MAY 1980 TO 01-22-1981 CITY OF CLEARWATER US STEEL PROPERTY ON SAND KEY CORRESPONDENCE
5- 1980 TO 1-22-1981
CITY OF CLEARWATER
US STEEL PROPERTY ON
SAND KEY
CORRESPONDENCE
\
~. Bustin, City Attorney
c..V OF CLEA-RWATER
Interdepartment Cbrr~;pondence Sheet
"
TO
FROM
David P. Healey, Planning Director
COPIES
City Manager Anthony L. Shoemaker; Elizabeth S. Haeseker,
Assistant City Manager
Status of U. S. Steel Property on Sand Key
SUBJECT'
DATE
May 28, 1980
We have today received a community impact statement and preliminary site plan for a
condominium building identified as South Beach IV, located at 1480 Gulf Boulevard,
south of the most recent high-rise building constructed by U. S. Steel.
In order to properly process and review such submission, it is necessary that we be
advised of the appropriate determination relative to the applicable zoning diatrict
based upon the City's recent litigation with U. S. Steel, The infonaation in the
Community Impact Statement identifies current zoning as "8M-54."
Specifically, based on the court determination, what is the City's position with respect
to the current zoning district of the property in queation, identified on the accompahying
map; and what should the City's position be if the submission ia not in compliance with
our interpretation of the current zoning designation.
This matter would ordinarily be heard by the Resource Development Committee on June 13.
If we could have your input well ahead of that date, it would permit us to coordinate
with the applicant as may be necessary.
DPH:bd
Undivided Half , I
Interest
.
r' ...... Undrvldea Half
~ ~:C . Interestr-'- "
U
>- ,c::x: L{)
w
w CD ~rn
~. ~~ . I r-
0 o Q
00 ~ <\J
zZ ::> 0
0 .1=1
AL c::x:O 0 ..
cnU en .. 0
q- OC/)
ZZ
I OW
f() 00
>-0::
MaB ILl <
I I ~ (!)
o ILl
RM28 Ze
<t(1)
...... (1)>-
" <t
~ CD
~
0
0
0
..
SITL:
South Beach
N
L-_
_~C_H_~
/
200
()
r.
u..
..J
::l
<.:>
RMI6
o
o
..
N
r --
.)RD\
\ 1749 )
4-78/
~~
RMI6
M('B
I
N
RM28
\ 1
FROM
~Manager Anthony L. Shoemaker
David P. Healey, Planning Director
Thomas Bustin, City Attorney; Frank Kowalski, Chief Asst. City Atty.
c.(Y OF CLEARWATER
Interdepartment Correspondence Sheet
TO
COPIES
SUBJECT.
DATE
Discussion With U. S. Steel Concerning San~ Key
June 20, 1980
Following our meeting with Frank Felix and his associates on Wednesday,
June 18th, concerning alternatives for the development of the remainder
of the U. S. Steel property, it was determined that the City Attorney's
office would be in touch with their legal representatives to discuss
an interim arrangement whereby they could initiate development on the
next proposed building while they prepared and we considered an RPD
plan for the remainder of their holdings.
After consideration of this approach, it is my recommendation that we
proceed to initiate a rezoning action on the U, S. Steel property, west
of Gulf Boulevard to RM 28 and east of Gulf Boulev.ard to RM 16 with the
exception of the shopping center site which would not be addressed.
Given the conclusion of the previous litigation, it is unclear whether
we would be precluded from carrying out such proposed action based on
the previous arguments of contract zoning and estoppel although the
latter ought to be eliminated if we don't rezone the shopping center
site. By formalizing such amendment request, and putting U. S. Steel
on notice of same, we would establish the intent of the City with re-
gard to the distribution of density as expressed in the adopted Land
Use Plan.
Were the negotiations to arrive at an RPD concept to be unsuccessful,
the applicant would be on notice as to the proposed zoning amendment,
its status would be established as "pending" and we would not stand in
jeopardy of having encouraged them to prepare plans which we were then
not in a position to approve, On the other hand, if negotiations pro-
ceed to fruition, the Land Use Plan designation, as expressed through
the proposed zoning amendment, would be the basis for distribution of
densities among the U, S. Steel holdings.
The distinction, of course, between what U. S. Steel is proposing and
what the present Plan would allow is that they consider all of the
area to be developable at 28 units per acre rather than a portion at
28 and the remainder at 16, I do not believe it is consistent with
our adopted Plan nor in the best interests of the City to allow the
current result of the litigation to stand without attempting to re-
address the issue in a legally satisfactory manner, I would appreciate
your response and direction on this matter,
DPH/fp
C..Y OF CLEARWATER
Interdepartment Correspondence Sheet
TO
FROM
City Manager Anthony L. Shoemaker
COPIES
David P. Healey, ~lanning Director
Thomas A. Bustin, City Attorney
SUBJECT,
U. S. Steel Property on Sand Key
DATE.
July 15, 1980
At your request Tom Bustin, Frank Kowalski and I reviewed the entire matter related to
previous 1itilation and current requests by U. S. Steel and have identified below our
suggested approach:
(1) Contact U. S. Steel and indicate our willingness to agree to a
transfer of density from their 7-acre MOL bays ide property, based
on the maximum 16 units per acre classification indicated on our
Land Use Plan, to the l3.5-acre MOL gu1fside property,now designated
at a maximum 28 units per acre under our Land Use flan. Corollary to
this there would need to be some provision for considering building
height in excess of that now provided for. This would allow the com-
munity impact statement and site plan for the next building to be
considered while they are developing an RPD plan for the remainder
of their property to be submitted for consideration. This alternative
would not require amendment of our Land Use Plan or submission to
the PPC for amendment of the County 'lan; or
(2) If U. S. Steel is not agreeable to the above, to indicate our willing-
ness to discuss a density transfer from the bayside property to the
gulfside property following submission and approval of amendment to
the County Plan by the PPC, as is required to legally allow us to
consider such density transfer.
