REVIEW COMMENTS
ceck{, Kcf/cpL
6?f-r~ J
Idr?Jh.iJ ---- . --- .
.---j7r~~ ~~J~U--:--~--r--Ib~~L=-....-
.___._____.________._ (}~__Wl~~-----.-. ____~~----~----.---~~--------
tr-'---.- s ~()_,' . .,/' r J ~
- ------ ---.._--------.-..-:._.=~_~t:--7'-~0-::--:.~,~-<u,.4.c&Y!4~~--:--_________
,n ~ --J--,- -r v -
-----..-----------..-----;-.-..-. -----------U-.AJ~~l-. ---. --..-.--. ------.-- :---------.--.-.----.---..-.------.. .-. .- .------------
, ., -/-- :t; j
---------- . t~~r...U''t.- --#~-~L.U-f:!:-~=(f--;~~.1..-~4:.~--.~~~~---~4--€-L:----------
.. . -14- k / ..
C '... '
________ ____ . L-f-vc.e/ 1 . ~ r- 0 -- . I ' ~
__ --Jf!---------~--.---~- __ _-i-!!- ______________._____~.s____~~-----.---.--.---.--
--.--------------:- --.-----~~--.--------- --- --- ---~ ~ tI ~ ~:f---. ---- -------
*~-~~~,..&~-'f;-V~-~<1~~---
_.~_l, /j"ci'1-/i<J.z-- __~_~ ~,__ ~___ _._______.__ ..
----------~._-~_._-----_._--- ~- -,,----------------._.----_.
_ .----.-- .-..-.----...-..- ii.---.. -- ________n._______.___._______ --.----.-------..
-.------------L]~f~~~Z-.-~'3-cz::..~~ ~--~ f---.
_______ ________ ________._____~ __________~-/C,~..---.--~~-------- ______ __~.~__ _____
__.__u_ _._.______2 ~__'-4Jf.~~:f._ - ~' ~_ ~.~dZe--.. · -c-:t c;~'t.~ t}v~~-c.-z-<_<LI2__ Jl{,' tfJP--"&
___ 15, -~- .. .. r .. - - T--~- . - . -/~--- ---;/~-.~-~:.----~~--~---
-------. ..--~-.---.-..f_ .--. --;..------...--.--..---.-. --.- ---- ------.- __...ic.__._.___._....___..__/_____________.._.______ - ? ~. _BU.
--;,- --:.~T-~----~_~..PI~d- :i2~.!_____~k~~_A_:.~~t:.v
~~--~~-~_..
f'{;4~...-1.-~ ..ij- jz · -': ~. . .. m ~-~ .-------~---- ---
~-
m-~~=-~~~d~;--~~~--::-~_====-..=----..
---p--AlH~.,---~--~-~.-- ....
~'-' thA- cr'>~v
_.________ ~______ ___._____.. _____.__.____._.___ .~______<__ __,__ __,_,,___-. __ ___ ___________..___ _____n________.__~______._. ___.__..__.___________~_____.___._ ~_~____________.__~_.
il--~ ~-~kf!:_~~ t9-u~
-.-.-----~--~~~,~~-~ i:-[hi~-~-~:~~
-_.__._---------~-_. ---~-
~~,.:
566 Fla.
455 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
tery is reversed, the sentence is vacated,
and the cause is remanded for proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in
part, and REMANDED
THOMPSON and ZEHMER, JJ concur
William L, HUGHES, Appellant,
v
TOWN OF MEXICO BEACH, Appellee,
No, AU-443,
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
First District.
Aug 28, 1984.
"
f
i:r
Claim of ownership of a strip of prop-
erty was opposed by a town and was reject
ed by the Circuit Court, Bay County, N
Russell Bower, J" and claimant appealed.
The District Court of Appeal held that: (1)
acceptance of dedication of property for
public use can be either by formal action of
the government to which dedication is of
fered, or by public user, and thus formal or
written acceptance is unnecessary, and (2)
acceptance of some of streets or roads in
platted subdivision is said to constitute ac-
ceptance of offer to dedicate all roads in
the subdivision, absent proof of intention to
limit the acceptance.
Affirmed.
