard surface.
5) Childrens playground and other park equipment must
be of commercial quality and of sufficient size to
meet needs of the community.
6) Provide cost estimates for all recreation elements
to be constructed or provided.
D. Payment of Fees in Lieu of Dedication
1) Assuming the developer strengthens the recreation
package sufficiently to qualify for 50% credit, the
developer pays a fee equal to one-half the
recreation dedication requirement for the entire
P.U.D.
2.664 acres divided by 2 = 1.332 acres cash.
and posts a bond or letter of credit for the cost
of providing private recreation facilities.
2. If the developer does not choose to strengthen the
recreation package, then he would pay the full fee
of 2.664 acres or post a bond of 110% payable upon
issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.
3. Other dedication fee payment methods may be
considered by the City Commission.
JW:ad
XC:
Charles C. Frederick, Directorl Recreation & Park Department
Bill Hukill, City Engineer ~
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM 195-018
FROM:
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist ~~
Cedar Ridge - Master Plan Modification
TO:
RE:
DATE:
January 13, 1995
The following comments pertain to the existing trees on the entire
site, both single family detached and single family attached areas:
1. a tree survey is required of all trees over 4" diameter
indicating species and size. Exclude exotic, nuisance trees
Australian Pines, Florida Holly. Indicate trees for future
preservation, relocation and replacement (Tree Management
Plan) .
2. survey of fauna (animals) of special concern (e.g. gopher
tortoises) and permit from State Department of Game and Fresh
Water Fish.
3. 50% of lake perimeter to show upland hardwood plantings and
littoral zone plantings (20 foot easement covered).
4. management plan for #3 above placed in Homeowner Association
documents.
The project should continue on the normal review process.
KH:ad
~rno I Ii] ~ ~ \Vi ~ 001 ,\
! 1'\1
I U JAN I 3 raot:) ,U I
~
PLANNING AND
ZONiNG DEPT.
MEMORANDUM
Utilities #95-011
TO: Tambri J. Heyden,
Planning & Zoning
FROM: John A. Guidry,
Director of Utilities
DATE: January 12, 1995
SUBJECT: Cedar Ridge - First Review
Master Plan Modification
Staff has reviewed the above referenced project and offers the following comments:
1. Unobstructed access to utility facilities must be provided. See existing utility
easement near proposed buildings 10, 11 and 12 [Sec. 26.33(a)].
It is our recommendation that the plan proceed through the review process.
If you have any questions regarding this subject, please contact Skip Milor at 375-6407 or Peter
Mazzella at 375-6404.
19b
xc: Clyde "Skip" Milor
Peter Mazzella (~
Mark Law
File
ffi i :~ 3:1, rn
"fi>'~
,-.-~ Pll\NNING AND
7-(:"::,:(' \,,:[I"\";
FROM:
RE:
TO:
DATE:
FIRE PREVENTION MEMORANDUM NO. 95-201 WDC
Planning Department
Fire Department
January 17, 1995
Master Plan Modification
Cedar Ridge
High Ridge Rd (N of Miner Rd)
There are three dead ends in this project where large trucks cannot
maneuver:
1. Between Bldgs 2 & 3; a "T" turn around is the least
acceptable solution.
2. Between Bldgs 6 & 7 i miner change to buildings could
alleviate 30' dead end.
3. Between Bldgs 9 & 10; connect to main road or provide
100' cul-de-sac.
---
~ <! ..
AaL-,f t1u@~0--A~
William D. Cavanaugh, FPO t ~
m ~ n w ~ .~
JAM 1 T 10f"\r i ' '.' j \
. ..' ~,/:"" ~,t.,l ~
, ' ':~->' \
; \
~..~.Jili' l'
P' '''t''I'''' p.T, ../,
7~~::',,\'.;;.;~:~~'~'r "~~-/' ~K>_,g," ,____~'
~,..,...,,.,.,.~~
rn
ENGINEERING MEMO #95-012
DATE: 1/17/95
TO: T A~.BB~RI~ EYDEN, P&Z DIRECTOR
FROM: WjlJJIAM HUKILL, DEV. DIR.
SUBJECT: CEDAR RIDGE, P.U.D, MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION - 1ST REVIEW
The following comments are provided regarding the subject development:
1. Replat the subject site to show all roadways, units, easements, etc. to meet the requirements of
F.S. 177 and city codes.
2. Indicate location of all sidewalk on both sides of streets throughout both developments.
App.C, IX, Sect 11.
3. Provide a master storm water management plan. Obtain re-approval of S.F.W.M.D. for
drainage plan if necessary. App.C, VIII, Sec. 4C.
4. Depict street and pedestrian lighting within the townhouse development similar to that shown
in S.F.R. area.
5. Provide a note indicating that all utilities are available and have been coordinated with all
required utilities. App.C, VIII, Sec.4C (17).
6. Indicate the names of all public and private streets. App.C, VUl, See 4C (8).
7. Indicate all existing easements and their purpose. Sec.4C(9).
8. Drainage inlets shall be installed within grassy areas for pre-treatment of stormwater.
C,X,Sec.5B. Also, show proposed drainage of 80' entrance roadway.
9. NOTE: Ifthe trip generation rates used in the 1991 T.I.A. are different than those used in a
current analysis, then a new T.I.A. should be required rather than an analysis of the old rates in
relationship to the reduced number of units shown in the MTP Group, Inc.letter dated 12/26/94.
KRHlkrh ill mmowrn ill
cedridge.rev
~ I 7199~
PLANNING AND
ONING DEPT.
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Tambri J. Hey.~J~anning and Zoning Dept.
Michael Haag,'Zo~~~g & Site Development Administrator
TO:
DATE:
January 17,
RE:
Cedar Ridge PU - Master Plan Modification
File No. MPMO 94-009
Allow exclusion of 4.85 acres (40.8 acres to 35.95
acres), a reduction in the number of units (197 to 148),
change in type of unit from apartments to attached
single-family units and establishing setbacks for the
attached unit portion of the PUD.
Please be advised of the following comments relative to the review
of the above-referenced request for master plan modification:
1. Wi th a distinguishable symbol, show and dimension on the
master plan a forty (40) foot minimum building setback line
along the west property line of the attached single-family
units portion of the PUD. The forty 40 foot west setback is
required and was approved on the original master plan for the
project. [Appendix B, Section 9.B.]
2. The original master plan specifies that the multi-family
project shall comply with R-3 regulations. Therefore, modify
the plan to show perimeter (around Parcel "0" ) minimum
building setbacks in compliance with R-3 regulations by
showing a forty (40) foot front building setback along the
north edge of Parcel "0" and a forty (40) foot rear setback
along the south property line of the PUD. Also, show a twenty
(20) foot side setback along the east side of Parcel "0" and
both sides of the street that extends into the west portion of
Parcel "0".
NOTE: The objective of this comment is to show, on the plans,
minimum building setbacks for the perimeter of the attached
single-family units portion of the PUO. The perimeter
setbacks are overlay setbacks to the setbacks you are
proposing for the individual lots. The perimeter minimum
building setbacks will supersede the building setbacks for
individual lots.
3. Considering that the original master plan indicates that the
setbacks for the town house project shall comply with R-3
regulations and the detached units comply with the RIA
regulations, it has been determined that the regulations
specified in the zoning code may be applied to the following
structures: screen enclosures, pools (above ground and below
ground), accessory buildings and fences. It is recommended
that you review the zoning code regarding the established
regulations/setbacks for these structures. If your desire is
to establish other regulations, they must be specified on the
plan. For clarification regarding future review of the plans,
it is recommended that notes be added to the plan that
specify, for both the detached and attached projects, what
regulations apply for the aforementioned structures. The
following is an example of a note that may be added to the
master plan: "The setbacks for ..... (list the type of
structure) shall comply with the regulations specified in the
current zoning code". Ensure that each type of structure
listed above has building regulations specifics on the plan.
[Appendix B, Section II.A.]
page 2
memorandum
Cedar Ridge PUO
MPMD 94-009
4. It is recommended that you remove the notation "RIA" and
specify on the plan the minimum building setbacks that were
approved for the detached single-family units. It is also
recommended that you note on the plans the approved maximum
overall height on the detached single-family units. The
approved height is twenty-five (25) feet. For further
clarification, specify on the plan the overall height and the
number of stories for the attached single-family units.
5. Place a note on the master plan that includes the following
information: Each single-family attached and detached unit
shall have two, nine (9) feet wide by eighteen (18) feet long,
parking spaces. Show and label, on the master plan, the
location of the driveway entrance to the required parking
spaces for each town house lot. Also, show and label the
location of the two required parking spaces on the typical
town house lot drawing. [Appendix B, Section 9 C.]
It is recommended that surplus parking be provided for the
attached single-family unit project. History regarding
parking space availability in other similar projects has made
staff believe that guest parking is a necessity. The
additional parking spaces shall include handicapped parking
spaces, in the amount and configuration, specified in the
state handicapped code.
6. The landscaping shown on the master plan does not depict the
attached single-family units project in compliance with the
requirements of the landscape code. Either amend the plans to
show compliance or place a note on the master plan that states
"Landscape plans shall meet the requirements of the landscape
code at time of site plan review for the attached single-
family unit proj ect. The plans will provide code required
landscaping and will not depict landscape material that has
less material than the quantity shown on the master plan".
Add the following note to the master plan: Site plan review
is required for the attached single-family project for parcel
"0", common ground lake planting and other improvements shown
on parcel "C", and common ground landscaping for the detached
single family unit project. The site plan review may be
combined as one site plan review approval or be submitted and
review individually.