In short, while there are reasons of interest to the City to encourage a density
transfer, we are not able to agree to their position that they are entitled to 28 units
per acre on each the bayside and gulfside properties without approval of the PPC for
County Plan amendment. To do otherwise would risk being cited for violation of the
County Plan.
I recommend we contact Frank Felix and advise him of our position and agreement to pursue
either alternative one or two above, as they prefer. No further action on the CIS or
site plan can or should be taken until their posture on the above options is clear and
the necessary follow-up carried out.
DPH:bd
~
CIIV OF CLEARWATER
Interdep.rtment Corre.pond~nce Sheet
,. .
.,...i
TO /
~y Manager Anthony L. Shoemaker
FROM
David P. Healey, Planning Director
COPIES
Frank X. Kowalski, Chief Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT
u. S. Steel ~roperty on Sand Key
DATE
July 30, 1980
Following our meeting with representatives of U. S. Steel on ~ednesday, July 23, and
subsequent discussions with the staff of the Pinellas tlanning Council, I have outlined
below alternatives to the submission of a Plan amendment to the Pinellas Planning Council
for the 6.5 MOL acre parcel at the south end of Sand Key on the bayside. The talulations
below are premised on my understanding that the PPC will not require a Plan amendment
provided the actual densities to be placed on the property do not exceed those provided
for under the County Land Use Plan. There are, therefore, two options we could pursue,
with the concurrence of U. S. Steel, that are outlined below.
(1) Considering only Tracts A and E at the south end of the Key, under the t~ ~ ~:
the County Plan a maximum of 30 units per acre can be permitted without any transfer
of density from Tract E; with the 30 units per acre to be permitted under the City
Plan throuLb a transfer of 27 units (13.5 acres X 2) from Tract E to Tract A.
County Plan
City Plan
Density in Units Per Acre
Tract A
Tra<-t E
30
15.5
28
28 *
This would permit the City, without recourse to amendment of the County Plan, to
proceed to consider the next building proposed by U. S. Steel at a maximum density
of 30 units per acre on an interim basis while an RPD plan is prepared for Tracts
A and E that would establish the basis for developing the remainder of th..e ad-
joining tracts.
(2) Expanding on the basic premise outlined in (1) above would allow for consideration
of the following:
County Plan
Density 6. Units Per Acre
City Plan
Existing Transfer Existing Transfer
Tract A 30 32 28 32
Tract B 30 32 28 32
Tract E 15.5 15.5 28 * 16
Tract E-l 15.5 15.5 28 * 16
Tract D (15.5 - portion) Commercial (28 ) - portion) Commercial
* Assumes density permitted based on Court determination relative to
Ordinance No. 1749.
...
C.,V OF CLEARWATER
Interdepartment Corre!'p'ond~nce Sheet
~
,c
.'
TO
City ~1anager ~nthony 1.. Shoemaker
FROM:
David 2. lealey, 21anning Director
COPIES
Frank X. Kowalski, Chief Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT
U. S. Steel !roperty on Sand Key
DATE
July 3C, 1980
,.>age 12
This alternative would involve a necessary ~lan amendment submitted to the
Pine lIas llanning Council for the portion of Tract ~ not now classified as ~om-
mercial (2.5 acres MOL). The ~PC has identified that this will be necessary
irrespective of any density transfer in that the property is to be used in a
manner different from that designated on the County ?lan. In amending Tract D
to Commer:ial, which the City would support, the balance of the allowable density
from Tract E-l (2.5 acres MOL X 12) would be transferred to Tracts d and B under
the County Plan providing some additional 30 units to be distributed over the
approximately 17.5 acres, allowing for approximately 32 units per acre to be
placed on the two gulfside tracts. This alternative has the a dvantage of ac-
complishing essentially what U. S. Steel proposes to do with fracts A and B,
density-wise, while recognizing the City's objectives with respect to Tracts E
and E-l. It has the disadvantage of necessitating an amendment to the County
Land Use rlan prior to going forward with the density transfer. Obviously, all
of the numbers, both acreage and consequent numbers of units and density, are
approximate and would need to be adjusted to correspond to validated survey in-
formation.
Once ~ detennination is made by U. S. Steel as to whether they concur in one or the
other of the alternatives identified above, the City will need to construct an interim
arrangement whereby to consider the community impact statement and site plan for the
next proposed building during which time U. S. Steel would prepare, and submit for
approval, an RPD plan encompassing either the provisions outlined in (1) or (2) above.
With regard to timing, if Alternative #1 is pursued, we would be in a position to
present the interim arrangement to the City tommission at their September 4th meeting
and, if approved, for a building permit to be issued thereafter. If Alternative #2 is
pursued, it will require consideration of the County 21an amendment at the ~inellas
Planning Council meeting of September 17; with the earliest likely date for City Com-
mission authorization of the next building, on an interim basis, occurring on October 16.
As part of any interim arrangement, whereby the City would allow the next building to
proceed at greater than the density allowed, we would need whatever assurance is deemed
appropriate by the City Attorney with regard to the trade-off on Tract E, as well as
Tracts E-I and D, if involved, along with a firm commitment as to the time within which
an RPD would be submitted for approval.
I believe either of these two-tiered density transfer approaches allows us to work within
the framework of both the Court decision and the County Land Use :'lan in a manner both
equitable and expeditious.
DPH:bd
J::: ~'
*' ..........