I
; ~
1. Dedication <$::>35(1), 37
Acceptance of dedication of property
for public use can be either by formal
action of the government to which dedica-
tion is offered, or by public user, and thus
I. By action on April 27 1982. subsequent to the
filing of this action. appellee formally accepted
formal or written acceptance is unneces-
sary West's F.S.A, ~~ 95.361, 177,081
2. Dedication <$::>35(4)
Acceptance of some of streets or roads
in platted subdivision is said to constitute
acceptance of .offer. to dedicate all roads in
the subdivision, absent proof of intention to
limit the acceptance. West's F.S.A. ~~ 95.
361, 177,081.
3, Dedication <$::>37
Acceptance of dedication is implied
from actual use of the property by the
public,
Scott R, Nabors of Hutto & Nabors, Pan-
ama City, for appellant.
Paul G. Komarek of Daniel, Komarek &
Martinec, Panama City, for appellee.
PER CURIAM,
Appellant appeals from an adverse final
judgment rendered below denying appel-
lant's claim of ownership of a strip of prop-
erty located in Bay County, Florida, Ap-
pellant disputed the appellee's claim of
ownership by dedication of a 25-foot wide,
approximately 130 foot long parcel of prop-
erty located within a previously subdivided
unit of land in what is now Mexico Beach,
Florida. The disputed property is located
between two lots owned by appellant, Lots
2 and 3 of a six-lot unit of property record-
ed as Mexico Beach Unit No, 6, Block 1.
Appellant's primary argument centers on
the contention that there neither was nor
could be a formal acceptance of the dedica-
tion of the disputed strip under Section
177.081, Florida Statutes (1983), and that
the evidence is not sufficient to support a
claim of ownership by any governmental
authority under Section 95.361, Florida
Statutes (1983), t
Appellee, on the other hand, points out
that the disputed parcel is a part of a
dedicated street shown on the original plat
of the subdivision, which was duly ap-
proved by the county commission and re-
all dedicated property within its corporate lim-
its.
ARAMBURO v CARGO DEVELOPMENT, INC.
CIte as 455 So.2d 567 (F1a.App. 1 Dlat. 1984)
corded as required by law in 1951. Appel-
lee maintains further that the evidence be-
fore the trial court was ample to establish
acceptance of the dedication by improve-
ment of some of the streets in the subdivi-
sion, and by public use of those streets as
well as the disputed strip for many years
prior to as well as after the time efforts
were made by appellant or his predecessors
to establish private ownership or control
over the property
eces-
081
oads
itute
is in
m to
95.
)Iied
the
[1-3] The acceptance of a dedication of
property for public use can be either by
formal action of the government to whom
the dedication is offered, or by public user
Hollywood v. Zinki~ 283 S6.2d 581 (Fla,
4th DCA 1973), quashed in part on other
grounds, 321 So,2d 65 (Fla.1975), on re-
mand, 403 So,2d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981),
Hence, formal or written acceptance is un-
necessary Anderson v. Town of Grove-
land, 113 So.2d 569 (Fla,2d DCA 1959).
The acceptance of some of the streets or
roads in a platted subdivision is said to
constitute an acceptance of the offer to
dedicate all of the roads in the subdivision,
absent proof of an intention to limit the
acceptance. Indian Rocks Beach South
Shore v Ewell, 59 So.2d 647 (Fla,1952),
followed m Town of Palm Beachv. Palm
Beach County, 313 So.2d 770 771 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1975). Moreover, acceptance of a
dedication is implied from the actual use of
the property by the public. 19 Fla.Jur,2d,
Dedication, Section 20
Upon our consideration of the briefs and
the record, we conclude that the trial judge
did not err in determining that the disputed
parcel was a dedicated street owned and
held by the Town of Mexico Beach for
public use. We find appellant's argument
on equitable estoppel grounds wholly with-
out merit.
The judgment appealed from is therefore
AFFIRMED
~an-
!(&
nal
}el-
'op-
Ap-
oi
de,
op-
led
ch,
~ed
)ts
rd-
1.
on
lor
~a-
on
.at
a
-2.1
ja
ut
a
at
p-
e-
SMITH, WENTWORTH and WIGGIN
TON, JJ., concur
TI'
Fla,
567
Jesus ARAMBURO, Appellant,
v
CARGO DEVELOPMENT, INC., Travel-
ers Insurance Co., and the Division of
Workers' Compensation. Appellees,
No. AV-43,
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
First District.
Aug 28, 1984.
