Loading...
CORRESPONDENCE t-1~/~ ~-4~~41 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH C7h- (o/t 1'15" MEMORANDUM TO: FILE OOfFI>V Foe?,,~ z;co;;s FROM: MICHAEL J. PAWELCZYK, ESQ. DATE: October 3, 1995 RE: Deposition of Tambri Heyden, Condor Investment of Palm Beach County, Inc. v. Palm Beach County Property Appraiser Bruce W. Parrish, Jr., Esq., for Cond /e~- \ I ,\. , f' ~ I LL.:'Lt:"-- /0;f~~ THOSE PRESENT ARE THE FOLLOWING: and [LL, , . . ~ Eric B. Ash, Esq., for Property Appra tL1V.-;(, 7//L~t.L k~.1/'JlC I first posed the question if any exp' U-/\...'u:-/[;;;[(.t~~/ .-I~ t- at this deposition and if so, Ms. He. ~ ,'C Beach are entitled to fees for th ~~-1' )01.'; , ! .f' (hereinafter "BP") said they're just / y ,L-t7 )L.~/c /(;~- the City knows rega;rding the .lawsui t 1: --1~~ ,4 ., _ 0'''':' the Property Appral.sers Off l.ce. _ _ -, ~L-/C-l::-O~{.~ Tambri Heyden (hereinafter II TH II ) stat 0- ;f~J ~"-.5-- -I..~ , - City since March 1987 and has been th~ r...LO'.........':1 _u_ ftf-nJii.(' since O~tober 1993. Prior to becoming the Planning and Zoning Director, she was a Senior Planner. She stated she was aware of the Cedar Ridge and High Ridge commercial park and aware that the required improvements were not completed. She stated that as of January 1, 1993, she did not know if the property could be built on or not. Nothing was submitted to the City for approval. She said the property could be sold because it was platted. The incomplete required improvements existing on January 1, 1993, included the final surface being placed on the streets, lights were not completed, the utility system was not inspected nor approved by the health department, the drainage system was incomplete, the lake was unfinished, and the common area landscaping was not yet installed. According to TH these must be completed wi thin twenty-one (21) months of the recording of the final plat. In this particular case, this period had lapsed. In situations similar to this, the applicant usually files for a time extension. However, this was not done in this case. -1- CITY J-.t&~~~ ~-4-z;:".~~ OF BOYNTON BEACH ~ (~~~ MEMORANDUM TO: FILE OO[fJ)~ h;~fo{(/Z fuo;;s FROM: MICHAEL J. PAWELCZYK, ESQ. DATE: October 3, 1995 Deposition of Tambri Heyden, Condor Investment of Palm Beach County, Inc. v. Palm Beach County Property Appraiser RE: THOSE PRESENT ARE THE FOLLOWING: Bruce W. parrish, Jr., Esq., for Condor Investment and Eric B. Ash, Esq., for Property Appraisers Office I first posed the question if any expert opinions were to be asked at this deposition and if so, Ms. Heyden and the City of Boynton Beach are entitled to fees for their testimony. Mr. Parish (hereinafter "BP") said they're just there to find out any facts the City knows regarding the lawsuit between Condor Investments and the Property Appraisers Office. . Tambri Heyden (hereinafter "TH") stated that she has worked for the city since March 1987 and has been the Planning and Zoning Director since October 1993. Prior to becoming the Planning and Zoning Director, she was a Senior Planner. She stated she was aware of the Cedar Ridge and High Ridge commercial park and aware that the required improvements were not completed. She stated that'as of January 1,1993, she did not know if the property could be built on or not. Nothing was submitted to the City for approval. She said the property could be sold because it was platted. The incomplete required improvements existing on January 1, 1993, included the final surface being placed on the streets, lights were not completed, the utility system was not inspected nor approved by the health department, the drainage system was incomplete, the lake was unfinished, and the common area landscaping was not yet installed. According to TH these must be completed within twenty-one (21) months of the recording of the final plat. In this particular case, this periOd had lapsed. In situations similar to this, the applicant usually files for a time extension. However, this was not done in this case. -1- * Ano~her way, time can be extended, would be by a lctt~r of raquest or ~ormal application. Nothing happened until 1994 when JAC met with Mr. Harris and TH. A number of months went by until the issue was resolved. Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 is a letter dated 12/20/93 from Mr. Harris to TH. Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 is a letter dated 2/4/94 from Jim Cherof to Richard Harris. These two exhibits are attached to the memorandum. BP then questioned TH regarding the classification "C-I. II This classification refers to subdivisions that are platted after January 1978, have been bonded and partially constructed, the twenty-one (21) month time limit has expired, and the developer is not in good faith in proceeding with completing construction in the judgment of the City Engineer. In cases such as this, the applicant must ac: to_~e~e~t another classification and proceed with dC~JQlopmgl=1t ~ ~~~o: Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 is a list of subdivisions regar~M-; j;:~~ > - Concurrency Management System project Exemptions. Thisnao~J~ ~ was not familiar to TH and was a document that BP acquired somehow < from the city. *" Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 is a list produced by TH which is similar to Plaintiff's Exhibit 3. It is a list regarding subdivision classifications as of the end of 1990. ~(3 4t!- Subdivision classification II II is one whicp is bonded, has been accepted, constructed, and here fore could be developed. BP was just trying to figure out the difference between A-13 and C-l classifications. Next, BP questioned the appeal by Condor. TH said the appeal was never finished. TH stated the City Attorney suggested that a meeting be set up. At that meeting, it was determined that the city and the developer had disagreements as to the completeness of the project. Therefore, JAC suggested that the applicant hire an engineer to determine the level of completeness and vandalism existing on the property. A 0 d. t T, h a . c nt was -bf working to do this, . Also present at this meeting was ~_~VL~ TH suggested that there may be memos within the BUild~' ~/L~~ Department, Utilities Department, in addition to the Plannin Vl/2 Department, which may refer to this. ~ Plaintiff' s Exhibit 5 explains what in fact constituted the c ~ tf incompleteness of the prOject~ThiS exhibit is Engineering ~"'L# Department Memorandum No. 94-095. l?Af-1:J.ep-, ~lvt-:. t;.. ~ TH stated t~a~ it was well:-know~..sb.~tAJ9.r._fl~Jl~~r ~~ years t~er~ 1'1?-, *' ':las no actl.vl.ty on the Sl.te -~~~et""'-Vrhe r:qul.red". <;t l.mprovements. .kA~JAA(i~ Y2.. J J .-, "l ~ ";;.. q1..I-;}) -1-_' ~~- -- ~~V---(:I 1 ~ ~ t/~~.. ~~~ -2-'"JA.. -' ~ .~ # Attorney Eric Ash (hereinafter ilEA") stated that BP was leading the witness too much. He objected to the form of a number of questions. BP asked TH if the applicant had complied and whether the property had been removed from the C-1 classification. THstated that this was a unique situation. That is precisely the reason there was a meeting between the City Attorney, Mr. Harris, and herself to proceed with the development. ~ BP asked hOw long it took ~~~o complete the submission of the Master Plan Revision. TH stated it was approved in February 1995 after being submitted in December 1994, therefore, about two (2) months. BP asked TH, "what was he required to do?" TH replied by stating that he had to submit the plans to the staff. After staff approval, the plans go to the City Commission and finally the Planning and Zoning Board, where they were approved on February 14, 1995. Back to the dispute between the City and the applicant over what was not completed. At the meeting, JAC suggested each side generate a list of deficiencies, and they will get together to hammer things out. Basically, the applicant needed to hire an engineer, ,S.c...cJ:~H.E~~n>> to Plaintiff I s Exhibit 5. The other choice the ~ applicant~~o file for a Master Plan revision. BP next spoke about the industrial portion or questioned TH about the industrial portion of the subdivision. Less than two (2) months ago, a site Plan Application was submitted regarding the industrial portion. TH stated in this case, there were some unique features, for instance, rights-of-way had to be abandoned and there were uses which had to be approved because they were not permitted. She stated that her department is looking over this application. She stated that there was also expansion into a different zoning district with different permitted uses. ~,easement also had to be ~vacated. This easement is just south o~.I.D. TH stated that Engineering and utilities investigates whether improvements are complete on the industrial section. As far as she knows, improvements have not yet been accepted. Next, we took a break. During that break, BP and his clients stated that they had no beef with the City. TH had to reiterate the problems with the industrial portions of the property, which included use approval, abandonment, and easements. She stated the application was submitted by waste Management South, which also has offices just south of Miner Road, which is south of the P.I.D. There was a requirement that a wall be placed between the industrial and resi9-~l)jtial areas of the subdivision. That wall was if not erected. It~~~conditionfor obtaining the CO on the multi- family portion. Tambri stated that if the wall was required, it must be in place prior to the last CO being issued for a multi- -3- --~-~_..