..; ~ 'i" ..:. J....""?\<'lO' ....\ 'IC. 't~;;. 1,'" -;0- ;~~
, .~
, "
~f) I I ,
c ,Y 0 F C ,L EAR W,A T E R
Interdepartment Cor",espo.~d~nce: .Sheet
-,
TO'
FR'OM.
. - ,
, ~n~ir~n~ .L;" Sba.e'x:makie~,~ ~Qilti-'~~$.~g;e~ ~ '
.. .(\i.~ :...... ,Jtt""-:" ~ "i': ::
';. {J ~'f 1_ ~'" ~{~ ~
;R~a~;~.t ?KCifwa,ls.ki.. \CiGiY~~f~'~t~tili;{iI~3.'~~l'Cli!t)y; A,tto,l'!'ne y
--.. ~ \ "'.1
COPIES. "
~, -' DaN;e\ Healey... Planning Di'recto,r'
W..-5.. !5teeJ1 P.r.ape,rtv on' '5'and,4Key,
SW.BJI6CT
DATE:
- A,u~,ursit, 1... - 19'80
. .
,O,~ ,J.,udy (Z:3:.. 1'9\8'0.a .r..g.e-etin,g w~s.lhel]{~;:;b.d<<v,e.et1 ~rrep~es'ealt-a:thve[8 .of lt~:he ,';G:11lty ,ef
(Gl(e.a;~W:a\t9~~~ ,(alJ!la 'J!<el!>,r,{eJs e,nt'a\t.J.\v\eIS ,af V-. ,6:. ,Sbe~t1. Tlh.e C)i\t~ '\W'laIS .r~~l1elsrelntelfil
~~ ~ ~
-Iff' ~'~-* ~ ..
~ I'.c.'I-"'( .
.~ 1 ; ~ ~}t. -
" -~... 'I I
j:;, . Ii
w il"'s~tjfJ~''11~<:~
.! r~/'" ('~ !~~!'1"~
~ , ,~M~t~~@/ll~'l'S1h(i).etma~_e~;,~.,.{~Ji~\y:~~~pt~ig,e ~
,." ,- <t"-'
1 - "{eial1(e~Yl!, -,.m < _ " .
ilir'ia.4~Giw~11~sl '~ii:~fa~~~(t~Y""A'~o}r1lii~\Y'
, .
\ .,}' ~ .,.-I'; ). ~, -, ~ i" I ~ ~ 't-_;
"" "
. ;.~afnt~t1\T.ti~~5i-:;:~t~re)1e.~a\'8. ~r./ep~ersre~t:erGl.i~~,.,:,~,
r i "'- ' \ ~ .......
"
"
: ~._ 1
~11 ~
,-' "t
- <'
.,'
"-i," ~
Ii.,"
,
, ,
".~' #:an.a.h}k:}F el(i~
. - ,
", ,,,,' '5m:en'tnl;\~, l''hGm\prSla./n " "
, \ " :Bloln ~S'im.p's\Gn (an:ta '~h1lS \~"1'~e1~t\e:GItJ)
,.. ~ -< { , 'i',,J. ~"(i ,
~\~J~i~s'. ~~eLeliong, ti}:re Oi\ty arsls,i,st!{!(Q' W ., :5,., Stiefel' :i>n ~unde}rjslta\J1dii!n,g-'t<he. .1Ii1mJj.\tat.i<Pn.s
,t)ll,'{qr~V;,el1"ci~Rl1e~nt' .i1m<ps'sed 'b" .Pin/~}li],ta'{s .e::'oqoJitIY<.'!b<anc:1 ;ij'ls(e 'P)la'n. ''T,h,e'lQiit1''
, ' 'elm,~~ls}i(~{e'Ci ~that l't could n'at bSlsue a; builltG'~n'g \~e~,mit which ilS not' in to'o;:mo.r:lnty
"~i\t1h, ,t-h~, G~G,1m.ty plan.
u. is. ",Ste.e1A.ndicated a de'si~e -t.o, 'p~ocee.d; with' ~evelopmen't, &nd at ~he, ,#/r,ection
~f"t"he. 'C,ity' NJ..a,na"ger, the Ptanning, ":IDir,ector-att-e,rnpted to outline ,s,ome 01 the
. -,cte\VAe1lopme'n:t--:'atteTnati ve's which we,r,e, "a,v.a1'la.a'leJ t'o U. S.. St'e1el. T:Jire,s(e', ,O'p,t.i'on,s
'we-r"e' sfe,t~)~o~r.tb, in ,a memora.ndum.>".~a\tlela 'July 6'0, 1989, from ,the Plal1J1i.ng
'E>i'1!<,ector ,fo the City Manager.. and<We'r'e pr,'e"s e.nt'ed to repre,s'e,nt.aiti.v.e,g or U. S,
Steel at, a 'mee,tin'g he,ld at City Hall. en J'w..y 30,' 19$0. This m~e:e\t~i(ng was
~bt[Emde,a ey.Mr. Shoemaker.. Mr~. HeaLey.. m~s'elI, and Mr. FeH<<, ,Mr, T.hempson,
aha ~{ir. SJi'mp'sGn.
v'
A\t"t'ae J'ulV 3'0 ,meet<i,ng the 'G~t-y ,p>\r,els1ent<e\Q lthe. a1ter'n'aUv,es OUiU'M(erehiJ1<l'l-,ti};re ;ajBOVe
-rre~e)r'eQlclea ,mem(aT.antQum't'a 't:a'e 're'\p\~els:elm~~t4.'\'^e,s of U. S. St<eel. N~1',..~ 4~~1~i~~alEd
Mr. TJBromp's'on sY(:)ugJht da rifl1ea.tiron 'o(;;tlire.,alte\r,nati ve.s a,nd i'DCi1"c"a't'ed' ~.f ,a:ei~a~~e
to ,pr-ocreed'.e;s;ped'ilt.iously en a higih r'i~s,e"';'sitruot~re on the Gulf side at a, Gte1nlslity
of at least 3'(} units per acre.