7. Show on the master plan landscape material in compliance with
the buffer area screening required by Section 3, Article IX of
Appendix C. The screening is required to buffer the
residential project from the industrial project to the south
and the railroad right-of-way to the east. Modify the master
plan to include the location, quantity, size, spacing and
specie of landscape material required to form the buffer.
[Appendix B, Section 11 B)
page 3
memorandum
Cedar Ridge PUD
MPMO 94-009
NOTE: To facilitate the installation of the entrance
landscape material, show on the master plan the location,
quantity, size, spacing, and specie of proposed landscaping,
including lawn grass. Place the following landscape notes on
the plan:
i. All landscape material will be Florida No. 1 or
better.
ii. All landscape material shall be irrigated with an
automatic water supply system.
iii. All landscape material shall be installed in a
sound workmanlike manner.
iv. 50% of required landscaping shall be a native
species.
v. Clear cross visibility shall be provided at all
required safe sight corners.
8. It is recommended that the proposed project identification
signage and other signs that are proposed to be placed on the
site be shown on the master plan. If you are requesting
entrance sign approval, at this time the signage must be
included with the master plan submittal. The location of the
signage shall be dimensioned on the plan from abutting
property lines. Detail elevation view drawings showing shape,
size, color and type signage is also required along with a
color elevation drawing. I recommended contacting the
Building Department to purchase a sign code to review the sign
regulations.
9. With a distinguishable symbol clearly show and label on the
master plan the property line for Parcel "0", Parcel "C", and
each individual lot for the town house units. [Appendix B,
Section 11 A.]
10. Considering the recreational areas shown on the master plan
are to be used by the residents of both the detached and
attached units show on the plan a pedestrian path that links
both projects to each recreational amenity. [Appendix C,
Article IX, Section II]
11. Specify on the master plan whether the street system for the
entire development is public or private.
12. Replatting is required to reconfigure/subdivide the property.
It is recommended to replat the entire proj ect to vacate
blocks, lots and easements. [Appendix C, Article VI,
Section 1]
13. As discussed at the January 10, 1995 TRC meeting, there will
be a permanent roadway link shown on the master plan that
omits the deadend street between buildings 9 and 10. The new
roadway will connect the attached unit roadway system to the
roadway along the south side of the detached units.
page 4
. memorandum
Cedar Ridge PUD
MPMD 94-009
If you are intending to have a "T" turn-around located west of
buildings 1 and 2 and leave the deadend street between
buildings 6 and 7 you must contact the City Engineer,
regarding the fee and procedure required to apply for a
variance to the streets section of Appendix C, Article X,
Design Requirements, Section 10 O. The Planning Department
will not support the variance request and recommends
compliance with the code by eliminating all deadends. A
solution may be to create a cul-da-sac (meeting City
standards) between buildings 1 and 2 and reconfigure the unit
locations or relocate buildings 6 and 7 to omit the deadend
street. It appears a solution can be made similar to unit
changes you are proposing at building 5. [Appendix C, Article
X, Section 10.0.]
14. A legally constituted maintenance association agreement is
required for improving, perpetually operating, and maintaining
all common facilities; including streets, drives, parking
areas, open space and recreation facilities, where applicable.
These documents are subject to approval of the City'S legal
staff, and required prior to final plat approval. [Appendix
B, Section 11.0. and Appendix C, Article VIII, Section
6.0.12.]
15. Comments regarding phasing construction, of the project, are
forthcoming.
NOTE: The applicant has agreed to resubmit amended Master
Plan drawings on January 19, 1995. The amended plans will be
discussed by staff at the January 24, 1995, Technical Review
Committee Meeting.
MJH/pab
A:...c4rdll.pud
2
'l'HJ\cKING LUG - :- .:"'rE PLAN HDV JEW ~UBM111"1'AL
r.~f:)~~ ),C~ ~m
iV1 As.. ,-1(: iI?_-nA", L) t11 0 ()
N~W SITE PLAN MA~OR
1;'~~"7194- .~riOUN~; : .JI..soO-
t<:'!. I
FILE NU.: t?Jpm c 9'-1-oc
/f:UJ l,:C'l' 'l'l'l'LE:
LJE~CRIP'lIION :
'l'Y PE :
DA'l'E REC I D:
rn';lr: .~'i.,.~N MODIFJCA'I'IJ~i
RECEIP'!' NO. :
* * * * * * * * * * . * * *
*7*
Uc:;>
* * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * *
* *
TWELVE (12) SETS SUBMITTED:
COLORED ELEVATIONS REC'D:
(Pla~s shall be pre-assembled. The Planning & Zoning Dept. will number each
sheet of their set. The Planning Dept. set will be used to check the
remaining sets to ensure the number and type of sheets match.)
* ~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
. Le.. ""-'C..<IZ..--
A~PLICATIOH & SUBMITTAL:
DATE:
ACCEPTED
/Q./.;J. 7/ 9f-
t I
--e.ENIED
DATE:
, "'--
DATE OF LET'rER TO APPLICANT IDENTIFYING SUBMISSION DEFICIENCIES:
2nd SUBMIT'l'AL
ACCEPTED
DENIED
DATE:
DATE:
DATE OF SUBMITTAL ACCEPTANCE LETTER:
REVIEWER'S NAME:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
(Label TRC Departments on each set of plans)
DATE AND MEMO NUMBER OF MEMO SENT TO TRC TO PERFORM INIT~L REVIEW.
1/13 / Is ~~ f(~~~o NUMBER:
, ""YO'
1st REVIEW COMMENTS RECEIVED
DATE SENT: ~
( 0 p,J\tt
(,\2> r
RETURN DATE:
PLANS
Planhinn
Building
Engineer
Engineer
Forester
~
MEMO I; / DATE / "c"
/ /
Cf4-O(5) ~ ~fF-
S" -0 I 2- ~-4-d--/
/ -r/;?;-/
1~-oI8' /~/r-
DATE OF MEETING: I
utile
P.W.
Parks
'I'YPE OE'
DATE OF LETTER SENT TO APPLICANT IDENTIFYING TRC REVIEW COMMENTS:
(Aesthetic Review APP" dates of board mtgs. & checklist sent out wi comments)
NINETY DAY CALENDAR DATE WHEN APPLICATION BECOMES NULL AND VOID:
DATE 12 COMPLETE SETS OF AMENDED PLANS SUBMITTED FOR 2nd REVIEW: I~~/~
(Must be assembled. Reviewer shall accept amended plans & support dOcuments)
COLORED ELEVATIONS REC I D:
J~ ,.,ffi/
TRC ~O PERFORM 2nd REVIEW. ~
11.:k> /9.s- MEMO # :-rR-c.. A~/)/.J / t/hR'F.TURN
I I / I r--
2nd REVIEW RECOMMENDATION/DENIAL
DATE:
1~7 /~---
/ /
MEMO SENT TO
DA'llE SENT:
Utile
P.W.
Parks
E'ire
Police
MEMO I; I ~"T~1../"R"D"
<1~-o37/~/ ~H)
/ /
/ /
/ /
90S -b /I 1:./ I/dt.} / lL-
I
TO APPLICANT REGARDING TRC APPROVAL/DENIAL AND
AT THE PROPERTY DATE SENT/SIGNS INSTALLED:
PfNS
PLANS
MEMO I;
~
Do
9.s-o V6
/ DATE /"R/D"
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ / / -.
/ 'b7 fCft:r/ (a,1h"Vl
, t
Planning
Building
Engineer
Engineer
Forester
LETTER
PLA.CED
LAND DEVELOPMENT SIGNS
SCHEDULE OF BOARD MEETINGS: PAD
CC/CRA
DATE APPROVAL LETTER SENT:
A:T7<.ACKING.SP
7.A.l.
CEDAR RIDGE ESTATES PUD
MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 95-045
TO: Chairman and Members
Planning and Development Board
FROM: Tambri J. HeYden~/'
Planning and Zoni~rector
DATE: February 9, 1995
SUBJECT: Cedar Ridge Estates PUD - File No. MPMD 94-009
Revised density, acreage, unit type, layout, setbacks
and roads
INTRODUCTION
Dennis Koehler, agent for Condor Investments of Palm Beach
County, Inc., owner of Cedar Ridge Estates PUD, is requesting
approval to modify the previously approved master plan for the
Cedar Ridge Estates PUD, as described in the attached report
(Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 95-026). The
Cedar Ridge Estates PUD is located on the east side of High Ridge
Road, approximately 800 feet north of Miner Road.
RECOMMENDATION
At the February 7, 1995, City Commission meeting, the City
Commission unanimously made a finding of no substantial change
regarding the modifications requested. Staff made a
recommendation that the request be approved subject to the
attached staff comments (Utilities Department Memorandum No. 95-
037, Engineering Division Memorandum No. 95-026, Recreation and
Parks Department Memorandum No. 95-040, Recreation and Parks
Department Memorandum No. 95-048 and Planning and Zoning
Department Memorandum, dated February 2, 1995). Due to
agreements that had been reached between Mr. Koehler and staff
prior to the City Commission, staff withdrew comments 13 and 16
from the February 2, 1995, planning and Zoning Department
memorandum at the City commission meeting.
The City Commission included in their motion, approval of all
staff comments with several exceptions and setting of a land
value of $30, 380.67 per acre, for the purpose of calculating the
recreation and parks fee to be paid. The deleted comments are
described as follows:
1. Recreation and Parks Department Memorandum No. 95-048,
comment 3.A -
In lieu of staff's recommended timing for payment of the
recreation and parks fee for the 34 single family homes, to
which Mr. Koehler disagreed, the the Commission agreed to
payment in cash of the value of .612 acres of land, on a
pro-rata basis, at time of applying for a building permit
for construction of one of the 34 single family homes.