-._.._------------ family unit. Since~his time, the wall location has changed. It rformerly was on ~l ti-family property and now it is on the industrial portion of the property (-f/-t., fl D) ,. A staff condition was that recreation fees be paid. According to Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, recreation fees were owed. The recreation fees were determined by the number of units on the property. If there is a reduct).2[1..ln the number of units, there will be a reduction in the ~ of fees. At the time of the platting, the ci ty gave the option to the applicant to provide a bond, which has since expired. (Currently, the City requires the recreation fee to be paid at the time of platting). Plaintiff I s Exhibit 6 are the Minutes from the City Commission Meeting of February 7, 1995, regarding the modification of Cedar Ridge. Plaintiff I s Exhibit 7 is the Staff Report for the February 7 meeting prepared by TH. In Exhibit 6 on page.21, it is stated that the value of the property in determining the recreation fees to be paid to the City was $30,380.67 per acre. When asked how this was~ v_ TH sta~it was valued according to the ~~ number of unit eland~e. The land value is determined by appraisal, r cent contract to purchase, or assessed value. In determining the amount Condor would paY/~n~~recreation fees, the City used the Quit Claim Deed from Mr.~r-January 1993, which reflected a certain purchase price. In situations like this, the staff asks the applicant for proof as to the value, the staff then evaluates it and recommends to the City Commission. This was resolved in one meeting. Next, is the cross examination by Eric Ash This property was platted in 1983, at which time there was no development. In 1990, a Concurrency Ordinance was passed, which created classifications regarding P. U. D. I sand P. I. D. IS. The objective of a Concurrenc~ Ordinance was that the developer was responsible for developinlj the infrastructure. In the case at hand, the city wanted to assure that a good faith effort to develop the infrastructure was being made according to what the P.U.D. or P.I.D. called for. If the developer makes good faith efforts to bring the infrastructure in line with the P.I.D. or P.U.D., the property will lose its C-l classification. f If Harris brought a certified engineering report to TH, that everythinq was okay and it was approved by the city, the developer would be in compliance. -'!he developer in this case decided to change the Master site Plan probably because he felt the existing -4- -----_._----------,--_._----_.-..~~-------_.- +' plan was not marketable. If the~ Plan is changed, the design of the infrastructure could change according to TH. Mr. Ash asked TH whether on January 1, 1993, the property owner needed to show good faith effort to comply with the existing P.I.D/P.U.D. requirements. TH said she was not sure because negotiations were being conducted at the time. Basically, the plat is filed, bonds are ?osted to conduct improvements, twenty-one (21) months are granted to complete the improvements, and the bond is called if the improvements are not completed. The memo from the Engineering Department which is the Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 indicates how much infrastructure was in place at the time of the meeting of February 1993. Introduced as Defendant's Exhibit 1 is a letter dated June 6, 1991, from Gerald Fried, Director of Development, to stuart Bloom of the FDIC. TH doesn't recognize it and does not recall seeing it. In looking at the Plaintiff's Exhibit 5, a new developer would not have to start from scratch, if he desired to begin construction. This is so because the sewer, the streets, and the lights were N_ already in place, although some light~ad been vandalized. As of ~ January 1, 1993, according to Fini , 's 3/24 memo (Plaintiff's Exhibit 5), the outstanding recreatio fees were roughly $39,000. The higher the land/property value, the higher the recreation fee will be. EA asked TH whether it is in the best interest of the developer to submit evidence of low value for property. TH agreed and said yes. She also stated there were no experts in her office who are experts in land value. · Re-Direct by BP TH stated that the bond for.improvemen~s ad expired as well as the *" pond ~gE(}"ecreation. Bonds are posted' nfrastructure as soon as ~~~latted and before any permi s are issued. As far as recreation fees, the city wants a higher figure to get more money. It is in the city's best interest to determine fees according to an accurate value. TB stated the.~taff recommended to ~ commission a value det!~ed from the inf~&y had available to i them. She stated they?