TJhe' Ci\t..y ,e~1'ai'D(e\~ ltlhe 'pr,acedlUlJ!lels ~htclh"~o,e1d ,ba,ve to be "tm'<i>e.r(ta~e.p lilt1.'a(~ater
to appr1o.ve a\ but,ltding 'permt fo>r. m~g)l} ..r.iste a't 3,0 uni.ts per a'e<r,e ,on t~he..,~~t:~'ti'G~',
"J:,l\t
>J 'I
AUG- 4~ l~sg
,.
To,: Anthony L. Shoefmak,er, City Manager
Re: U. S. .Steel Property on Sa,nd K'ey
Al1.gl1s,t 1, 1980
Page 2
This p,ropolsed <develo!pme,nt exc'eeds tae permitte<d den..ity of 28 units per
'acre under CUy zcn,in,g, and ~t also eKc/e,eds ,the height l1mi'taUon,s imposed
by the City's zon.ing ordinances. The City explained that the applica\tion
could be process.ed provided that the developer designated a certain tract
of property on Sand Key from which dendty could be transferred to the
Gulf side. Then, the site plan could be reviewed and submitted to the
City C.omm:ission for approval. Upon cG'!lsiderat-l.on, the Commission
could apprGve the proposed dte plan and simultaneou,sly grant a height
variance. It was em,phas'iz<ed, of c,ourse, tha,t the City COJrnm,i!.sion ka.s 't$1e
a\Qthoir,i\ty JttO appr.<0ve ot" deny tJhat re.qluels1t. TJa,e sltoa.ff did indii\cat.(e, lbGwelV<e~r,
ltawat 's~afJI ~s a,mrettl1a,1:!>I!(e 11~'li) t4he ,c'GIl'G!elf>t ~0i ,de\D'Sliltv til"Ja'llslf{e11' ,
Mr. T~homplson sotat,ed tha,t the Gpi,n.i1on of the Circ,uilt Court in v-aUa.ati,nlg
Ordioa'll.c,e No. 1749 c/ould be r.e,ad -t'o aut,h:ori'z'e con.s,trucj.tion at a ma:~,m\\ml
of 54 \\mit,. pe,r a'cre. Thi.. inte4'pr,et-ation was disputed by the City,
Mr, Taomlp)son i,ndl,cJated that he wowd pref'.er not to desig.nate a tract of land
from- which density would be borrow,ed to effectu,te tlae tran,sfer, mecau.se
he did not want to concede the effeGt of the court order was to impos,e a-
density limit of 28 units per acre.
Upon further discussion, Mr. FeUx stated that the development which U. S.
Stfeel eons,tantly p,ropo,ses !ior the remainder of it. holdings on Sand Key
calls for a total density of almo.t exactly 28 units per acre, as well as
commercial development of a site on the North side. Representatives of U. S.
Steel stated that the development which they would like to pursue on Sand Key can
be accomplished under the commercial and RM 28 designations, &s per the
court order, provided that the City will authorize transfer eff density from the
bay aide to the Gulf side, and approve the requisite height variances.
It should be noted also that U. S. Steel's current development plan is virtually
id,e,ntical to the plan which U. S. Steel propo,sed as a purported compromi'se of
the liti,gation.
I pointed o'ut to the r1epresentatives of U. S. Steel that the City does not believe
that eommercial and high density residential is appropriate zoning for Sand
Key: that the court order invalidated Ordinance No. 1749 on the grounds that
insufficient time had expired since the 1963 agreement with Mr. Wright: that
at some un.pecified time in the future the court indicated that the City would
be entitled to reBone the property to an approp,riate classificatio,n; and that
the City mtends to rezone the prope!'ty as Boon as it possegs the power to do
so. U. S. Ste'el understands that its right s to develop the property under
...
i
..
-
....,,~'J ~~ ~Y~_';N-"'" - '-; -'.r;'\7 ;:.-r;;;:'-I:t) I~
-
-;;
I>
;. "'"t'
'f/Oi:t; YA'At~q:D~..j~~ <JS~t)'emal~elr""lt-",~'ll
..)l;\<e~: '~S~~~l~:i?lt{Qjpel1'tt~y -(0n_-
!A\U~ - ,~tp,,;)J.j~1~9t81~" , ,
~a'ge 3
,
.>
r.t ~i" f
, L
/
"
- ~"'''''
..~~
~ ','f "'
, ,
i/ t ... ,
~i~dts~i~gA!~~~lllg,.,~i'}'l ~no,t lGiol1tt~~e!!li\D.:lfselllP~e'1i':i~iY"".J~Jrd, t-bait. ls1~a..u, ~e:eJli.~t~~t,'.~,{, ',.
liS ~i~~l~~~iJ.\~~;,{t'b:'vDlilt'~at':e' .>!'\ez~ou,i'~'g.~!s;;'.tG~# ~a~s~",it \woutd 'be ~lrelgaa.~Y-\i~lri~1s1s:i'a1t~,.