However, if application for building permits for each single
family home has not been made within 18 months of planning
and Development Board approval of the master plan
modification, the balance of the value of .612 acres of land
shall be paid in cash.
2. Recreation and Parks Department Memorandum No. 95-048,
comment 3.B (clarification, not deletion) .-
This comment was recommended for approval with the
clarification that compliance with this comment shall take
place prior to final plat approval of the townhouse section.
/
TO: Planning & Development Board
-2-
February 9, 1995
3. planning and Zoning Department memorandum, dated February 2,
1995, comment 8 -
The Commission recommended allowing a T-turn around at the
terminus of the street between building 2 and 3, rather than
requiring a cul-de-sac, as is required by code. The
commission felt the number of units served by this street is
too insignificant to require a cul-de-sac, which in turn
would have necessitated a redesign and most likely loss of
units.
4. Planning and Zoning Department memorandum, dated February 2,
1995, comment 13 -
staff requested withdrawal of this comment, since
verification of the purchase price of the property had been
supplied prior to the Commission meeting.
5. Planning and Zoning Department memorandum, dated February 2,
1995, comment 16 -
staff requested withdrawal of this comment to yield to the
Building Official, who will coordinate and ascertain with
the utilities Department what improvements must be completed
by the developer in order to pull a building permit for a
single family home.
Therefore, it is recommended that the Planning and Development
Board finalize the land value at $30,380.67 per acre, approve
this request subject to utilities Department Memorandum No. 95-
037, Engineering Division Memorandum No. 95-026, Recreation and
Parks Memorandum No. 95-040, comments 1-7, 9-12, 14, 15, 17-19 of
the Planning and Zoning Department memorandum dated February 2,
1995 and comments 1, 2, 3C and 4 of Recreation and Parks
Memorandum No. 95-048. In addition, it is recommended that the
Board approve the following with respect to this request:
a} payment in cash of the value of .612 acres of land, on
a pro-rata basis, at time of applying for a building
permit for construction of one of the 34 single family
homes. However, if application for building permits
for each single family home has not been made within 18
months of Planning and Development Board approval of
the master plan modification, the balance of the value
of .612 acres of land shall be paid in cash.
b} compliance with comment 3.B of Recreation and Parks
Memorandum No. 95-048, prior to final plat approval of
the townhouse section.
tjh
Attachments
xc: Central File
A:CRidgMPM
~
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 95-026
Agenda Memorandum for
February 7, 1995 city Commission Meeting
FROM:
Carrie Parker
Ci~ Ma~ag~er .
- ~"b/'''7,.t0L' o'dd~dCL~,
"'if&ffi: r1 J. ~y en;/
Planning and Zoning Director
TO:
DATE:
February 2, 1995
SUBJECT:
Cedar Ridge Estates PUD - File No. MPMD 94-009
Revised density, acreage, unit type, layout, setbacks and
roads
NATURE OF REQUEST
Dennis P. Koehler, agent for Condor Investments of Palm Beach
County, Inc., owner of Cedar Ridge Estates PUD, has requested
modifications to the previously approved master plan for the Cedar
Ridge Estates PUD. The 40.8 acre residentially- zoned property,
approved for 197 dwelling units (45 single-family, detached units
and 152 multi-family units) is located on the east side of High
Ridge Road, approximately 800 feet north of Miner Road. The
following changes are proposed (see Exhibit A - proposed master
plan) :
1. Delete from the PUD, the acreage encompassing lots 35 -
45 (a decrease of 11 single- family units), associated
streets and a jogging trail located in the northeast
corner of the PUD.
2. Eliminate a 6 foot high wall along the majority of the
south property line of the land proposed for mul ti- family
development; the property line between the pun and the
High Ridge Commerce Park PID to the south (platted, but
undeveloped) .
3. Change the internal road system from public to private.
4. Increase the overall height of the units proposed for the
34 single-family lots from 25 feet to 35 feet.
5. Establish a 10 foot corner side building setback for the
single-family lots located along north side of Forest
Road instead of the previously approved 12.5 feet. (Note:
For the single-family lots the previously approved 7.5
interior side setback and 25 foot front and rear setbacks
will remain unchanged.)
6. Change the multi-family unit portion of the project from
152 rental apartments to 110, fee simple, townhouse lots.
The minimum lot size proposed is 24 feet wide by 95 feet
long. Each unit will have a minimum footprint of 1,200
square feet and an overall height of 35 feet
7. Establish a 20 foot perimeter building setback along the
north side of the multi-family project instead of the
previously approved 40 feet. (Note: The previously
approved 20 foot east, and 40 foot south and west
perimeter setbacks will remain unchanged.)
8. Establish the following minimum setbacks for the
townhouse lots:
Minimum building setbacks;
Front
Rear
Side interior
side enc1 unit
- 25 feet
- 20 feet
o feet
- 10 feet
.3
Page 2
Memorandum No. 95-026
Cedar Ridge Estates PUD
File No. MPMD 94-009
Minimum pool and screen enclosure setbacks:
Front
Rear
Side interior
Side end unit
- 25 feet
5 feet
o feet
- 10 feet
9. Establish the following five required recreation
amenities for the PUD:
a) meeting hall
b) swimming pool
c) jogging trail
d) childrens' play area
e) turf play field
The following supplemental recreation amenities, which do
not qualify towards private recreation credit, are to be
provided: family picnic area and two horse shoe pits.
10. Provide required buffer area landscaping along the south
property line of the PUD and a limited access easement
along the east property line. Install lake plantings
around the water management tract. Install entranceway
landscaping. (Note: The required improvements associated
with the townhouse project such as an internal street
system, parking spaces for the each unit, recreation
facilities, and site landscaping will be shown on the
site plan review submittal required for the development
of the townhouse project.)
BACKGROUND
The Cedar Ridge Estates PUD is property that was annexed into the
City and zoned PUD in October 1982. The master plan approved with
the annexation and zoning of the PUO, depicted a 197 unit, 40.8
acre project. The project included 45 single-family lots that were
to be developed in compliance with the R1A zoning district bUilding
and site regulations, a jogging trail (north of the lots along the
railroad R-O-W), a 4.51 acre water management area, a single
ingress/egress off of High Ridge road, a public, internal street
system and 13.43 acres for development of 152 multi-family units.
The multi-family units were to be built in compliance with the R-3
zoning district building and site regulations. The multi-family
development was to include recreation amenities in addition to the
jogging trail located along the railroad right-of-way north of the
single-family lots (see Exhibit "B" - approved master plan).
The PUD project is bordered by the following zoning districts and
land uses:
North - R1AA, single-family residential, developed for
private school use (Lake Worth christian School)
East - Seaboard Airline Railroad and farther east, I-95
South - High Ridge Park PlO, undeveloped industrial lots
West - High Ridge Road and farther west, single-family
homes and vacant land in unincorporated Palm
Beach County
In August of 1983, the plat for Cedar Ridge PUD was approved. The
plat included, public streets, 45 single-family lots, Parcel "AII-
.11 acre of land located at the north side of the PUO entrance off
of High Ridge Road, Parcel IIBII - 1.65 acres of land for a jogging
trail located nOl-th of the single-family lots, Parcel IICII - a 4.51
~
Page 3
Memorandum No. 95-026
Cedar Ridge Estates PUD
File No. MPMD 94-009
acre water management tract and Parcel "0" 13.43 acres for
development of 152 multi-family units. The infrastructure approved
with the plat (ie: roads, drainage, water and sewer service) have
not been fully completed or accepted by the city. Construction
ceased in approximately 1986. The property was taken over by the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as manager of the
FSLIC Resolution Fund, as receiver for the Sunrise Savings and Loan
Association and Sun-op, Inc. Sunrise Savings and Loan was the
lending institution for the original developer.
No activity has occurred on the property since 1986. In January
1993, the current owner, Condor Investments, purchased the property
from the FDIC. Cedar Ridge Development Corporation has a contract
with Condor Investments to develop the property.
Prior to construction ceasing, a master plan modification was
approved in February 1984, to change the water management tract,
Parcel "C", from a dry retention area to a lake. In February 1985,
a site plan for a 152 unit apartment project was approved. The
site plan for the apartments depicted two story buildings, parking
spaces and associated landscaping. The plan also included the
following recreation facilities: picnic area, playground, meeting
hall, swimming pool and jogging trail. The jogging trail was not
located on the apartment project, but rather off-site on Parcel
"B". Construction of the apartment project never commenced and the
site plan approval expired.
ANALYSIS
The procedure for processing master plan modifications is set forth
in Section 12 of Appendix B, Planned Unit Developments, of the code
of ordinances and states:
Section 12. Changes in plans.
"Changes in plans approved as a part of the zoning to PUD
may be permitted by the planning and zoning board upon
application filed by the developer or his successors in
interest, prior to the expiration of the PUD
classification, but only [after] a finding that any such
change or changes are in accord with all regulations in
effect when the change or changes are requested and the
intent and purpose of the comprehensive plan in effect at
the time of the proposed change. Substantial changes
shall be proposed as for a new application of PUD zoning.
The determination of what constitutes a substantial
change shall be within the sole discretion of the city
commission. Nonsubstantial changes as determined by the
city commission in plans shall not extend the expiration
of the eighteen month approval for the PUD
classification."
Staff has reviewed this request for consistency with the PUD
development st3nda~~~. and the intent and purpose of planned unit
developments, as stated in the following sections of Appendix B,
Planned Unit Development, of the code of ordinances:
Section 1. Intent and purpose.
"A Planned Unit Development District (PUD) is
established. It is intended that this district be
utilized to promote efficient and economical land use,
improved amenities, appropriate and harmonious variety in
physical development, creative design, improved living
environment, orderly and economical development in the
city, and the protection of adjacent and existing and
future city development. The district is suitable for
~
Page 4
Memorandum No. 95-026
Cedar Ridge Estates PUD
File No. MPMD 94-009
development, redevelopment, and conservation of land,
water and other resources of the city.