Rehearing Denied Oct, 8, 1984,
Claimant appealed from workers' com-
pensation order of deputy commissioner,
denying advance payment of his permanent
total disability benefits, The District Court
of Appeal, Zehmer, J., held that advance-
ment for payment of claimant's attorney
fees would have been prejudicial to carrier
and was properly denied.
Affirmed.
Workers' Compensation e:=>1013
Advance payment of disability compen-
sation benefits sought by claimant to pay
his attorney fees was properly denied be-
cause it was prejudicial to insurance carri-
er West's F,S.A, ~ 440.20(13)(d).
Peter S. Schwedock of Pelzner, Schwe-
dock, Finkelstein & Klausner, Miami, for
appellant.
Daniel J Sullivan of Gladson & Sullivan,
Miami, for appellees.
ZEHMER, Judge.
In this workers' compensation case,
claimant appeals an order denying advance
payment of all or a portion of his perma-
nent total disability benefits, We find that
the record contains competent, substantial
evidence to support the deputy's findings
.oJ
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 97-118
TO:
FROM:
Kerry Willis
City Manager
Tambri J. Heyden, AICP 7a-+J-
Planning and Zoning Director
Date:
March 28, 1997
Subject:
Cedar Ridge Estates PUD - status/history
As requested to prepare you for speaking with Mr. Basile, the following is a
summary of the two conditions of approval that Mr. Basile contends are legal
issues, Yesterday at 4:00 p.m" one of my planners met with Mr, Basile about
these conditions to further clarify them. Also, as requested, I have met with the
Assistant City Attorney to brief him on the 14 year convoluted history of this
project.
1. Cedar Ridge Estates PUD and High Ridge Commerce Park PID are
illustrated on the attached map, This residential project and adjacent
industrial project were rezoned and platted (under one plat) in 1983. The
residential project is comprised of single-family lots (recently built out) and
an undeveloped multi-family portion that is being processed for replatting.
2, In connection with the original plat in 1983, the city required bonds to be
posted to ensure completion of all required improvements, The
infrastructure was partially completed (no buildings were constructed) when
the project was abandoned and taken over by the R.T,C. Twelve years
elapsed, during which time the city never called the bonds to finish the
improvements and the bond company dissolved, before both properties
were purchased by Mr. Vanderwoude (current owner).
3, In an attempt to get this project up and rolling, the city agreed in 1995 to
allow construction of the single family portion with minimal up-front
investment from Mr. Vanderwoude and his builder (Mr. Basile) with regard
to completing the infrastructure, Although out of the ordinary, a special
arrangement to match the unusual circumstances was made which allowed
construction of some of the infrastructure to be delayed until during/after
the single family home construction, rather than prior to it. This allowed Mr.
Basile to sell some homes so he could afford to finish the infrastructure,
Page 2
Memorandum No. 96-118
Cedar Ridge Estates PUD
4. There is one storm water management tract (lake) that serves not only the
PUD, but also the PID. This has never been finished. Our contract
engineer (John Yeend with Gee and Jenson) offered to meet with Mr.
Basile to resolve the drainage problems. The meeting was scheduled for
10:00 am last Friday. Mr, Basile cancelled it and has not rescheduled,
Completion of the drainage is needed immediately since it is a condition of
a temporary certificate of occupancy that was issued five months ago for
Kilpatrick (an industrial use in the PID that needs permanent, not
temporary pretreatment of their storm water). Mr, Yeend has determined
that what has been partially constructed does not even correspond with the
permit that was issued. Since the drainage lake also serves Mr. Basile's
multi-family project, staff will not approve his replat until he amends his
drainage plans to reflect what's existing (or until he agrees to reconstruct
the lake) and posts surety to cover the cost of completing the lake, Staff's
position is that the drainage can no longer be delayed since the multi-family
is the last phase of the residential project.
5. The other condition is rezoning of a portion of the single-family section of
the PUD that was platted for 11 lots that the owner wanted to extract from
the PUD to sell to the private school to the north. This application was
started 1 % years ago and the conditions were never completed to allow
adoption of the ordinance.
To summarize, the two conditions are completion of the rezoning and of the
drainage tract.
T JH:dim
Attachments
xc: Mike Pawelczyk, Assistant City Attorney
Status-memo
.