Mr~. ~F;'elJ!1~1i1r~t~ate.d ,a deeb..eJ'!to, '.~e~~ur,e:~aj~pl;~~al.upf :de",el~~ment,~pjr~\piklf~J'
'. ' '~a~l1a,.,~e$Y~:'~l:f~~i~cUG.~ted a 'defS,i\~..et.tfo'~~1\Xt;i'~\>.~-,bUii}diDg' pe r,mit ta's.c'(~lOOI1 ~a(s
;~tRP's(81~a.}re);f~~~PJl'8,tr,uet'liol1 lof th~' ,&$!\>>'rc~~eiJti.19,ne,cf4hl'g,h ?r-i/s'e "ol1,~tn~.:l@.uU' 18A.~if,el"
,,~lJ14:1~aQ.j~~Qi~31t:ed?a desh'e ,tQ ~;a:pi>)1\oVt~li ~Qf ,&In: R~\l:;) to\r d7e~J\e1toIP~eJit~;af'
';~~er~~~a;~lf;lre\r, ,af'Jt:b.e i,s/}al1d. , ,"C '
:*
,f
,
,,-
''"
,
, "
1-i
,
:~ ... ~
.,'
_,' ;)l~,~t.~~ ~:r~te;ElJl~-ba\t il:if.r., '~ho~p.!qQ,'la'nn'.JI""w\OiU11r';:LG,~e}r'lto ,at~e~~t,~t:o'~d(e\.V,teI~P4R '~~
, , "'~'" ).~~t~~a~'lJid{(~IDl.:ag:,t~~"W~~c1S1..i~~~!.1;(t:rQ~s~u~~\t,ialJf~~~f)!lfl~t~rc{ ,., - ',~::, - ~\' " . '~
';~1f~l'i1it!rg_E;}ri~ii(~~f(alr~;I~~i~)h"~~ci!~~~~j(.~~W~~~-~~li~~.~1 irQ, ".; ~ " " ': ,~
",tb~\ €'ir~yl~(!3iommi:..sio'D for ,app~Ov.iL1ll.~ ~.alJ1dt~hi\e\Q,~"'wo.ad "d;e'pel1d..u.~D~<,am~~tg{,~rtf'RwelJt , :~
l,to}.(.c:~!t~\nr1i\~)]i)~afsl jsra'fJlha{s~~~r.Jt}U~l~t.~~t:re!~€l:er~ -,w;l;lIitG!h>>linv~i~~Il~w2e11tGjr.~t- ,of ·
!S'a>~I<-J1S'ehst~~(ajl(aelnf8ii\t~ IP'el:r"~!srs1i\l))re,,,-~caIe~~\lt.lli(e"~R~~ .z,8<t~lfal8[s\i$~at~t~t!1'.; i.: ~ ..?-:' . -' l~j
; - j"'- "," ' " ~~
v,
, '
;E"na'nk x. K'Owa,l1sW, ,
Oli>ief' ~tals;i!slt-a$1t ~e$t..,y' ~~tort!1"e,o/
,
,
.,.',
':,';\~
,
~<.J('
", jJ
''-'
j.
> .
FXK:fs
1
~~
"
"
~...--,t,':;".I~ "'t
+ tI'" ~.... "" ' Of:,.( ~-4~\ li ",>-~.. ,,\'!. .. It..:
-,..........., !~ ~
v
~~ ~~";'
qr I .'
)~ ." "",U",_
~ It"'c.~~lcf'I1;;;--_
\\ I\I~;> C,7A-:..
V \\I~ 1.?fE ~\
,\~ ,\., C> ...
s.... ..... ,
~~ --~ ~ 5C~
h'f'\ _== -', C:::j~
~~ ~ ~~
"':.."?!A -- ~'"
~~ TEll ~~i
___,.",,,,11;/11
C I T Y
o F
CLEARWATER
POST OFFICE BOX 4748
C LEA R W ATE R, F LOR IDA 33518
,
OFFICE OF
CITY ATTORNEY
August 19~ 1980
Dennis p, Thompson, Esq.
1253 Park
Clearwater, Florida
Re: U. So Steel/City of Clearwater
Dear Dennis:
At our meetIng of August 12 we discussed a tentative agreement relating to
development on Sand Key~ and providIng:
1. That U. S. Steel could apply for a permit to construct a
condomInium in excess of current heIght limitations
(South Beach IV) on the Gulf side~ and that the CIty would
proce s s the application, If
(a) Uo S. Steel submitted a community impact statement~
site plan and application for a variance of the applicable
height re strictIons;
(b) Uo S. Steel agreed in writIng to submit an ApplicatIon
for an RPD, covering at least a tract of land on the Bay
side which, together with the deve topment proposed
on the Gulf side, would average no more than 28 units
per acre. The RPD would have to be submItted Wlthin
6 months of the apphcation for the fust building_permit,
and the certificate of occupancy would not be issued until
this requirement had been satisfied; and
(c) the parties agreed that the customary community impact
statement and site plan review oJ all buildIngs proposed
for construction would not be waived, and that the City
would be empowered to take appropriate action on same.
2. It is understood that, if an agreement were reached between City staff
and representatives of U. S. Steel, the staff would recommend that the
CIty Commission authorize execution of the agreement and grant the
variance subject to execution of the agreement by both parties.
ll. 5. ~"l;-ec..\
"Equal Employment and Affirmative Action ElPployer"
...r
Dennis P. Thompson
Page 2
August 19, 1980
,
3. It is understood that no permIt W111 be issued by the City which does
not conform to the County Land Use Plan, which designates a
maximum density of 30 units on the Gulf side and 15.5 umts on the
Bay side.
4. The purpose of the agreement is to enable U. S. Steel to seek
a building permit expeditiously W1thout compromising the
authority of the City to review site pI ans and to ensure
compliance with codes. It is intended that any transfer of
density designate, either by contract or by a site plan
submitted as part of an application for an RPD, a specific
parcel from whIch density is borrowed and another parcel to
which It is transferredo It is also intended that any such
transfer be binding on any succe s sor-in-Intere st or a s sIgnee.