Regulations for planned unit developments are intended to
accomplish the purposes of zoning, subdivision
regulations, and other appl icable city regulations to the
same degree that they intended to control development on
a' lot-by-Iot basis. In view of the substantial public
advantages of planned unit development, it is the intent
of PUD regulations to promote and encourage development
in this form where tracts suitable in size, location, and
character for the uses and structures proposed are to be
planned and developed as unified and coordinated units."
Section 9.A. Access.
"Every dwelling unit, or other use permitted in the PUD,
shall have access to a public street either directly or
via an approved private road, pedestrian way, court, or
other area dedicated to public or private use, or common
element guaranteeing access. Permitted uses shall be
required to front on a dedicated public road. II
Section 9.B. Internal Lots and Frontage.
"Wi thin the boundaries of the PUD, no minimum lot size or
minimum yards shall be required, provided, however, that
PUD frontage on dedicated public roads shall observe
front yard requirements in accordance with the zoning
district the PUD use most closely resembles and that
peripheral yards abutting other zoning districts shall be
the same as required in the abutting zone."
Regarding the proposed changes, the reduction of the total number
of units from 197 to 144 (a deletion of 53 units) will decrease the
impact on traffic, water and sewer services generated from the
project. The resulting density is less than the maximum density
permitted by the Low Density Residential land use designation on
the property, allowing up to 4.84 dwelling units per acre. The PUD
master plan/rezoning was approved at 4.83 units per acre.
With the recording of the plat, the PUD is exempt from concurrency
for traffic levels of service. Since the proposed modification
resul ts in a decrease in traffic impact, traffic from the PUD
remains concurrency exempt from current traffic requirements and
levels of service.
With regards to the proposed setbacks for the single-family lots
and the lot sizes and setbacks proposed for the multi-family
townhouse lots, those proposed are no less than the setbacks and
lot sizes approved by the city Commission for other similar
proj ects wi thin the City. The most recent approval by the
Commission of a proj~rr ~;~;'~r to the townhouses proposed within
Cedar Ridge Estates is Quail Run Villas.
The proposal to change the internal street system from public to
private ownership and maintenance is acceptable to staff, based on
the future desire to privatize the entrance to the PUD. However,
a security gate/gatehouse has not been formally included with this
submittal. Replatting or abandonment will be necessary to vacate
the internal streets.
Al though the buffer wall along the south PUD property I ine is
proposed to be deleted, the code requires a six foot high wall
where an industrial district, such as the undeveloped, pro to the
south, abuts a residential district. It is preferred to have the
,
Page 5
Memorandum No. 95-026
Cedar Ridge Estates PUD
File No. MPMD 94-009
wall constructed on the PUD property so that the entire length of
the wall will be constructed at one time. However, walls are
usually placed on industrial property. Since, the PID property has
been platted into lots, the wall can be constructed within the PID,
incrementally, lot by lot and since all the lots are vacant, site
plan review will be required, at which time review of the wall can
occur.
Regarding the buffer area landscaping and littoral zone landscaping
proposed, a conceptual landscape plan and littoral zone plantings
were not required when the 1982 master plan was approved. Since
modifications are requested to the master plan, current codes are
to be applied.
After considerable negotiation between staff and the applicant, the
type, location and size of recreation facilities proposed for Cedar
Ridge Estates are acceptable to qualify for 50% credit towards the
required recreation fees for the PUD (see Exhibit "C" for staff
comments; specifically Recreation and Parks Memorandum No. 95-048,
comment #2). staff has also attempted to reach a compromise with
the applicant regarding amount of payment, form of payment and time
of payment for the remaining 50% of the required recreation fees
and timing of completion of the private recreation.
The property was platted over 10 years ago without all the required
improvements being completed and accepted by the city. The bonds
that were posted for these improvements have expired and the bond
company no longer is in existence. Therefore, staff's
recommendation to address the issue of recreation and completion of
other required improvements is specific and unique to this project
and not able to be compared to any other case within the city.
At the time of filing the 1983 plat, a bond, not cash, was
collected for 110% of the recreation fees (minus 50% credit for
private recreation) owed for all units within the PUD. No other
approvals are required prior to the applicant applying for a
building permit for the single-family lots. However, based on the
type of units now proposed for the multi-family section of the PUD,
replatting is required for the multi-family section of the PUD and
plat (townhouses require further platting, but rental apartments do
not) . Therefore, the issue of how, how much and what time the
unpaid recreation fees are to be paid, must be readdressed and is
being done as part of review of this request.
Normally, land value, for purposes of calculating recreation fees
owed, is set by the Planning and Development Board at time of
preliminary plat approval. However, as previously mentioned,
further replatting is not necessary to construct the single family
homes and the fair market value of the land used to post the
recreation bond in 1983, no longer reflects the current fair market
value of the land.
Pursuant to a comprehensive plan policy, private recreation must be
provided due to the number of unit~ ~~:~osed; greater than 100 and
this recreation must be accessible to all units within the PUD,
regardless of whether there is a mixture of units or phasing.
Since private recreation is a required improvement, it must be
constructed within 21 months of plat approval and concurrently with
the construction of other required improvements. Also, for
purposes of maintaining unified control within a PUD and
safeguarding against parts of platted land never being built out or
becoming dormant for long periods of time, mixtures of unit types
cannot be treated as separate projects, and only that portion of
the PUD that the developer proposes to develop within 21 months is
to be platted. In addition, by state law and the city's
Concurrency Management Ordinance, no development order or permit
1
Page 6
Memorandum No. 95-026
Cedar Ridge Estates PUD
File No. MPMD 94-009
can be issued unless there are adequate facilities (such as
recreation) available to serve the proposed development or unless
the development order or permit is conditioned on the availability
of public facilities concurrent with the impacts of development.
In consideration of the foregoing facts and the circumstances
related to the status of the Cedar Ridge Estates PUD, staff
recommends the following compromise to address the remaining 50% of
the recreation fee and the private recreation:
1. Rather than paying the full 50% of the recreation fee for
all units within the PUD and paying this fee in cash at
time of pulling a building permit for the single family
units, a bond can be accepted for 110% of the recreation
fee owed for all the single family units in order to pull
a bUilding permit. The fee would be 100%, with no credit
for private recreation at this time, of the amount owed
for just the single family units. The bond would become
a lien on the property and would be paid upon issuance of
the first certificate of occupancy or the transfer of
title to any parcel or unit of the land or improvements
thereto. (Cash at time of building permit, rather than
a bond, has been the standard for years for payment of
recreation fees, however the option is available, per
code, and was the method accepted by the City when Cedar
Ridge Estates platted in 1983.)
2. Master plans are valid for only 18 months and master plan
modifications do not extend the life of a master plan.
Hence, an expiration must be set for the requested
master plan modification, which would ensure that the
private recreation located in the multi-family section of
the PUD is constructed to serve the impact of the single
family units that would be completed or partially
completed, prior to the construction commencement of the
multi-family section. Therefore, it is recommended that
the master plan modification expire 18 months from the
date of its approval by the city Commission, in the event
an application for replatting of the mul ti-family section
has not been submitted or an application for site plan
approval has not submitted or a time extension has not
been filed or a subsequent master plan modification
application has not been submitted.
3. At time of filing a final plat application for the multi-
family section, the balance of the recreation fee will be
paid in cash or a bond for 110% of the balance of the
recreation fee will be posted (for the same reasons
stated in #1 above, a bond, in lieu of cash, is
acceptable for payment of the fee, unless otherwise
stipulated by the City Commission). The balance of the
recreation fee will be computed allowing 50% credit for
private recreation and crediting 50% of the cash paid at
time of the first certificate of """'~":::,ancy for a single
family unit within the pun (crediting 50% of the cash
paid would be allowed, since private recreation would be
secured at time of replatting).
Regarding setting the fair market land value for purposes of
calculating the recreation fee, in 1983 the City accepted the value
of the land as $25,535.76 an acre. According to the 1994 tax roll,
if the assessed values of single family lots 1 - 34, parcel "A",
parcel "C" (drainage lake), parcel "Oil (multi-family tract) and the
.18 acre abandoned right-of-way are totalled and divided by the
total acreages of these areas (27.51 acres) within the PUD, the
assessed value is $44,268.56 per acre. The applicant states that
based on a January 1993 purchase price of $2,075,000 for a total of
S'
Page 7
Memorandum No. 95-026
Cedar Ridge Estates PUD
File No. MPMD 94-00i
68.3 acres (this includes the PID property to the south, as well as
the PUD), the value is $30,380.67 per acre. staff has reviewed the
1992, 1993 and 1994 tax rolls and there has been no change in the
assessed value of the PUD, yet no verification of the purchase
price was received (usually a copy of the purchase contract, at
minimum, is required). The code states that if an applicant
objects to the fair market value determination, he may at his own
expense, obbain an appraisal of the property by a qualified real
estate appraiser, approved by the city, which appraisal may be
accepted by the City, if found reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION
The requested modifications will not adversely affect neighboring
properties and are a decrease in traffic, water and sewer impacts.
Therefore, it is staff's recommendation that the city commission
make a finding of no substantial change with respect to the
requested modifications and to forward this request to the planning
and Development Board with a recommendation to approve, subject to
the attached staff comments (utilities Department Memorandum #95-
037, Engineering Division Memorandum #95-026, Recreation and Parks
Department Memorandum #95-040, Recreation and Parks Memorandum #95-
048 and Planning and Zoning Department memorandum, dated February
2, 1995).
tjh
Attachments
xc: central File
C:CC95026.mem
?