~d looked at the tax roll but they had a problem with tragsferring that value to a measurable value due to the intricacies~of the sub-division. BP introduced Plaintiff's Exhibit 8, which is an Ordinance regarding the concurrency designation. When 21 months expires, the applicant is required to get with the city to show that good faith has been undertaken by the developer. -5- ~fr{V~hj-f~ C;+j -Iv TH stated that accord'~ to the Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, there is no automati~;rminate- Ii .. ~site plan~ f'1U5~f?1&-fi. _ TH examined Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 and stated that this particular piece of property was the only "C-1" on the 1990 list. BA's Re-Cross It was reiterated that TH does not recognize Plaintiff's Exhibit 3, but she stated it looks as if it was generated by the City. This is a December 19, 1991, List. EA asked TB if she ever spoke with Annie Montez of the Property Appraisers Office. She stated yes she had as Ms. Montez came to the City to examine the records. Finally TH waived her right to review the typed deposition, and the deposition was closed. MJp:aw cc: Tambri Heyden Attachments . MJP:aw [K:\W\1990\900182.IB\MEMO\FILEJ -6- r ,,- ~ \ - %e City of 'Boynton 'Beacli 100 'E. llJoynton 1lJeadt.llJoukvara P.O.IlJ07(31O llJoynton llJuufi.,:TforUfa 33425-0310 City 9la[[: (407) 375-6000 :T5U: (407) 375-6090 . ~/ i V\Y~/J( '{)i! qf, \\ff-) r_ . ^ j""'" It~; .~ ~ lY~ \1\&-1' cr ~, 5' ~ November 16, 1994 Mr. Dennis P. Koehler, Esquire 1280 North Congress Avenue, Suite 213 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 RE: Cedar Rldge Estates - construction commencement of single- ~ family lots - Dk- Mr. Koehl_er; -It? -i:; ~ ~ 'K.cv ?O~ A ~~ ~ n.e 10 coordinate~.~-,in' ~ response from the City's ~v- development department (building and engineering divisions), utilities department, legal department and the planning and zoning department regardlng your inquiry as to what must be done prlor to applying for building permits ~ ufile::lo other vv.L;;,e ~ecifien belo\H for ~he ;t;;)~~:~~~milY lots within the Cedar Ridge Estates PUD, ~~~v ~~~ : 1. Payment of the recreation and parks fee in the amount required for all units currently established within the PUD or furnish a bond in the amount of 110% of the fee referenced, which shall become a lien upon the PUD property and shall be paid upon issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. 2. Completion and acceptance of all improvements (streets, swales, utilities, street lighting, drainage structures, common area landscaping and irrigation) required within the PUD. In exchange, the City will waive the street lighting fee which is equal to 125% of the value of the street lights ($1,200.00 each). With regard to utilities, certify the existing water and sewer systems, prior to turning over to the City. 3. At time of City acceptance of any required improvement, a warranty bond for a one year guarantee period, shall be delivered to the City in accordance with Article XII, Section 1 of the city's subdivision and platting regulations. jfmerial's (jateway to tlU (julfstream N w---z2 t-< 0 ~~/ . t R3~ . " I I 'D 400 800 PIC \0 II! IIBOVNTON BEACH PARK OF COMMERCE" ~ NCJ\! 0::. ! 94 17:::0 Da~~n S P KOEHLER., P. :=l. :' P.l LAW OFFICES Uennls IJ. I\Vehler, IJ..~. Congress Business Center 1280 North Congress Avenuel Suite 213 Well ..aIm !Seaen, "to'lda ;'3409 TelephOne; (407) 684-2844 Facsimile: (407) 684.9370 FAX ~VER SHEET F' AX !\;UMSER: TO: Ms -r~H\hf. ~" 37S-.fJI:l90 ~n,.;~ f? Kc~Aler F'ROM; I..vCAI..: )(. L.ONG DISTANCE: (y~~.~ C-{AR:3E TO: TOTAL AMOUNT CHARGED: NO, OF PAGES ~I FILE. NO: 'f1.i5 PLUS COVER SHEET iJA re: & T, V,E OF TRANSM! 55 ION: J J)ll'l'i - ~1IO p-<< : NIT: t'.LS OF PERSON SENO t NQ FAX: N "t,.. 1'1(N 0: . '34 17: 50 DEHruS P i{OEHLER, P. H.J P.2 LAW OFFICES Vennls ~. I\vehler!t () ..4. Congre.. Bu,lnlss Center , 280 North Conareat A.....nu.. Suitt 21 3 West Palm Beach. Fl33409 Teiephcl'1e: (407) 684-2844 FaC5imi!e; (407) 684-9370 November 1, 1994 BY FAX MEMOaANDUM ~ TO: MS.... eyden j Planning & Zoning 01 OF BOYN'!lQN BEACH ./ n . FROM: Dennis P. Koehler: Esqu1r~ SUBJECT: Cedar Ridge pun This is a followup to my hand-written memo to you, sarne subject, earlier on this date. It.occurred to me 8S ! was driving b~ck to my law office this morning that the City might want to extract certain commitments from the Cedar Ridge POD aQveloper in exchange for a "green light" to cowmence immediate construction of the 34 single family residential lots that will remain within this PUO. Director AS conditions of C.O. issuance, for example, my client is willing - (1) to provide surety (e.g. 8 Letter of Credit) to cove~ the 34 single family lots' portion of the full PUD's $55,000 recreation impact fee; (2} to install all required landscaping and irrigation for the projectl! entrance roadway, extending from High Ridge Road east to Ferest Road; and (3) to :11& (Q:r: join w1th the J:.ake Werth Chr11tlan School itl filing) an application to delete lots 35-45 from the previously-approved plat for the Cedar Ridge PUD. I cannot construct.tol'1 of pcssibla. He cancasslons to please advise! oveT.emph8~ize my client's desire to begin thQ singlQ family portion of his PUD as soon as is: thAt'afora willing to make such reasonable the City as necess~ry to a~hieve his objectives. :OPK/n7 pc: Mr. Joseph F. Basile, Jr. · piP < ~ ^ ~Jo&ftJ wt:fr; f, , t ~ -f. ~ tJ}ft 0; ~ wi Ifr+-' Y-Ij ~.I J~ ~ OCT 11 ! 