5. It IS understood and agreed that U. So Steel or its successor-
in-interest or assignee would be oblIgated to submit any and
all documents required in support of an application for RPD;
that the RPD would be submitted in good faith and with the
intention that it serve as the basis of future development on
the designated tracts; and that the CIty would retain all its
powers inherent in the process of community impact statement
and site plan review.
~
I believe that an agreement might be reached which incorporates essentially what
has been set forth here. This would enable U. S. Steel to apply expedItiously for
a building permit on South Beach IV, and would satisfy the City's obligations under
the final summary judgment as to the parcels involved in the agreement. The City
will of course honor its obligations under the judgment, but you should be aware
that it 1 S the opmion of City staff that the property held by Uo S. Steel on Sand
Key is not appropriately zoned, and when the CIty is legally empowered to rezone
the property it is the intention of staff to propose such a rezoning.
I appreciate y-our efforts and that of U. So Steel's other representatives to
re solve the difference s between our re spective clients. It is my hope, as expre ssed
by the City Manager, that we amicably resolve our differences in the best interest
of all concerned. In that regard, please respond as to whether your clIent is In
agreement with the matters presented.
Sincerely,
Fr:6.<t-11~1~
Chief AssIstant City Attorney
FXK:fs
..
\
,~
TO
FROM
COPIES
SUBJECT
DATE
c..V OF CLEARWATER
Interdepartment Correspondence Sheet
A~ony L. Shoem..'lker, City Manager
/rank X. Kowalski, Chief Assistant City Attorney
v6'avid P. Healey, Planning Director
Proposed U. S. Steel Agreement on Sand Key
October 30, 1980
You will note that I spoke with you and expressed some reservations
about the proposed agreement for sett1eme~t of the dispute regarding l:iuilding
permits for U. S. Steel on Sand Key.
We have received oil. memorandum from Mr~ Healey which sets fcrth
his specific objections to Mr. Thom.pson's proposal.
It is necessary that I reply to Mr. Thompson's proposal. I would
request that you either direct me to respond or that we meet to discuss what
cour se we should follow,
Frank X. Kowalski,
Chief Assistant City Attorney
~I., ~lVEQ
ijt3t 3i .
B~N'nNa
~D~~
V, 5/ ~
...
..
#
C.(Y OF CLEARWATER
Interdepertment Correspondence Sheet
TO
Frank X. Kowalski, Chief Assistant City Attorney
FROM
David P. Healey, Planning Director
COPIES
SUBJECT:
City Manager Anthony L. Shoemaker
.u. S. Steel Agreement -- Letter and Draft Agreement,
Dated September 30, 1980, from Dennis P. Thompson
DATE
October 29, 1980
Page #2
I see no circumstance under which I could support such agreement and would strongly
recommend to the City Manager that we respond accordingly and I proceed to initiate
a rezoning action on the non-eommercial portion of U. S. Steel's holdings 80 as to
establish the appropriate zOD,ing districts consistent with the Land Use Plan, With
the City Manager's concurrence, I will prepare and submit the rezoning applications
forthwi th .
If I can be of further assistance in this matter, please advise.
DPH: bd
"
y'
, J
(
I
\.,
0': ~. V;~ D
-::-c: '-.:: t,,:: 31!-."'::v -:I-~ ~ ,_....-::.~ c.. Th:Jt ==>30"'-1 ? ~
OCT
1
1380
<
,
'-
:;'c..... .c.=-:::s =
c
,253 =--=\.. =-=:.~-
Pl.-'-~; T!~;Ir-;CJ.
D-r7ry ,; ~'--~f""~~.;"-
:'1:-_;:;':)::' -=)~ -:;~O
CL:-..=\tA-:::> _'--'- __ ~=. 6
'.:. I _.. :
:: -,-:
.-:.--
-:
_ =- =-..,. lO ...:. : =-
~ S :. --:-" =-SO.....
::
_'_C --:::::: .J-
- ;:;~--::.51
::2~-;::'-f;:;'.==:- 30,1930
..... '-- _--~1=
:- - --'
-=_~ ~~i) =~~LJI-\-:::rtY
-::.:--: =~::;. :j:;-,
- "::=':5-0'
..... 1::- ""'0'5
~~. ?ra~k V ~0walskl
,"'" -, =-~: _~_SS2..S-::::-1':. C:... -:'-1 ?.L-:'-=Jr:r.l~\-
_:.. ::.,-
:):
c.,.., ........ - --
- - ---
~r:.-=.:'"
.l._':"
s.
-=).3I=:~C ~2
'"- __ =3~--1;3.~2Y, ?lO[l~a
_ C.
Sa~d ~2~. ZC~l~g ~~:€~~eDt
=:~~~
-:-....-;::. -'"\ 1.. .
- - -- -. ...
1.
-=_">:_CS~~lS i:O::- ~ _,J_ _-:;:,,"'::'C;\\T Co "=:>"'.:G"2-:-'~:::C G.{=-~:=2:rt~n--:.
~e~2~lng to ~ne =c~ure co~s~r~ctlo~ on ~n2 so~tn DOrtlS~ of Sand
::'2~- \\i~~lcn -.VOI.J~C. c-:..rls.:..st: 0= aT"'.. ~g~~-::-:-~!:-:. D}-" -:.~e Cl -iT ale. r..:. S. Steel
LC se~tle~~n~ of
ZODlDg d':'s'CC::t:.-3S
=J~ ~""'iat a::-ea.