LV\JA I IVI\) IvtAfJ
CE-)AR RIDGE ES-~,--\TES
L lUlliJ~ J L~____-J l_ J l --'
IT U~,._ ' r f (IPE' c;r).]~jfJ-'~ ~iflllrWI
fJ I _ I /./,I~ 1r i: I D \dY':~ ~;
.... ~ =: ,-1_>- J_Lill.11
.' , lli..:..lJ- _I-"
11 t rff'-? == 1.-;;'
\ 1 1 ~(rA;
I ' ~); .:
I: "I r T ~ i JJ]~-I~ ~
.: 11 ,"" ~ ~ [f '\ ,rff."8Br:n1
./ ' f'-. ../1 ,,'-~,l ~ tf:1:: r..:i ~ J~tf
:, : "'11 ._ Q: M!, '" - 'OY~ :;-- '-: r.
", ': __ .._------~... C~~ I :Y;(~JI-- --:'- i
.. \ ;;....-_ _--- 1111 '-I ",.i, ,,' ,,~. ~' , << -- -
:. '\:::....= =.-- --- I ~ 'F' I hF~> .->- - .."
'\. ".' i : __~\\\ ' . \ \ ,',~ C \ '\" \ \' } lU ,:,,-:,~=;,>-' '
j,' <,;' :-~ \. "l" ~L, I ( ,Ii 1 / ~ 1'0Iffi~!lHLttr
r--' ~~..,l~ 1l- .l'.-~~~ tamrl~(~" .~:"
'\ ==.____ R1AA' R 3 . ~ - '/> .-\.; .ll1~::J L L
':, _-;' , I' J'.l; f ~ 7 n ilf'linlJ'C':':';
. ... ,=-~" : IT ~~, ;'l'"r ~ T; IJ-' TI!lillE)("~~;'
-,::, '\ ~.t -\l- ~ ~."'-/'. ; ',J, " tr " : i ~{Wmlv
~ ~ III 1 "If' \ t ,- '111''1\' ~TIT':~
~ YV ~ ~l \ ;l1 .1.- .r \;/~I :. '\ ~ --.~ ,II i i 1\ .111'\ 1:.--::
,\ ("11::11-' _ .,~ ~,EL.... _ . \ nl, , ~11l-1 I \ ~ ';< ~i'''' l~~]\:\~,:
" . >- \ !,i\~l~~~' :ii' ILiJi
--- \ ~ . ~,r;> "':'i11l ~\ti m E'~,'
I I "','.. ~ ;,-1, 111,1 ITl rn '..;;; ,Fl,' ~_:: ';: I.
~ ~ 1\11'1 ., '(f"/ '" "'.... .-..' -.J, ~1 -- tL PU '
~L-- -'j. .' ,C1rV.J _.'1 . .lr .
j~1r~\t, Iff ~ It!f/ i,' If q \. l \ 11 r'^, ,\1
_ "f-, ~~ -:~\ ~ - t.l II' ~ . i ,II 11 k
\ __ ~l. ~w:- ~ J-.....~ ~\ :: . A--: T" tt ..no \ \" .\:.' 1 ~.-l
"it ': '>- M ,i ;="~'-- r:: ~
_ \~~ ~ :: l ~ i~-1,. t ric[' ~,\ c
R1.^ _'" .. /1'.. ~ J i~ 1 i fi?'lS ~.... L'.. .
_ ___________ I /\ "-__~_-= J" -l. ' _ \ 1\ - ~-'/ t ~.1 \iE~ l ~., ~ L..J
___ r ' 1::\' LS:-It' IR I :
L---\ _-' 11 ~ ,\ "r ~ L liL "" ' ~
r ---=-- ~"D::iij:; .-,-, L&.l.. .' I rr--
P "I' - { =::1 ~I ";]~r-" "
.,,:<,> c 'i.,' r~ '. ;: c i- .~' ., .
. . ~ ! '\ .1' '2~' ~I ~-~ ---- -. i-' ~'11T -l~ L
~ ~ -J .I 11' . . Jt-A . - 1-- ~ _....L-- I....,j,.,c LLJ- ,-.-II
. lLES(' ,,\ ' i'r ,. - / ;c.. 1 TIl \ \ 1\ ,II
O. 1/8 M ." " ,;, ---- I:E -.';" I 111 ,--..
\ \ \ \ \ I \ . '-!L/ jW/ -~'\t 1, \ \~~~ _'~';,~
'0 4')0,'800 FEET ~ R C ~T\\ I _~ \. _C-.
\ PLANAlINF. Dr;..pr; 2.-'~ 'I' J .~~\ \}~- 11'1 '- .' L- ,
::~...:J: ;~HH / .--:;-::. / k-:-., f'llI, /I I \ " Y'.)u:,LU;~~X'ITrn
1 rJ ~ E I-' Y ,I.... -- - < - .
___JI
-~pl~~\ __
LU: .
11- - ~'.-r - ~-n-'-r
i;; 'I~I --
~o ~ ....- If
fAI~~~ E..-t ,"" 'V
rI" \ I
\
~f
"\
NOT
IN
I CITY
EXHIBIT "Air
#
ffi II!IIS llUI 3:
>
.. .. . 'Iif en
-i
.... m
0 i.... Hi :0
ilt I . "
'"Tl & .. ~ i
..
;.e ~ r
.... . ; >
z
;i · --II---.-----.----~i-
------ :s Ii - _~I~~_~'::~E_ t;!c.~.? _ _ _;-.~;__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ :-- _ __ _ __
. - ~ - I I . ~ Ii," 0 I t;\ 0 I i(!) I t ~
0- - - ~I :: - -' ill; d \I ' ~ I \.!I , ~ I """ ! ~!'I! _. au2
iD::~:~=:~.I:.~'il. G /C', ' , I ~ G;l
. .. - . . . I ... ..~,. // ,....-_ _--::-- ..,
0'- -- -=~ ~~~ -~ :~~;f ~ : '.'~. ..;r;;~_--~-- : I"., @ ja
c - - - .~.:' 'C:..., - : . i . ~ I / () < /.'. > I @ Ii:i\' <3 '. .'
(1'"\ - - - -) , . ..H I,j) '. . .. / I.. (';\ 1 'V , 13
-. - - -~i~ - _.~. "-i 0.,..-:<:~rl":1' ~~-==:::!;-:: :.~ ':, \V, I.JI "J~
- - .- 1. ~ ,~ .... - - :...~- ~I:'~- '. ' , 1 -j _ _ _ _ _ ~
. -. - -.=~~,:;.:<..-. ..::,==-"'=OO;=;=;~.=-.:;,...,.- '<...:.-" .r- -1- - - 1 ~
-"\ ~.~ ~'. ~. --?;.:.;t-~~ .:~a.-=.u:::"':'-::=-T- -~. -. ~", '. /' I I I tiO\ / I
- ~ .- .;;~~ ...... ;;, '/ ,_c-=n = I : . ,:....:.- . ': ~' . -..:< Ca\ r.;, I r->\ \!.I ,-
- I~'l:f::";.."<'" ~. ,;, . ' , )" I.i.. '. .~. ,~'\'\\ ~ I \!I 0 I /
-----~~rr~.. =~,~.=:tt~-.,,:-....1 (If@]- ;. -'.' '~" ;u~ .; .~ .,\\\ I I .;-'-. ,@',
i~ r"'-':'-="-~ .~I!- - _0 ..I. ! II :.~.' '''1.' ....:. . . t' _t --.- ..J.__.::,.....::.=:.:..:" I
-Uii!- IlL I .......~+-. "".--'1- T . \.
'Il~ 11-'. ~Ii~.:: _ ~~ ~!~\ L,,-- f(: ;}}'/If,,''>' - _ i> ~ _= l:~=-"~ ~__ /:- _ __ ~
(, ~~' {.~ : - =--~:)S~.. -- jW ,I If =1 /~.! ''''0 Ii. il !;(-i".-T----~:...:~:::::>. @I
.c!~---- r- - - 'lI:-~:' .ld II: :f.ul~i-- - ~ -I, 1:1 ~ ' un
tJj; (1)','1- - -- :~+-- @ I ..l.._..;..;_....~:::::.: D I' m.~ fTI) (::, (~ n
f~ Kt~.. ,-- - - ~3' ," ,----~:~:~ '" '\ . ~ ,~~ ~ ~ .:I 11 t
~ ~I! I .. '-. -.--- l----- , I ' I ;:
~ ! I - - @:::J '~.-.c=-."'lIiI"= --;r- ~~ ~. ! 1 .:. . '( _ I ..
~I '. - -:-.. P--:-::.:==-=- -=....:::.-.-~~~::: ~,: . II ; 1- -s - I
., I ,L.:-";;'---7i "'1 . I . , . I ,'/ '-::. - ~~ ...... . ( .' lJ
~'I l 'I ~ / ::!11 .,1 f:::J" :.,:<~~:~~-.: G;r~ (i> G> <ID
. I I ,'. . J ~'" -.- - ( . I ... j
~ I ~I 1(/ -.':'" -I -'....: ~..., ~ " ~ _ _ _ @
, , I I I I", _-.
,,': ~. I, il !I' ! 01 N' '0 - . . _bl_~.:~~_.~~~~;~~--~f:~--..
.. (I - J.' '\ I ' . .. - _. I _ 'I . _ _ . ___
... .;.,IIT::,<_~:~?:b:;:_:~-,.~~>,. ',,' '. I : " . --. - ..----- :~:..