NO'"
IN
C,.,.~
CEJAR R\OGE ES-\,-\TES
~' [f=l\~ __ IIlmw~ 7 \ J ~-'-:'--~J~T=71 \r;\u: l' \\
r ((U >- ur~-~:~) <-r' L il ,
P : '4 ,./' ,'~~ D~'{~ tl@l.
" ~!:: ,-l~'- ,ETIIT1'
" ' '\. u.:J.J.- l- I-' ~ ·
11 \ r1t~ ' .J ~ ~ j;'"
,fr"1n - '/ W"J'f ~ ~' .,\ "
T ' : I '- - 1'!
l \ fF' 1 L J"~' ~ QcU~.5i1J:;nl
"'- /' f> - \":' if:">0 . ~ 't::l: uil U;tr-
I ____~. ," " l,v,,' <-0- -~~
h ~ ~.... . \:C
... ' ..,. All ' -
.. ~ .
.... c= a I ..; / f. \0:'" '"" '- p- I
nil 'i . It:. ." 1f:P'_o- _...I~ -" ' ",
',\ \'i ,,;' \ \ \' 1l5..... '- :,-e-Z~
__ _, .. _ . '--. -, 1< . .i.""
~,(;1 \ ~11 ~,f1lliTt\ I'1!JI-~"';:"\ (1)Ir
U l {\ /\-' , ~Ull1LL1l~1'.:J '-
l ~ ' ~,\ ~ ',( 'CIillTT .' ~ ..~
__..;:_. J \ - '* >"~(~.~. 1'lIfL]
li- -~ \' , . ,-, "/. '.c' , tl'" : . , ' .
R :3 II Ii' \ i(+ - , l' "'-,-,- ~. t-'f:"7'~';:
:J " "; Jll 1-1 7 - · _\.;.d~.\ \D l "
~ '1 ~ ~.. . ~ ~ ~} [I - ,,' 11 r--111-:TIl \'t~~r.:
.. ~ .' . - u1 lhi:J ' '
v , j' ,I~ ,: J ;l.\.\,mr.n (Iii}
. \ ' . J . ,,,, tL\J~'
il1T 'f ,wiT' \'" ~ n I'i' \nn or":,
...,-, \ -r'.\ \ \ _ ; , . :,. u ~
I:~ 1\ \' k ,h~\1I~: 111 1\.' rt~
III \ i I..T \\ D:~I\'~~~ ~,~' ,;' ~\: .':v~
'-"'." __~ lt~\~\ln~flIh \ \ \ ,\!\),\,
_ Jy _ t J\ ffi.0; @l~,: .' -
_, 1/":5,' I, m 'IY IT t::: II
-' ~ ~:' . <,-fl, ~ ~.~~: .~:.. (\\ :~~ pLJ
~AIt~t;rod' ,,)Jj) "It ~ [ ,
~ ", ': \ \ ,':; f {1"7, , .' K 1 i\ I 1\ \ \ }.\
,.\ ' . . " . . , r- r f '1 .' iJ . . '1
1--' , _, t= -"- '
, . 'l~~_.' t: .-.. . h1' ,'t' "\ ," .....
../,'" :U -\7 : : ~ \-\71r-~ \~jL~:\~~
Ft'l. ^_ ^_'~ ;:-;. ___ : \ ~ Jirj:'-f J.... , j 1;P I C \
"-tr:>>----~' l'r ~\ \ '.c.l~ \ ~~\Lrr-~
'\ \~ I~' "_ J: .\ · _I J 7=i~~i't -J~~'/r q ~rr;
__J hj " " .\ I ,_ -- 'L;.-t-I r\'
. 1._ 11 .:;::;::. 11. _ .Hit::-'o... ~ .u; - ,~r'- ,. r+J
I ..........-;:;A-f ~ -- ~~ 1/ ' ,'~' ,,-- -'. ,-= ~'''.LL1..J:tt:ti:iil.:.
_ PI' [ . 1:J -J. -+4-'''''-t!!, .