~tere ~re one O~ ~~o =~~:1;~S
oUL.l~ne OI your proposal In io~r le~~er
~~_~~~ng ~o ~a~~ers of =~~8re ~~2~=v~ls.
L.~at:. all tje aD0~ovals s~:)~lc be OC~2 at:.
, '-
:-lle--:.:lCJ::o ~~)g~"
= .: ern
-'-'0
1___,-
OI .:... '-Sc:s:::
j 0
-'--',
IS80,
malDly
\";e T r:::.o j \~,::1-"" .3~:::-ongl~l
~ne ~l~e a~d ~ta~ ~he
a::.::::::.-ava1. 0=
-n ~
'.-....!. C
:..r.lll::'2J..
~:-::;ac-c 3-=dC.~"
-~~
-\....'...
-:::~l e R.?;::;,
as
2l:
S:~2.f1p2. e I
::'.2l=
Su==:'C=--==~-:' fCI~
.L_."1S :2::-ta:"'~~2~ 0=
-:11.2 r>?D.
L=-},:s,\... :..se,
c="- -- ..c_ I:):: e_x_::-=::~':\:)~3 0:: -~lg;-l;: ~:"':-=-~~-::~ol_ r~~'...:.:..:en2r:L.S s_~:>ulc
- C'=,l:-J? ~['_(':-= G_1:: -:::'"12::' ,:':-..:::: _~!Uc' srtJL:.~::' SL..=I2.CS- =o~ -=..""12 ::::r:::l.:-e ~pr;.
2~
C" ~
~-
~~~ 3~~1 p_~2SS ~2V:"'S~
:?==?:2-:E.3t: C)='~':)':'--:...:-':" -:.\..
::::.=
~!'... C 2-0 s ec.
~!""'1C.
,
ge~ ;:2Cr: \-l-::'.r.
~\- =--.1- -:J- J...L~ ~' :)l...2:.- S ,
;...--
;
/J_---
/
'II
____-/i ( ,
.... -......----.. -----
/
:)-=r::-:'2 =
_:J ~I0:: S .J!"l
::-:::'0
--:-.- ".....
.~
::-
..::. i;.,
~ --.. r
,-. -
~ - -.
- - ...... -
\ :: .l_c::cc:.
-..::
9/30/80
~rtIS AG~~2~:::Nr:; ::-~8.e 3.T1C e~L:9red l;1"C.O t:!:!..S
cay
of
1930, by a~d 0et~e=~ l~~IT3D STAT3S ST23L CC~?O~~TIO~,
:-.-==:-e:"':-.L.;,=-=er :-2:;:21::::-9C LO 2.5 "DSSII ana CI~Y OF CL2}'"\~\'~;"__T=::R, l-12:ce=-~a.ft~~
_::: _ _:-.:.::.:: LO ~s lie L -=.,11
WIT ~ E S S ~ T C
-'-----llC:
,.,n':"'.:\.~......."
GSS has s~bmlt~ed an ap?l~sa~~Qn =or a ~ul1Glng
~~~~l~ =0~ cons~~uC~lon of a cor.QOml~~~~ on ~te Gu~= 31C~ of Sa~~
Key aCJac2~~ and contlguous to ~SS's ?~25en~ C~nG2~~~~~~ s~~~c~~~e
knot...ln as SOuL:.n Beacl1 1~60, \\<r..lc~ ~U:'-J..C.l:-!g e.nd 2.IT~n:'Ll~S/ -:l1en
.-I~ -,-, c - 1- I ' ,- - .:::;; ~
--....... -- -- --~,
Nould ehc22a ~e~~al~ ~~lgh~
1 :. I7'~:' -: 3. t:L ':: _~ ~
::.=-'~
- - - - -
'... = _ "::: _ _ _ __I':' J _
::::'2.~ :-crc. se-c.back ::-9~U1.~2I7.erlts lj;.C2r :..rle Cl1:~i' s S~~:::-~:-1-:' z~r.~ng
ci.2SS:=lC::."Clor,
(salC ~1jllc~~:;
a::1C
::'~l 2: n 1 L: l ~ S
5.-:al1
-, -
...-C
- -
:::==e~~ec. -':'0
-:E:::-2:'::
e-s
~ .1..'
:::oUl..n
- ,
~E-acn
l~SO) ;
a~d
\'lRERE.Z\S, USS ana. Clty 3.re In d2.sogreerr,-3i}~ 2.S -::0 "Che
a.e~sl~y and o"Cher llmita~lons appllcable ~o the 2.a~c. C\:::2<:: by USS
on S3.cld :Key as a result:. of tha~ C-3cc:a:..:l. S12...""T"l;I.ary :-.J-j;I'=::1~ or ~~e
Cl~C~l~ Cour~ for Plnellas County, Florlca, G2"Cec: J~n~ary 11, 1979,
~r. an aC"Clon ent:.ltled United S"C.a~es Steel Corpora~lon VS. Cl~Y or
C L c::.:!:""" a ;:e..::; aDd
~~n:E::? E.Z\S ,
"Che Darties
csslre
"Co resolve ~~7:"::
, --
C~ 1: r ere:!r.:es
~o ~~e 7aXlm~ ex"Cent posslble by 2.s~eel~g on a ~~an =or l~nc: ~S3.S2.
=o~ Ce~~3.1n
?ar -:.s
or
Sand Key
and
"co allow
r-c C
LJ...,....
~o
?:::o:::e2c. \\'l"c'!1
T"""':J
~~~S-,:,~uC~ion or Soutt 32a:::h 1~80.
!';0I'l,
TT:.:~~~'";;'r::;'C"
- --.-- -- -' - '\...-,1 r
l:;'
cor:s lC 2~ 2. ~lcr!