94 12: 25 DENNI S P h/JEHLER, P. A. I P,l LAW OFFICES Vennls 1'. I\vehler. tJ .4.. Cone"" BUlIn. III Center 1210 North COl"lQrltu "v.nUI. Suite 213 W..t Palm &tach. Ftcridll 33409 TalaphQn;; (401) 684.2844 Facsimile: (401) 684-9370 FAX, COVER SHEEr TO: As. j8",6tL JkJjde" PriOM: 37.5- tk>fc ~""'.t I! ~t4j,~ F5t- . ~ P-A.X NUM6ER: LOCAL: LONG 01 STANCE i CHARGE TO: . TOTAL AMOUNT CHARGED: NO. OF PAGeS I DATe: a.. riME OF TRANSMiSSION: IfJ/1!./W INITl,c,LS OF' PERSON Se:N01NG FAX; tI- - (-ILE NO: ~~ PLUS COVE~ SHEET / a:l ..If,,,. .....1' COMMENTS: I _""-40. .~p' .....1' OCT .'..L '9.4 .'..2:25 DENNIS P V0EHL.EF', P.R. ' LAW OFFICES ()entlls ~. I\{)ehler, (J.4. Congr... '!.Isinns Center '280 Nonh congrell Ayert~. SUltl 213 West Palm Beach, Fl 33409 'Telephone: (407) 684"2844 Facsimile: (407) 6B4-931C October 11, 1994 Ms, Tambrl Heyden, planning & Zoning Dir&ctor THE CITY OF BOYNTON ~EAOH 100 E. Boynton Beach Bouleverd Boynton Beach, Florid~ 3343S BY FAX "1' -.. Rm: ce~ar R1Qge pun Dear Tambri: F',2' It was a pleasure to meet w~th yo~ once again this past Monday afternoon as my client3 Messrs. J090ph F. Basile. Jr., Dan Sanders and r explored e var isty of iss'ues related to t.he revival and development of the Cedar Ridgo PUD. This ls one of those Ilgo1den oldie" projects that the City would 9urely like to take off its "epproveO but unbuilt" booksl I hope that the document15 that I supplied to yoU - Le.. copies of ola correspondence relati.ng to the s'l,1r~ty bond that. '.HU3 posted by the original de'velcper back in 1983 in lieu of a recreation impact ree cash paym.n~ - will be useful. If it's not possible to pay down this off3ite recreation impact fee on a per let basis, then we certa:tnly do wish to post soml!!l form of surety (e.g. performance bona or letter of cr.dit) for these impact faes. The total ~mc)\.mt, ~f course, will be less. reflectIng the downsized project. I hope that the next correspondence you coa from this offi~a will be my letter requesting a ma~ter plan modifi~at1on for the multi-family unit portion of the Cedar Ridge pun properties. DPk/nz pc~ Mr. Joseph F. Basile. Jr. m OCT , I I99A ill 1 LAW OFFICES ()ennis (). I\()ehle("'~ ().A. HAND DELIVERED Congress Business Center 1280 North Congress Avenue, Suite 213 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Telephone: (407) 684-2844 Facsimile: (407) 684-9370 December 16, 1994 Ms. Tambri Heyden Planning & Zoning Director CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH 100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard Boynton Beach, FL 33435 RE: Cedar Ridge PUD Dear Tambri: As you may recall, my client in this matter, the CEDAR RIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, plans to submit its application to modify the master site development plan for the Cedar Ridge PUD to the City on Tuesday, December 27, 1994. From your comments to us on December 2, we know that if the City's review process is completed without delay, final approval (by the City's Planning & Development BOard) can occur as early as February 14, 1995. In preparing for this submittal, my client has retained the site planning services of LAND DESIGN SOUTH of West Palm Beach. I know that you are familiar with the work of this company and its Principal, Mr. Robert A. Bentz. Just this morning (DeCember 16), Bob, his staff and I met with our client's Principal, Mr. Joseph F. Basile, Jr., to review LAND DESIGN SOUTH's proposed modification plan. A copy of this concept plan, showing a total of 120 townhouse units in the multi-family portion of the residential PUD, is attached to this letter FYI. The purpose of this letter is to advise you, prior to our formal submittal on December 27, that the 120 townhouse units are being proposed with dimensions that are described in the attachment prepared by LAND DESIGN SOUTH. As you know, the Boynton Beach zoning Code presently contains no specific regulations for townhouse or townhome development. We are hoping that the City staff will acknowledge this "gap" in its land development regulations by working with LAND DESIGN SOUTH to resolve administratively any code conflicts that may arise. Since we know that the holiday vacation period has you and most of your Planning & zoning staff out of the offices for extensive periods of time, we don't necessarily need a pre-conference to address these code issues. Please therefore call me some time next week (Tuesday?) so that we can briefly discuss all of this. Sinc~ N~ Dennis P. Koehler, mD:C ~ :19:4 ~ m "'-' . PLANNING AND 1" ZONING DEPT ~ i _._~-,-,....,~. ~ DPK/nz EsquiI 00 encl. pc wlo encl: Mr. Joseph F. Basile, Jr. Mr. Robert A. Bentz, LAND DESIGN SOUTH Mr. Ted Sanders, P.E., LAWSON & NOBLE [)ennis J>. I\()ehle.