,:.~') r- ", . . !:~':~_:::~'" ~: ''::O-_~;>'' : ~i I'
: (~lDl\ I[ ... q '. >:';< .s ~'~.<. '. 'i~' i: (j~ th) '~
.. I J ~"":'''"?~'..~ ~". .' '"
, I, Si1 ' ~ .'1 N"'~. ~ 't _ _'_ _ . '
-' CJ!:~ --..; .";' _ G: _' '. ....J..; t:. :~~- ~ :, ~~~ ~~ ~:: "I'
1.\\2;' . --1 ~' . -.. I j: - . -- -. t. - ~
;~~ ~':'~~~~~i~.... . '~ I :iht
; ...fI!,~ ,. I"i~ '~.' /' . - ,5;1 ~ "<... (~ LJ
.1"..)';0', I. I ~,!,_~;._._".
~tt;r"~H ~' - ;g . .~~ . ~ ~ . _ :q
:.,.l-l:tll'i :1)
t~~.'~~ti~ I. l ~ I !... I
'l!Ji;3"'~ :9 9,',l.N.l ,~~ }+' ~ ?
~~!'I~~~" I'~'~' " ,1.. .} I :.Il 1\
;~ !~"!. ..:-. k l' li I .K / " p
: r' I I~~ :, 'il ~ l ~! ~ ~ I nli l~
i I.... , p' I ~ I i ,~ 1
' I ! < l i ~ ~:. . .:. I I
.\.::'; i'li~ /../ ',I
I ., , I , , .
'I" ., . .... I "
I .~~ .._ .....". ..' ". ., '/ ___ I
I'. .~..... .;.....':.'~:~....~~~~..::-:'....~.:.. '-.~...' : \... ''': ~ o. .L_ - - -~_.. -- - - -.. - -- - - - - - _. - - I'
' ,'" ...'", . ,,,....... I!' . _ _ _ _ .... I ... ____ ..
,'';.''.'' 7';'!~",."~'''' ----...-....... , ;-.----~...-!:.!.L:J,~
,=- _. ~_.- .. I --"'-_,
C"..I: ;.:.o~::c:: ... Ci! _ _ ""C_ _ ..J__ :: \1 \: .. _ __ _ _ __ ..
.. ---- : ~ '. ::/ \!
~~"dl : "- -., -- - - -.c- "'" - - - ---"_ ~ ..
I. ="....... J -." .. - _ _ _ _. :
..
,-~ t ii !hIrI/II1,I! ~, I u~ ~ !L4Iilil\;I~it~i Ullll.lW'lli11: ~
~ ~~'. ~ Iwu. U:"j i. .~ f ~Mi5 ~( ] II . -: ~ ~ I ~if~!IJl,~~tf.I~~! ~ J III ~I
· '" r. ~ I . H (\ & 1.3 .. ~ i ~ ~. \) ~, .1' ..f ~ Z
~c-..~..."I!..!!!L.. - I I.) I I, -.. k" ,,~ d;;I"~ :~ 1 ~:: ~
' · I I I.... 'I :: t... t Q ~I '1 Hr.~ f~ ti
' . : ,~ .... II ':.u..~' 1 ! ~I HI.~' t~~ i tU ft ~
WI. . ....,.. . -I r~ t iu ~ "'~".. gl
..,.....,. ." , L t ll. ~ '~~8..nls JJdr~:
j ~ ~ , ,),)'fikkr,ikk~P n
LAND.~
DESIGN ~
SOUTH 'i!
LaI1Clsc:Qle~/~
I
I
I~
CID
I
"
I'.
"
~
,.
'.
..
Ii
\I
r
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
. a ~
; L I!
,- i
. ~
It)
CEDAR RIDGE
PREPARED FOR JOE BASILE
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLOAIDA~
PROPOSED
II
EXHIBIT "8"
(...."NQ tiORal fA""
COUNty -HI.
U7"
<t.
i
.
$1
'I i
I !
I
I I
i ;
;
I I
~
I! .
.
..' w
..~ ;;
!!~
, ; I
ig
- ...--..---. ~ ----- .._- --....-. .-
i!.~;!.~
l-x;Bi
?i:i!:
. .. .. !. ; ~
= i ... - ..
: i .:
~
"
,;;I ..
q .. !
.. "
i !'
.. i
..
..
...
;; .
. . _--.; __~ ~ ~--: . ~ 10
= ~ ~= ~S~;board Ak L~;R~ri~~d' = = ~~ = = == = = ~ = ____=0'
HIGH AIDOE IUliOIV'I'ON
PL.... BOOM II P"OI t
cou..n ."1.
.
1..... '. ........ ....-.. ... ,...- L....
-..- .O"A/W
....,.. IOf iiiviNo
"
~
.
~
::
1 '" ~'Dt' .... ..
J ":&9-' .e'I60~ '~"lSQQ_(D-:-'(f.' d9"61~!:
: "l
. !
. .. J
~ _'" ;-'1'
: ~-
i ".C
~ C"> r~ S "'0
~ g )- 6
! n ~ . ,- .,p. Z .., :u r-o .... "
" III . ..r-' C ~ II <"0 '< Dl
tl
. '0 ' \ .. :j' 3 0 n S' " n' ..
g~ I ' ~ a' lit .. :J !!. ~
'L) :u II lit " U) S'
. - 0 .. . r III en " co
10 ~ 0 n ~ ~ en "0 =
o 'C III ,.. "
f II> - ~ :J DI n :; ..
;.a 0 . CI 0
- lit en n ·
f Q " ;1 en <
~ UI "0 " :u ~ ii
1 - n n- O DI :u .. II
. 0 . Dl I n II .a 0 a.
l CD ~ .. 0 " .a. a: 3 I
. en 0-
i 0' :u a. II
.. ::a " "
, :J ~ .a. I ..
I o'
t I I "'It a. I "
i > !" !
.. I I ;U I !
\ I i q I
I , .. ! , .. ..
L..!O UI w
I N N i,) ", ".,
:-'0 UI i,) q N
0 . W
0 ~N "., !.
r UI e>> . lit
.,p. . .. p ", ~
n p p "!
"',~ fJ r: ~ ~ = ': ; ~ - .,. N
'!;.\" ; : \ I I II i,)
n
~ r. . - ,.. UI
~ . h~~~\:l c .......
t W W tl !
0 UI
.~ CO ~ ~ C
U. N W :J
'. :. . ;:;:
'fr . - . . . . ',~ p p P
I . . .. :-
'~~~"~~<'f1 " " "
.. .. ..
""~ ...... 0 0 0
J ~~y\ l~~ < < <
a: a: ri.
,-:::1
~r:J[
;L- : !~e~
~ I .~~~~
-...........
ON...
o N~'"
~__ 't!Dnn
.: . ~~~!:
.' CEDAR RIDGE ESTATES P.U.D. /
. ~ HIGH RIDGE COMMERCE PARK P.I.D.
~. '\ POINT MANALAPAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
~ 1'0 BOX Jl.' ...T.... -' .~f1.._. 585-2516
~- It. I
re n site
planning
Ia scape
~n ar~leclure
S 10 site
grar;hic 5
~
f
..
..
...
;;
"'
"'0
c:
o..,c
II ..
=' 0
l/ll/l
;:;:lIl
-CDl
n
- ..
~ CD
"'Ill
.,p..,p..,p.
S" S' :r
:U!!l:fn
o c :r
E=co
:;;i'
01>>'110
CD3Dl ."
2:=30'
f ~ i i
I !
I I
I ".,,,.,
.. 0 '"
N N ~
~
.,p.
!I
I~
f"p
e>>e>>
w>
!'
..,
..
i' ~
III lit
III III
o =
- II
:!:!!;~
CO:J=CD
::T. .. III
:u;' :u
iip. 0
~I E
I I
i
en
-.
.....
CD
0-
m
r+
Q)
._, 1!~ \:.
1_ L _1:-;:"~. ~
1"1 .
rz!-l",tt:
';.J.' ".
..
01
UI
i:a
.
p
Cn~
wco
>>
pp
"'1:
n ..c:
111 --
en Q:'
n '< W
g ti>> ~
~ 'C..c
C :- g
n ,_
5 -..-~
" -"
..<>
r-
..
"
11
..
n
..
o
CD
"
II
'"
~
~~;. .;.~. -~~.,r,x'"......~,.. ':J
APPROVED
, 'a"..
EXHIBIT "e"
13
MEMORANDUM
Utilities #95-037
TO: Tarnbri 1. Heyden
Planning & Zom
FROM: John A. Guidry,
Director of Utilities
DATE: January 27, 1995
SUBJECT: Cedar Ridge
Master Plan Modification Resubmittal
Staff has reviewed the above referenced project and offers the following comments:
I. Provide stabilized clear access to sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water main on
south side of project, Utility/drainage easement, (Sec. 26.33 [a]).
2. Proposed side and rear set backs for buildings 4, 5, and 6 are not sufficient for
access, operation and maintenance to utility and drainage systems, (Sec. 26.33[a]).
3. No walls or fences will be permitted in utility easements near buildings 4,5 and 6.
Unobstructed access must be provided (Sec. 26.33[a]).
4. No trees are permitted in utility easements, (Sec. 7.5-18.1).
5. Will any of the roads within this plat remain public or will all become private?
6. We recommend the project developer or engineers meet with Utilities staff to
discuss design options.
I t is our recommendation that the plan proceed through the review process.
If you have any questions regarding this subject, please contact Skip Milor at 375-6407 or Peter
Mazzella at 375-6404.
/gb
xc:
ill ~ .~,,~) ~ ,W'J~ ill
Clyde "Skip" Milor
Peter Mazzella ';Y
File
PLM~NING AND
ZONING DEPT.
4 .._ .......
1'/
ENGINEERING MEMO # 95-026
DATE: 1/27/95
TO: T AMBRI HEYDEN, P&Z DIR.