:<:. ' c I' . -y;J .' ': r: '- '- ~ :,' ~1: '
" , ~_ ,I . ~ . -\ . ,- h .. - ~ (;"
. v~~ - ! II ,l:~ t b}.." 1 t:- ~--' f w.~Uj
1/8 MILES " ; -,I 1 ,,- ~ I ," [1111"1
). I.. I;.! -.-- ,... - ,- . ; ,'", ..Tn rn n z..,
\ \ \ \ \ \' '~~I I l"'_~~~' \, ~~~~ltJ--~
.A'10800fEET __ /lFtdc \H\ -\'J
.._d oe;'''' 2.-.'" /,/ II I T J_ \Ie 11;: - 11 '- .-:::h-
__~ -...J' \. .......,... I v" \I
--'"
rei
--
'o~ --
, ~ '':I I I _ ~ -,- i,
~~ --
~"''I" ,- If T\
,::IAI~ l<<~~: B 1 "
..... \
-, \
.~~ ~~
1 1"
~
. . ~//.
\ ,:n .- .====--:"
", \\ _ _ c:=' __ __-II"
t" \. ----
,,__ r
I .
" _-- T
I . '
~' --~
-' - \
.--- '
.- -,
--_!
.--'--
--,-':
___I
,
,
.'
)
F'"p..p..
.
)C
--
~ ~ .-
:j) ~
-
-----. .
'1-
lfj II
El~ ~
1\_ - "\:_1- e
,~ . ~~"[tJl \I>-
~_.\C-. ~-
,
I
.:
;\
"
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 97- 068
TO:
AI Newbold
Acting Development Department Director
~w~
Tambri Heyden, AICP ';iJ#-
Planning and Zoning 01 ctd7
THROUGH:
FROM:
Jerzy Lewicki -:l G
Planning and Zoning
DA TE:
February 28, 1997
SUBJECT:
Plat and Development Plans - 1 st Review
Project: Cedar Ridge Homes, Tract 8-4
Location: Cedar Ridge PUD
File No,: PLAT 97-001
The following is a list of .1s.t review comments regarding the subdivision
plat for Cedar Ridge Homes, Tract S-4,
COMMENTS
1. Provide for review an agreement between the developer and the Lake
Worth Christian School regarding maintenance access by the school
through the Cedar Ridge Estates development or dedicate an
ingress/egress easement on the plat.
2, Complete recordation of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions
document for Cedar Ridge Homes prior to the City Commission
approval of the plat.
3. City approval of the drainage agreement between Lake Worth Christian
Church and School and Condor Investment is required prior to plat
approval.
4. Reinitiate rezoning process that served to extract from the PUD the
platted lots within the PUD that are no longer intended to be developed
but are to become a future expansion of the adjacent Lake Worth
Christian School.
JL:bme
xc: Central File
D:\SHARE\WP\PROJECTS\CED-RIDG\PLA T-SF.1 ST
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
F .NNING AND ZONING DEPART"L~.\jT
MEMORANDUM NO. 97- 068
AI Newbold
Acting Development Department Djrector
~~.h~
Tambri Heyden, AICP "i"1- .;J
Planning and Zoning Oar ctdt
Jerzy Lewicki -:J G
Planning and Zoning
February 28, 1997
Plat and Development Plans - 1 st Review
Project: Cedar Ridge Homes, Tract 84
Location: Cedar Ridge PUD
File No.: PLAT 97-001
The following is a list of j~ review comments regarding the subdivision
plat for Cedar Ridge Homes. Tract 8-4.
COMMENTS
1. Provide for review an agreement between the developer and the Lake
Worth Christian School regarding maintenance access by the school
through the Cedar Ridge Estates development or dedicate an
ingress/egress easement on the plat.
2. Complete recordation of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions
document for Cedar Ridge Homes prior to the City Commission
approval of the plat.
3. City approval of the drainage agreement between Lake Worth Christian
Church and School and Condor Investment is required prior to plat
approval.
4. Reinitiate rezoning process that served to extract from the PUD the
platted lots within the PUD that are no longer intended to be developed
but are to become a future expansion of the adjacent Lake Worth
Christian School.