- ~ J> .A. 12- 1 5-94 Land Design South 1280 North Congress Ave. Ste. 215 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 $z(tt;/Q1 Cedar Ridge Project #432.1 Developable ~ DeVeIOpabl~7it~ite TotalArea ~ Density Front Offset Rear Offset Side Offset Side to Side Offset Rear to Rear Offset Right-ot-Way Size Lake Access Easment 1 20 du1s 24lx501 17.44 ac. 6.88 du./ac, 251 201 201 201. 401, / <~ 617 101 . \ j, J~. r '/ t l ~ ~ ~', ~ '. " .. r; r ". '" '.... .., .' (\ ': l-' ,! j ,11:.., ", , ,l/ .{..~" 'oJ' _. (/."; \, , _. i'/ ....;',,:,~' or.: '\ . , , c" -..... '"' -. _'J ~~~';. : ..... l .' ;;'-''''~ f/~~/ ':'}l '-.-. t") ; r 1"" ~.~ '. :. , ' " ......' , .. ", \, ~.... ~. fJJie City of '.Boynton '.Beacn November 16, 1994 ~ A'I~( '0 J)~ V I\D X ~. d" \\ff-) 0, ^ J''fI'' It ~~ .~ ~ U'~ ~r,.'V V 'Q, 5' ~ 100 T.. 'Boynton 'Beach 'Boukvara P.O. 'Bo~310 'Boynton 'Beath, ~(qrUfa 33425-0310 City!Jfa[[: (407) 375-6000 ~.9lX: (407) 375-6090 , Mr. Dennis P. Koehler, Esquire 1280 North Congress Avenue, suite 213 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 RE: Cedar Ridge Estates - construction commencement of single- family lots Dear Mr. Koehler: I have coordinated the following response from the City's development department (building and engineerillg divisions), utilities department, legal department dnd the planning and zoning department regarding your inquiry as to what must be done prlor to applying for bllilding permits (unless otherWlse specified below) for the single-family lots within the Cedar Ridge Estates PUD: 1. Payment of the recreation and parks fee in the amount required for all units currently established within the PUD or furnish a bond in the amount of 110% of the fee referenced, which shall become a lien upon the PUD property and shall be paid upon issuance of the flrst certificate of occupancy. 2 . Completion and acceptance of all improvements (streets, swales, utilities, street lighting, drainage structures, common area landscaping and irrigation) r~quired within the PUD. In exchange, the City will waive th~ street lighting fee which is equal to 125% of the value of the street lights ($1,200.00 each). With regard to utilitiES, certify the existing water and sewer systems, prior tc turning over to the City. fJ~' 3. At time of City acceptance of any requirec improvement, a warranty bond for a one year guarantee period, shall be delivered to the City in accordance with Article XII, Section 1 of the City's subdivision and platting req-ulations. ill m ~ m. ~:~ rn, 'PLANNING AND ~ \ ZONING DEPT. I 111/1 (qf 1~fil11 --"'7) /-t~ P ?tflf/;; C/f- /'-" I ttlcl(uH~rkas fjauway to tn. fjulfstTtilm TO: Mr. Dennis Koehler -2- November 16, 1994 As previously discussed with you and Mr. Josept Basile, Jr., the property owner, the desire to delete from the IUD, the land area encompassed by single-family lots 35 - 45 and switching the multi-family portion of the PUD to a different unit type (may require further replatting, rather than site plan approval, dependent on the type of unit proposed), requires replatting, 3 PUD master plan modification and rezoning of the deleted lot area land for incorporation into the Lake Worth Christian School property to the north (additional approvals will be required for construction of the school's expansion). In exchange for compliance with items 1 - 3 above, the city is willing to allow building permits to be applied for, prior to filing applications for the aforementioned procedures. Please contact me if you have questions or concerns pertaining to this matter. Sincerely, J~~9-~ Tambri J Heyden Planning & Zoning Director tjh xc: Peter Mazzella, Assistant to the utilitieE Director William Hukill, Development Director James Cherof, City Attorney C:Koehler ,/11 R3 /~ ' / If! fl"MYjj MlI~ I! . :& / j " / I-Jrl ,.,. I' ......1 LO~A TION Mt~P; I J I r; 'nHU P JC II LU :a~~ 'I-. f f- - r--_ - -7. -, -._7A HIGH RIDGE COMMERCE J IU7/ t ~~~ Vi = .::t XI ~ '- ':::l t.:::i""lnJ ~ i11111 ..c 11\, ~ R~ aR '- R'f::J Jl :J a.tBI r llT1 ,I' ... '. ~~. PARK f )) ( f ,tV '\ tf", I ~) R1AA \ J ~~J.~~~~ ~1];;~I:t="- ~~~ -F ~- ...~ R V;". c .l~ JAR RI~GI= 'fSTATlfS" r I} f. :41~.:- J I- - - IIr_ ". 