FROM: ~IAM HUKILL, DEV. DIR.
KEN HALL, ENG. AIDE
SUBJECT: CEDAR RIDGE PUD - RESUBMITTAL - 2ND REVIEW
The following comments are submitted for your consideration:
I. Resolve those items mentioned in the first review datcd 1/17/95 (attached).
2. For all parking spaces, specify a minimum width often (10) fcet to comply with standard dwg.
8-91004 (attached).
3. Provide visitor and H/C parking spaces for buildings 5 & 18 as provided for other buildings.
4. The H/C space dimensions may be 12'X 18' in lieu of 12'X 20' indicated on plans.
5. Visitor and H/C parking should not allow backing out onto streets per Sec.5-142(i)(2).
6. Indicate on plans the number of proposed parking spaces within parcellD" and the number
required by city code.
7. Paving, drainage and site lighting plans shall conform to city's codes at time of permitting.
KR H/krh
cedridge.2rv
IS'
,. ~~ a cr~~
.... () 0 m~C)'..
:f ~?s-:-\ ""
m -,- "'Il\tll \j '~ *' ?:1
~ U\ ..
"" ~:\l~ )> t11:~ ~ sO\~~
.a
04 (l\ " ~'t~~
'. ~ l1\O~ ))~UI (i)
". r ~s~ Z\
lOr ~t:i)> ~~
a"
.... t:)-tn .:<.~~
."
..s
.~
.~
O' ,~
.~
." ~:<:.() Jl~'"
0
, \ l> . \ .. ~ r:::_N
0 r- "" \
. \ ca CD. '\ :j. ~ 6\. ;
I I.l\:x:."'
)i"b~
~~l-'~~~ I'll ~
':0 O~ :<:.- ~R\~ G\
\~~~Z\~~ ~~~ ~ ~
~~t:j. ~ ~,!"'\ f'- t')~ ~
-
\ t) ~ \.t ~ ~ U\ft\ ~ ~
\ \~~~ ~~. tl -
, *'
:U~~~~~\
- -
~ +~
(\~
~~
-~
~-
~~
~
~~
\1\
,
-
~+ ~
(\\~ . . '"'\
",--<
tn )0. ~ =tl
_f"'U
~""n
~~~
d\tl\U'l
~~ ~
1l:~
~ tI\
U\
"t<ci
9~
9~
I'"
4
~
"
)>
..
.. \+ ... ,.
. .
o ·
c. ':\
.. 0
. .
.
r
CO' ;'~ '!' f'':''~:-'
\'~~si~~~~a~~~
fl%\l\\~~~~~\~
!ll il' ~'! I'll!; O. ~ i
~,~~~i\!'\\~\~
Ol~ .~:i.. ~~u>~\l
; ~~ i~e(>8~~..
rleli .,,~cI~"l!!U>
~~IIl' a~~S~~B'
i5~S"'~tA~~Q~jjla~
~l ~~~\i'l\\;
~ ~~";!~i!g~';jd
\ lIle", . ~~ rl
~~~\S ~~~S
g~~u>~ 'd~~~
O~i ~~:\~ ~"\t1~
~""ou>'" r ",'"
o ~t1~' ~ S ~Cl
~ .n....... u>l"~"
~ P'~ ~ r\ ....
;.l ~~~ ~ ~~~~
t ~}g \ -: ~~. \;j
~ ';:\ 0 ~'!' i;\
"u><;;\ '" 0 d
",r\r<1 ",'" ';:\
~(' .... m ~
r.;4 Vl
Cl t:1 :I
(j)!.JQ'
-" -
~ ~
"'@ ~n
,~:;
~ "<.
~ilrt
cr-:-\
tb\ ~'b
, . ~ ~
<<> ~'g
_ tl"Xl
o "ltl
o ~U\
+- ~,
jl,;;
!;'I
-<<\.
~
~
f')
<:::
U\
<:)
'"1\
~
Z
C1
'2:.
t1\
(')
?=-
~
G\
Z
"'
Il\
;Q
~
<i'
\:)
11'\
~
,
.
o
..
i
c
"
---
--
\jl-
S\).C)~
~3
::b-
?<~
\L
.. }.,
. G\ ...., '/
').\ Y I
& ~
\II \:)
~ ~
-a
'"
~
~
G\
'"
U\
o
~
~
b
r-
II:
2
~
?1
.~
~-
~
f\
o
2:.
U\
~
-t'
~
-\
-<:.
:u
"\)
l>
~
s:
ll\
Z
-t
r.
c:::
-; IJ)
~
):>
III
o
~
If)
')>
\)
n_
,~~
\\:) :-\3"-
" -
~~~
1'> "\11
~ ~'"
qo
"
"
..
,,-
,/
ENGINEERING MEMO #95-012
DATE: 1/17/95
TO: TA~~~~EYDEN, P&Z DIRECTOR
FROM: ~AM HUKILL, DEV. DIR.
SUBJECT: CEDAR RIDGE, P.U.D. MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION - 1ST REVIEW
The fol1owing comments are provided regarding the subject dev~lopment:
I. Replat the subject site to show all roadways, units, easements, etc. to meet the requirements of
F.S. 177 and city codes.
2. Indicate location of all sidewalk on both sides of streets throughout both developments.
App.C, IX, Sect II.
3. Provide a master stonn water management plan. Obtain re-approval ofS.F.W.M.D. for
drainage plan ifnecessary. App.C, VIII, Sec. 4C.
4. Depict street and pedestrian lighting within the townhouse development similar to that shown
in S.F.R. area.
5. Provide a note indicating that all utilities arc available and have been coordinated with all
required utilities. App.C, VIII, Scc.4C ( 17).
6. Indicate the names of all public and private streets. App.C. VIII, See 4C (8).
7. Indicate all existing easements and their purpose. Sec.4C(9).
8. Drainage inlets shall be installed within grassy areas for pre-treatment of stonnwatcr.
C,X,See.58. Also, show proposed drainage of 80' entrance roadway.
9. NOTE: If the trip gencm!~~~ :-:~::~ used in the 1991 T.I.A. arc different than those used in a
current analysis, then a new T.I.A. should be required rather than an analysis of the old rates in
relationship to the reduced number of units shown in the MTP Group, Inc.letter dated 12/26/94.
KRHlkrh
cedridgc.rcv
ill m J~N ~ ~ W ~ m,
I
PLANNING AND
ZONING OEPl
,.,
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM *95-040
TO: Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director
FROM:
Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Environmentalist ~i7 11-
RE: Cedar Ridge PUD - Master Plan Modification
DATE: January 26, 1995
1. The applicant should show a cross section of the
li ttoral/upland planting scheme on the plans. It should
include species, specifications, spacing, quantities and a
management plan document for proper maintenance of the area
(referenced on the plans).
2. A management plan for the preserve area should also be
developed and referenced on plan. This would be for proper
maintenance of this section of the property.
3. The two management plan documents #1, #2 above should be
included in the homeowner association documents.
4. The tree management plan for the existing trees (reference to
the tree survey included with the MPM) should be created prior
to site plan submittal to the City.
KH:ad
~-4~-'\'\:,'
\_ ~. ~ ~ ~ _~;;o;, .
...~ '( \\n ~~...... .
. \' ,. '\ \" ....;--
. .\ ---
\: 'u I \
".\ ';\\\ - .:~
\ I \~ "\.- _, -.:;;--- \~:n
.-.- .........f.." ;'\r,U V
~"'~i\-I-i~\i~~:~)lh _.~.
.. 10W1,\:I
\
If
\
"..
RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM 195-048
w
FROM:
Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Directo
John Wildner, Parks Superintendent
TO:
THROUGH:
Charles.c. Frederick, Director ~~
Recreat10n & Park Department ,~
RE:
Cedar Ridge Master Plan Modification
DATE:
January 31, 1995
The Recreation and Park Department has reviewed the amended (l-30-
95) masterplan modification request for the Cedar Ridge PUD. The
fallowing comments are submitted:
1. Recreation Dedication Requirement
34 single family homes x .018 acres/d.u. =
110 townhouses x .015* acres/d.u.
0.612 acres
= 1.650 acres
2.262 acres
*Per instructions from the Planning Department fee simple
townhouses are figured at the multi-family rate.
2. Credit For Private Recreation
The modified masterplan lists the following recreation
elements:
1) meeting hall*
2) pool
3) childrens playground areas (2)
4) jogging trail
5) turf playfield
6) family picnic area
7) landscaped quiet areas
*provided that the developer agrees to a 1,300 s.f. meeting
hall as shown on the previously approved masterplan (presently
shown as 1,000 s.f.) one-half credit for private recreation
provided is recommended.
J,
3. Payment Of Fees In Lieu Of Dedication
A.
Since the developer plans on starting the single family
lots first, he has indicated that he intends on paying
the full recreation impact fee on the single family home
section (0.612 acres cash) at the time of the first
certificate of occupancy. While the code requires that
the developer pay recreation impact fees or bond them at
the time of final plat, we recommend that, in this case,
the developer pay the fee or posts a bond or letter of
redi t now (ll0%) and pay the fee at the time of th
ca e of occ at he
~ntends to apply for 50% credit for the single family
section once private recreation is available in the
townhouse section.
?~k
IJ ~~ ~~
_.JYD::Ol/vr
~r B.