JL:bme
xc: Central File
D:\SHARE\WP\PROJECTS\CED-RIDG\PLA T-SF.1 ST
H\~:
NOYlE: ~
I HAve.. ~l e~ f:,oTvt ~~ F"ofC. ~
g,\~,.,o D~IM:: vJY1e.'f"VI~ c.o~
. r
~IN& D€Alf\JA~ o~ {<1L.P~G~6 ~Ir-E--
CAN B~ ~OL-~ w\'n1 \flAt.- f~t1"br:=:{)
~'f OU1/ PE~ ~f1eR-l (-? CAOt1M~ / HU L-\7"-
~I\"Y ~P~\lAL" f~ OF ~~ ~D&e-
?n Ov0:> oS E\/B~\..; Cf2AII\f\A.~ ~~ ~ OlJ\1L.-a--s;
10 ~rJE-C11tJ& -'Suf>Dlv\?:>lON 'r'O TVJ~ -00v''\f11
WI'r11 "1t: II'-l~l., CWA.~ \<J O~ ~lNl\6-
0'-(.s~ OU'r''''vlOw I N& ~ t0J W1VAl..L-~ TO
LA\$ V~ONlCA ~lcJcJ2, Nv COMrQ,e:H~~iU e...._
.~
. ""v " ,,-- "",\,......""",-
tl~lt-l^~ ,,~vJ7'<";> ~ .' ()~ ">~' ~ - 1
\ e:>e.U ~ "'" """ \ '>(" \ ? Tf1 ~ C/1 'N ~Gi~.?
~f' ()\'l? \ !'> \ l-l"!"Y 'fO UO,-,\1 \ih--l T 0'-' vJ 0 ~I v I""
f<"lO ~mC/\~u{ O~ -r11t.. ~~'0"fl ,,~
:,cM6r18- ;f(# tJC' I 'I"'" ~~ vi "'(7 IV ~ \ tJ 1><~ ·
/!\:,-,O \ nOr;:;. '()10'< vJ\ vV po '11" pK" I
\~ 1(00 Y1~ -?1911~ ~ OI~onosJ",
Yc€- 11~ ~ tl8- ~o w
\
~~.
:}.j/ . : ~bv1.
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. 97-020
TO: Al Newbold
Acting Development Department Director
THROUGH: Tambri Heyden, AICP
Planning and Zoning Director
FROM: Jerzy Lewicki ::JV
Planning and Zoning
DATE: February 28, 1997
SUBJECT:
Plat and
Project:
Location:
Agent:
File No.:
Development Plans - 1st
Cedar Ridge Estates
Cedar Ridge PUD
Paramount Engineering.
PLAT 96-008
Review
The following is a list of 1st review comments regarding the
subdivision plat for Cedar Ridge.
COMMENTS
1. In the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions document
include a provision describing the method to ensure
enforcement of constant, unobstructed access to the "T" turn-
around at the western portion of the development.
2 . Complete recordation of the Declaration of Covenants and
Restrictions document prior to the City Commission approval of
the plat.
3. City approval of the drainage agreement between Lake Worth
Christian Church and School and Condor Investment is required
prior to plat approval.
4. Reinitiate rezoning process that served to extract from the
PUD the platted lots within the PUD that are no longer
intended to be developed but are to become a future expansion
of the adjacent Lake Worth Christian School.
JL : bme
xc: Central File
D:\SHARE\WP\PROJECTS\CED-RIDG\PLAT,lST
tllb
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
February 25, 1997
Ken Hall, Plan Check Inspector '1l/1P
. ' / Ii) )
Michael J. Pawelczyk, Assistant City Attorney
RE:
Cedar Ridge Estates Recorded Homeowners Documents
This is in response to Engineering Division Memorandum No. 97-024,
which was received by my office on February 21,1997. In that Memorandum,
you indicate that the developer has submitted a plat for Cedar Ridge Homes,
Tract 4, which transfers the ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the
roadways on the P.U.D, section of the plat, "Cedar Ridge, A. P.U.D, 6 High
Ridge Commerce Park, A P.I.D,".
It is the position of this office that the Attorney for Cedar Ridge, Dennis
Koehler, Esq., is correct in stating that no revisions to the recorded Homeowners
Documents for Cedar Ridge Homeowners Association, Inc" are necessary, The
face of the plat indicates that the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for
the roadway are the Association's, Further, the Declaration of Covenant and
Restrictions for Cedar Ridge Estates defines those areas as "common areas",
which are the sole responsibility of the, Association to maintain. I am returning
the copies of the plat for Cedar Ridge Home Tract 4.