0 I<E." ::::J ~ ~~~ =tllll ~ :j r. r--..J 1111' ~ ' .,j / "::1 t:: tfj' ~ 'i i- j~ :: 'Y - .111 III la\ { REC, ./ - .' ..m -,' l.~" :.... .t. ":l . Ii; . .t. '.' R~AAi '. ~~.... N I. .. . . . ',' ,'.:. . .N ::.~.~~.. f.IJ. fl.:. .~. ~/l g;. ~~: :t~ .~~~ ~:: . .. ~.~ . l' ~{~ . ..... .......1. 1 ---I ~ I ~.~~ ~ ~~~- ~~.--...~ -3 , ~ - - l. fJFl L. 1: ~Ar' ~ 'Ft ~/r' P- o _ \ "'-h. - ) M"'2I ,~ .' V I.~ - r _ --., rill " NOT IN CITY IV 1'1 - -~ J-r)-- t-- - - __ ~l )_' I T1 ^^" 1-1'... - _ - o 1/8 1/4 MILES ~ V~ ------ -. I ~. I I , \ . , 800 FE'=T ~unnln(~. Q lllloe::' II II' , , 1 " " " - ..... ~. \ ~\ '0 400 / ,.-:.J"'/ Nw2~ . ! PIC .. :!! ( " ~ UBOYNTON BEACH PARK OF COMMERCE" ;; < , /,J UillJ~ r 1 ~ "" R: ~ d .. I L h 1 I T 0 -ii J 7 -' Sh7~' ~~ ~~ ~ ~g .- . - I-f- . f- - - - - - - .- e- -18 ~ - --- - -- I -- ....oj --I fljo ri TJ : - I '" ~~~ '" =01 r..... I' -..- r ... -=i-- f-I- - - j-,...... fl III I IR I: a:; 'pf2-0 po ~ -- .~~.- --,-- --- i 1 - 1-1 Y po L l . l =- - _ __ AIIW'VI ::::-- - , ~ -----------....---------------- -- == Seaboard Air Line Railroad 1-9& .f -, z r'~(J'..' 0: "34 :i. 7: 58 DEI ~ms P hOEHL[R, P. H. } P.2 LAW OFFices Venn Is J'. I\()ehler, () ..4. Congr,.. Bu"nl'. C.nt.r 1280 North Cong,... AYI.nu.. Suit. 213 West Palm Beach. FI33409 Telephc"e: (407) 684.2844 EY FAX Facsimile; (407) 664.9370 November 1, 1994 MEMOltANDUM ~ TO: Ms . ~eYden, Planning &. Zoning Director OI'!". OF BOYNTON BEACH "n . . FROM: De~11s P. Xoehlerr Esqu1r~ SUBJECT: cedilr Ridge pun This is. a followup to my hand-written memo to you, same subject, earl:.er on this date. It occurred to me 88 I was driving baCK to my law office this morning that the City might want to extract certain commitments fram tne Cedar Ridge PUD a9veloper in exchange for a -green light" to corranence 1mmed1ate construction of the 34 single family residential lots that will remain within this PUD. AS conditions of e.o. issuance, for example, my client 19 willing - ( 1) .to provide surety ,.. g. 8 Letter of Credit) to cover the 34 single family lots' portion of the full PUD's $55,000 recreation tmpact fee; (2) to install all required landscaping and 1rrigation for the project's entrance roadway, extending from High Ridge Ro~d east to Forest Road; and ( 3) to :::1.18 (Qr :.1 aln with the I.ake Worth Chr11t1cm School 1:1 filing) an application to delete lots 35-45 from the previously-approved plat for the Cedar Ridge PUD. I canna: overemphssi2e my client I s desire to begin constructIon of thA S1ingl" family portion of his PUD as soon 8S pOSlsihlllL H~ is tharafcra willing to make such reasonable concAssions to the City as n8cess~ry to a~hieve his objectives. please advise! DPK/nz pc~ Mr. 30seph F. Basile, 3r. LAW OFFICES Uennis tJ. I\()ehler ~ () .A. Congress Business Center 1280 North Congress Avenue, Suite 213 West Palm Beach, FI 33409 Telephone: (407) 684-2844 Facsimile: (407) 684-9370 October 11, 1994 BY FAX Ms. Tambri Heyden, Planning & zoning Director THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH 100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 RE: Cedar Ridge PUD Dear Tambri: It was a pleasure to meet with you once again this past Monday afternoon as my clients Messrs. Joseph F. Basile, Jr., Dan Sanders and I explored a variety of issues related to the revival and development of the Cedar Ridge PUD. This is one of those "golden oldie" projects that the City would surely like to take off its "approved but unbuilt" books! I hope that the documents that I supplied to you - i.e., copies of old correspondence relating to the surety bond that was posted by the original developer back in 1983 in lieu of a recreation impact fee cash payment - will be useful. If it's not possible to pay down this offsite recreation impact fee on a per lot basis, then we certainly do wish to post some form of surety (e.g. performance bond or letter of credit) for these impact fees. The total amount, of course, will be less, reflecting the downsized project. I hope that the next correspondence you see from this office will be my letter requesting a master plan modification for the multi-family unit portion of the Cedar Ridge PUD properties. ~ ~ O~1 ~ : 1:94~ ~ l^ - PlANNING AND \\[ ZONING DEPT. , DPk/nz pc: Mr. Joseph F. Basile, Jr. rzne City of $oynton $each 100 'E. 