The developer has also indicated that he intends to
replat the townhouse section. Although he may pay cash
at that time, he indicates that he intends to post a bond
or irrevocable letter of credit for 110% of the remaining
recreation fees for both the townhouse section and the
single family homes for which they will qualify for one-
half credit. The letter of credit for 110 townhouse
units allowing one-half credit for the 34 single family
units calculates as follows:
1.650 acres = required dedication for 110 units
.825 acres = one-half credit for 110 units
.306 acres = one-half credit for 34 single family units
(cash value of .825 acres) - (cash value of .306 acres) X 110% =
bond or letter of credit amount.
c. Private Recreation Bond
The developer must provide cost estimates for the private
recreation to be provided and post a performance bond or
letter of credit for the cost of the unfinished
recreation improvements. In addition, the developer must
complete at least the meeting hall and swimming pool by
the first certificate of occupancy for the town house
section.
~
4 . SUMMARY:
The above listed process for payment of recreation fees in
lieu of land dedication is somewhat unusual. However, in
consideration of the length of inactivity associated with the
development of this property, the payment of fees described
seems appropriate and was arrived at after considerable
discussions with the developer. The Recreation and Park
Department is comfortable with its implementation. Actual
recreation fees to be paid will be set once the Planning and
Development Board determines the fair market value of the
land. A letter from Dennis Koehler, Attorney for the
developer is attached which discussed land values and the
payment proposal.
JW: ad
Attachment
xc: Bill Hukill, City Engineer
Dennis P. Koehler, P.A.
REV. 2/2/95
.).1
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Tambri J. Heyden
planning and Zoning Director
FROM:
Michael E. Haag
Zoning & Site Development Administrator
DATE:
February 2, 1995
RE:
Cedar Ridge Estates PUD - File # MPMD 94-009
Master plan modification (revised density, acreage, unit
type, layout setbacks and roads)
Please be advised of the following planning and zoning comments
relative to the review of the resubmitted plans for the above-
referenced request for master plan modification approval:
3.
4.
5 .
6.
7.
/c9
~
9 .
10.
11.
1.
To properly evaluate whether there are enough parking spaces
provided for the recreation facilities, specify on the plan
the gross floor area of the meeting hall. Revise the plan to
show the gross floor area and depict on the plans no less than
the number of parking spaces required for the recreation
facilities by the zoning code.
2 .
Show on the plan the total area of the site without the land
being transferred to the school. Also, identify the density
of the PUD after removing the area being transferred to the
school.
Clarify, on the plan, the difference between the 20 foot side
corner setback shown on the typical townhouse lot setback
chart and the 10 foot side corner setback identified on the
typical setback chart. If the width of the end unit lot is at
a minimum 10 feet wider than the interior unit lots, dimension
same on the typical townhouse lot drawing.
With a distinguishable symbol show and label the perimeter of
Parcel "D".
Show and label with dimension lines the perimeter setbacks
around Parcel "0".
On the plan, label Parcel "B".
Specify on the plan the width of the streets proposed for the
townhouse proj ect; a minimum of 22 feet of pavement is
required.
The subdivision and platting regulations require streets to be
terminated with a cul-de-sac. All but one of the streets
(between building 2 and 3) has been revised to replace the T-
turn around with a cul-de-sac. Unless otherwise permitted by
the City Commission, the remaining T-turn around shall be
replaced with a cul-de-sac meeting city standards.
Place the following note on the plan: "All parking spaces,
with the exception of the two (2) spaces required for each
townhouse unit, shall be designed in accordance with the
requirements of the parking lot regulations.
Replatting is required to subdivide the multi-family portion
of the PUD into townhouse lots.
The 1983 recorded and legally constituted maintenance
association agreement needs to be revised to require
improving, perpetually operating and maintaining all common
facilities; including streets, drives, parking areas, open
space and recreation facili ties depicted on the requested
master plan modification drawings. These documents are
submitted to the Engineering Division, which coordinates
review of the documents by the Planning and Zoning Department,
Engineering Division and legal staff. After approval by
~~
Page 2
Cedar Ridge PUD
File # MPMD 94-009
February 2, 1995
(cont'd. )
11. staff, the documents shall be recorded, prior to final plat
approval.
12. All previous, unresolved conditions of approval for the
project are still in effect.
9P
~~
14.
13.
14.
15.
(i~
I
I
I;~
The approval of the master plan modification to omit lots 35
through 45, associated streets and Parcel "BI' is subject to
approval of the recently submitted rezoning application for
assemblage of these lands with the Lake Worth Christian School
to the north.
A revised master plan which reflects all staff comments and
conditions approved by the City Commission and Planning and
Development Board shall be submitted in triplicate to the
Planning and Zoning Department, prior to permits being issued
for any of the residential developments within the PUD.
Upon approval of this request, the City Commission shall
establish the fair market value of land within the PUD for
purposes of calculating the recreation fees owed. To do this,
it is recommended that verification of the 1993 purchase price
be 'received.
Per the comprehensive plan, roads within development projects
shall align. At minimum, Redwood Court and Elm Way shall form
a proper intersection.
The private recreation area shall be accessible to all units
within the PUO.
with the exception of item #1, which is superseded by
Recreation and Parks Memorandum No. 95-048, the attached
November 18, 1994 letter from Tambri Heyden to Dennis Koehler,
itemizes additional requirements that must be fulfilled, prior
to applying for building permits for any of the single-family
units within the PUO.
RECOMMENDATIONS
17. It is recommended to replat the entire project to vacate the
blocks, lots, easements and public rights-of-way desired to be
extinguished as depicted on the master plan submitted with
this request. In lieu of replatting, an abandonment
application shall be submitted and approved.
18. It is recommended to only have one chart that represents the
setbacks for the project.
19. It is recommended that this master plan modification expire 18
months from the date of 1ts approval by the city Commission,
in the event an application for replatting of the multi-family
section has not been submitted or an application for site pla~
approval has not been submitted or a time extension has not
been filed or a subsequent master plan modification
application has not been submitted.
NOTE: If the above recommendations are approved, compliance
shall be incorporated with the submittal of the revised master
plan.
~
o IY' I r (]vp')I'" If: :.J -r:;.
#- ? I~ j /tp 16/Z Cvr Cvn.-...i ~S;u')
,/ I J~_ ,,>11;://;;
.- . /' - - /J1IJfiV,)T7O) 'Y. '/
/JItC/dl/u l. .st:::t.;
a: MPMDCedar.mem
fJ1ie City of'
13oynton 13eac./i
100 ~ '.Boynton '.Beadi '.Boulevard
P.O. ~310
'Boynton '.Beam, 11ori4a 33425-0310
City 9Iafl: (407) 375-6000
1'.JU: (407) 375-6090
Novemter 16, 1994
Mr. Dennis P. Koehler, Esquire
1:30 Ncrth Congress Avenu2, su~te 213
w~s~ pal@ Be~c~, Florida 33409
RE: Cedar Ridge Estates - con3truct~on :ommancement ~f 3i3gl~-
family lot3
Dear Mr. Koehler:
;"s communicated to your of fiee by phone on Hcvember 1 Cth, i t ~'la2
~ecessary for me to coordinate a response from the :lty'S
development department (building and engineering divisions),
utilities d=par~men~1 legal departmen~ and the p~anning end
zoning department regarding your inqui~y as to what must be dc~e
prior to applying for building per~its for the Single-family lcta
within the Cedar Ridge Estates PUD. The following respcn~e is
provided:
1.
Payment of the recreation and pa~kE fge in the am0un~
r=~uired fOl- all units curren:.l:! est~blished Hithil:' 1:he PU:l
or furn~sh a bond in the amount of 110~ of the fee
referenced, which shall bec=m~ 3 lien upon che PUD property
and shall be paid upon issuance Jf the first certi~icdte of
c::cupancy.
2.
2cmpletlon and acceptarice af a:1 lmprove~en~3 (atr3etS,
swales, utilities, street lighting, drainage stnlctur~s,
commen area landscaping and irrigation. re~u~rej witt~n the
PUD. In exchange, the City will Wdlve the street li~htlng
f~e which is equal to 125% of the value of tha Et~e~t lights
(Sl,200.00 each). With regard to utlliti~s, cert~fy t~e
e~{isting water and sewer syscems, 'pl-l01- :;0 turll~ll.;r ')'1E:1' :;(;
tho: City.
.,
At time .:)f City accep::anr;e of an"! l'equir8d ~mprl)V2'l1ie!'~t. 3-
ivarl.-.int-:l .bund fc.r a on:: year gua:::anco:e per:'.::Jd. 31-.3.11 De
d3live~~d ~o tha :ity in accOl'janc2 with Arc1cle x:r,
S:::tL:'.j) 1 of tho; ':lty'S .sUb:l:''J13::.cn a!1c. platting
l''2'Jula t lons .
J{meri<:as gateway t~~ gulfstream
TO: Mr. Dennis Koehler
-2-
November 16, 1994
AE previously discussed with you and Hr. Joseph Basile, Jr., the
property owner, the desire to delete from the PUD, the land are~
enc~mpassed by single-family lots 35 - 45 and switching the
m~lti-f3mily portion of tte PUD to a different unit type (may
requi~e further rap13tticg, rather than site plan approval,
dependent on the type of unit proposed), requires replatting, a
pun m3s~er plan modification 3nd rezoning of the deleted lot area
la4d for incorporation in~o the Lake Worth Christian School
property to the north (additional approvals will be required for
~onstructicn of the school's expansion). In exchange for
com~liance with item3 1 - 3 above, the City is willing to !llow
~~ilding permits to be applied for, prior to filing applications.
fer the aforementioned procedures.
Ple3se contact me if you have questions or concerns pertaining to
t!llS r.latter.
Sincerely,
~(}.~
Tambri J. H~en
?lanning & Zonlng Direct)r
tjh
xc: Peter Mazzella, Assistant to the Utilities Director
William Hukill, Development Director
James Cherof, city Attorney
Carrie Parker, city Han3ger
C:Kcehler
~