MJP/raI
Enc.
cc: AI Newbold, Acting Director of D
Mike Haag, Planning Coordinat
"-..J~Q2/
/
s:\Oevelopment\Cedar Ridge Memo
/--, V
, / /
4/V.:)
/'?
fz I~,
'Ji:.4, FY~ *II? f!; ~
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM NO. 97-024
TO:
Mike Pawelczyk, Assistant City Attorney
Al Newbold, Acting Director of Development ~
Ken Hall, Plan Check Inspector ~
CEDAR RIDGE ESTATES RECORDED HOMEOWNERS
DOCUMENTS
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
The developer has submitted the attached plat entitled Cedar Ridge Homes Tract 8-4, Its
purpose is to transfer the ownership and responsibilities of the roadways in the P,U.D.
section of the plat of "Cedar Ridge, A P,U.D. & High Ridge Commerce Park, A P.I.D.".
The maintenance responsibility for Tract 8-4 as shown on the subject plat will go to the
Cedar Ridge Homeowners Association, Inc., whose documents have been approved and
recorded.
To assure that there is no need to modify those documents, Attorney Koehler has sent us
copies of selected pages to show that there are no revisions necessary. To that end we
ask you to review the pages and confmn Attorney Koehler's position.
Please advise if you need the complete docwnents, Thanks.
KRH/ck
attachment: Fax dated 2/12/97 (11 pages)
xc: Mike Haag, Current Planning Coordinator
C:CEDARRG
ENGINEERING MEMO #97-022
~ ~ F:B~ :I::m
PLANNING AND
ZONING DEPT.
DATE: February 10, 1997
TO: BILL CAVANAUGH, FIRE PREV. OFF. 735-0272
TONY OCCHIUZZO, BULIn. PERMIT ADMIN. 6352
J. WILDNER, PKS SUPT. 6227 & K. HALLIHAN, FORSTR. 6227 . ~/
SGT. MARLON HARRIS, P.D. 6163 ~ ~ P
MIKE HAAG, PLAN. COORD. 6260 .~ :{-
~~~~I~~~~~~~:~~~~~j;~~2~~5-6407 {ll ill W ; ~
.::. .:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::"" -
.::::::....::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::;:::::::::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::',
HAVE COMMENTS, PLEASE PROVIDE EPJGI~li~.IUN9!WITl1: YOUR MEMO WITHIN ONE BUSINESS
WEEK. .. ,. "..:
..
KRH
.'". .",,' -.'- ..'.....................
THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THI~:<P!PAT ISTQ,.::;W~~F.~J~:,.:::~fI.EQ~ERSHIP OF THE ROADWAY
IDENTIFIED AS "TRACT S-4~'FR0l\4.PUl?~~P;;+B:9:f\i$::;.;:I;Q:fr~M't\tr:E ROADS, THEY WILL BE
MAINTAINED BY THE CED~:~)?OJt~~_,.I.!:::_I~m~il~II:~~~5;~:~.) WHOSE DOCUMENTS
HA VE BEEN PREVIOUSL Y::<APPROVED::::A!fID:::RECORDli[)i::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::C::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::::X::: ,..:...',":':.:'::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..
N OTEl, ..'.... . . APPLICANT .JS...BEINGCHAR ,ED.....,...EEll.,BiiSED ON.:..1lfE..c ..1M&:.:FOR..:.:EACH
..... ...
:~~trtUmrm~~t~})~~{ .::::::::::::::~:::~~/~?{rrmur;: . ..
'.' <.:.;.:
. . .. ....
. .....
. . . .. ..
..................
................................. :-;.:.;.:.:.:-:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:':':-:-;':';';':':':':';':';':';':':':':':':':':':':-.
,.................'......:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...:.:.:.....:.........:-:.:.:.:.:...:-:':..,.,:.;.:.:';...
.' '. '.', ......'.'.., ....... '.'.' ~~~: :~~ ~:;t!~~ :~~~~:t]f~\im~~:)~mi~:i~~mrr~~:~~~ji~: i~mm~~)~~~;r~j~~ir~~t~~m~~:~~j~i~~~1~~it::,.
.::::::{:~:~:~:~:::::~;::::::::~:::;,;:i. .... ..... ':'. ,':'.. {f?}tjrtf~}\r1tt~~~~jt~(~fjt~rt~t~::
C: Memo Only:
Robert Eichorst, P.W. Dir,
Tambri Heyden, p, & Z. Dir.
Al Newbold, Dep. Build. Off
CDRRDG.S-4
Thank You