'Boynton 'Beadi. tJJoukvartf P.O. ~310 'Boynton 'Bea&,!fforitfa 33425-0310 City:Jla1l: (4()7) 375-6Q()() !f;U: (4()7) 375-6090 Via Facsimile - (407) 624-3533 February 4, 1994 J. Richard Harris, Esq. Scott, Royce, Harris, Bryan, Barra & Jorgensen, P.A. 4400 PGA Boulevard, Suite 900 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Re: Condor Investments of Palm Beach County, Inc. Dear Mr. Harris: I have reviewed your letter of 12/20/93. The City's records are not consistent with your representations regarding the construction and acceptance of the subdivision improvements. Please provide me with the information or documents on which you base your representation regarding the completion of construction and the acceptance of those improvements. Further, it appears that your request for an appeal of the concurrency determination is not timely. Pending clarification from you, I have requested that the Concurrency Review Board not review this matter on February 8, 1994 as previously scheduled. Very truly yours, p~ Of (J~u;///faf James A. Cherof City Attorney JAC/ral }lmerka's (jattway to tfJe (julfstream ~ SCOTT ROYCE ATTORNEYS AT LAW SCOTT, ROYCE, HARRIS, BRYAN, BARRA & JORGENSEN, P.A. December 20, 1993 Tambri J. Heyden Acting Planning and Zoning Director City of Boynton Beach 100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard Post Office Box 310 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310 Re: Condor Investments of Palm Beach County. Inc. Dear Ms. Heyden: I represent Condor Investments of Palm Beach County, Inc. My clients are the owners of all of the lots and parcels in Cedar Ridge, a P.D.D., and High Ridge Commerce Park, a P.I.D., according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 46, at Page 58, of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. I am informed by my clients that the current status of concurrency assigned to this property is C-l. However, the proper status of concurrency which should be assigned to this property is A-13. This property meets the requirements of this concurrency status because the property was platted after January 13, 1978, subdivision improvements were bonded, all required improvements have been constructed and accepted, and all of the lots and parcels are still under single ownership. I do request that the status of concurrency for the herein described property be changed from C-l to A-13. If you require anything further from me or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, t,,;.. , ~. ~\~.,,, . .,~. ~~., :h J. Richard Harris RICHARD K. BARRA' JOHN L BRYAN. JR . BARRY B BYRD' I-l<\.RK P. GAGl\'Ol\' ). RICHARD HARRIS' JOH:-l ~I. IORGE"ISEN . DONKA A. KADEAU . RAYMOND W ROYCE ROBERT A. SCHAEFFER' ROBERT C. SCOTT {1925-19821 rn cc: Condor Investments of Palm Beach County, Inc. JAHIl:IhI28588\HEYDEN.L TR 4400 PGA BOULEVARD, SPITE 900 . PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA 33410 (407) 624-3900 . FAX (407) 624-3533 , , ..J . ~\ , / l..v ' . ~""I" r \ _. ,.;'. V \ J i,.J Boynton Development Corporation ~\ \ \ \ \ I I /) ( July 29, 1983 William Doney Assistant City Attorney 1615 Forum Place, Suite 200 Barristers Building West Palm Beach, Florida 3340~/---. Re :.../~:~~ Ridg~P' R~~~,u-~~D---~ Z.:Z/~ r .'......., .-.r n-: fCU Dear Mr. Dolan: This will serve to confirm our agreement concerning tional Impact Fees being assessed against Boynton L ment Corporation in connection with the platting of along High Ridge Road. The agreed upon fee is $39,835.78. This will be SE a surety bond in the amount of 110% of said amount. The fee of $39,835.78 shall be due and payable, in to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy on ar tial unit within our development. Obviously, if tr not paid the certificate of occupancy will not be i Further, should the fee not be paid prior to issuar first certificate of occupancy, you may void the pJ DAVID B. MANKUTA, Agent DBM/ht ~ ~ 120 N.E. 2nd AVENUE P.O. BOX :110 BOYNTON BEACH, F\..ORlDA ~.oo10 (:305) 73-4-8111 ,/ .~;. "\ ' P': '-.:A/ . f' - _. --~ L _'" __~-rl:~~"";;' ~"'--~~-r-il!'!~r;E I' ;U:)(;I:...-- L-L': ~ t . ~>.:" lf~~~~~~~~;;~Eb, ~~:: ~ ' --~ A~~::-~,~,w!~ ~~~ ~-'~~ -. '- .;,.-.O!___ ~. '-.?.......::.".., CITY of BOYNTON BEACH Office of the City Engineer ; July 12, 1982 David B. Mankuta, Esq. Suite 465 4651 Seridan Street Hollywood, Fl. 33021 Re: Final plat for Cedar Ridge Estates and High Ridge Commerce Park for Boynton Development Corporation Dear Mr. Mankuta: Reference is made to your letter dated June 22, 1983. In connection with the requirements for getting the subject plat approved and recorded please be advised as follows: Documents and fees to be submitted: 1. Filing fee of $150 2. Performance bonds (received) - total amount $909,000 3. Administration fee (1% of $909,000) 4. Recreation fee in the amount of $39,452.75 5. Final plat document with signatures, two prints of plat, and two prints of development plans When all of the above listed items are received a Technical Review Board will be convened. When the final plat is approved by the Technical Review Board the writer will recommend approval to the City Manager by Council action. Please be advised if additional information is desired. Very truly. yours, TAC:mb cc: Earle Megathlin, Jr. Carmen Annunziato Perry Cessna P.E. City