0=
- -. c
--.....::..-...-::::::::::.~
-------....
=.r:c.
".=
'---
~ne =o\-e~an~s n2r~ln cc~~alnSQ, ~~e =ar~~2S 2~=es as ~~~~~~-s:
J.... 'Iha-c CSS, \";1.11 :::-2.-SI..2':)~l-': ::..... 2~pl'::":::2.-':'l:):-~, I~!: SU":)::1:2-
:-:e:-ll: .:. -:.5 F~=-C::1~
aDD1:..ca-':lor.
"Co
C^~=n~ ~ecC=sa~~1
=o~
_ ':)0.~~C-
.:..:-).;
---'~""-,"'I -
---. --
-:o~ a
C:):-l S 0:J1 l :""_ ~ '''':''-l
5L:'-L1C~_~~
(SOU-='['l 3~:::cr:
2-~S,Jl
-::0
SO~-:=2..:-:
1 '""\ 3-:-~_-_~S 0= c2:--dcr-~r..:......1.....---' ="r~:=l~ 1.:-IS-S 2.=-'s 0:1= 1-==-.:21 0= -:=..::-":':':-lQ =.:"JC
.-., -- - - - /...... ::::.
-'--~ ---
-=':-13-:' 3.:::)::":::::=-:'1.0:-. _ cC-_-~=-_2.-:':. l7:::::.C~-:' S"C_::'::'''- '"")_-:::::-~2..:-e:: .=-n
~-..--...- ---.......-
=--'-----=-_:--=
,:..-:.n
-.:.:-: 2. C l~:: ' s
t2' ..: oS -'::'':''1::12 ::~:
~.:-oc~j_:.-~~ ,
:::. _ 1,-
a~ ~=Dll=a"Clon for Varla:l.CeS
of
~~~ ~~~gn~ ~e3-:'~lC~:v~S
U.:-l=e~
1" ..." l
-.......-...-.:... \:
7
2~C. - =.L.~r=::-ont Sloe yard set::' =. c:: :-e~1.1=-~--=_-~:--l-;:S (-c::e :~S2.l c.2Sr'::--:"9\:.l0:1
= Cl ~ :3:"_~!: =- 2 =. :: n
1480
;"5
sp-r- =o~-.:.:-,
-...-, ---..... -. - ........ - -
":l\
~I
2. That wlt~ln s~x months of t~e date of tnlS agre~~cnt,
GSS Nlll SUb~lt to -che Clty an a?pllcatlon :or an RPD classl=~=3tlon
co\erlng the -c~ac-cs of land on Sand Key j=scrlbed in ~XhlblL A.
S~c~ c??Ilcatlon wlll ?rOV1Ce -chat develo?~ent over the bayslde
7
-,;111 CCf'SlSt 0: 120
.1:11 -CS
(12
tlD2..t3 ~:::= =::cre).
.
':'.:1e
..:'"2lTclr.. :.r-lg
SC~~0~l~llli~ unlLS
--, I 1
N...i...i._
~e allocated to -c~e gulf SlGe
aDd ""'-111 '::;0;-,-
SlS~ or :our bUlldlngs (lncluding 1480) cacn ~aving 12 s-corles of
C=':-:'::::'iT.1.:11lLll d'.';2111:-:<;S and one level 0: ?a~"..::l::1g.
~~e average G2:-:S1-C} 1
over all the land descrlbed In Exhiblt ~ shall DO-C exceed 28 UD1-CS
::.e= ac:::-e.
3. USS, c-C tne tl~e of l~S a~?llCaLlon for ?PD, shall
SU~~l-C a corr~unlty ~n?aCL state~ent Lor ~.:1e 2DLlre ~P0 and the
-: 1 -:.~" ~g::-ees tl1a t no :u~~h2r cOilullunl-::'y :.rnpac:. 5 L.a. -:.e:llen t 3~all be
~~c~l~ed w1-ch reS?2C-C -co -CDe construc-clon 0: l:-:dlvldual ~ul:Glngs
conformlng to the ?PD.
4. The Clty agrees, upon exeCU-Clon of -cnls agres~ent,
and aooroval of Lne requlred varlances, La orocess tte a?pllCa-Clon
:i:or b...llld~:1g perml t on South 3each l~ 80 lD acco~Gance '..'1 -ch 1 ts
cus-co~a~y and usual per~lt~lng proced2res.
::l.
TnlS agres-nent shall CO::1S-Cl-C~Le a.::y re~ulred aDoroval 7
bv ~~e Cl-CY of \arlar-ces of helgh-c res~rlC-ClO~S for SLrUC-CUres
uO
~c and
,
no-c. exceea:.ng
12 storles 0=
condorolnl~~ dwe11lngs and
o::1e level 0: par~lng on Lne gulf slde and up to and no-c eXCeedl::1g
focr s-cor1es of ConaomlnlUffi dwelllngs and one level or parY-lng on
-cne ;:,ay Slc.e
:or Lne land descrlbed lD 2X~lbl-C A
-"
'-.....
.:Je
2.:-~=1 '.J8.~c. =-~
~_Je ?PD,
6. L:SS agr22s ~:la -:. c:);'l1?l:'c.flce ---l-::h "C...'1lS af;~se...-r.2n-:. ::JY
""""""l _~..
'---~
.-......~11
::>- '----
sa-:.~s:q,-
t:1e
Cl ty IS
oDllsa~lo~s Lnaer
-::;.e 5":--,--22.-V
: _ ::2 ;:- -2:- ~
~ ,
:'~2:!: €:::-::-2~
LO a~=ve wl~h r2soec~
L:.O
~ne lane.
OeSC2:'l::'ea ~n
~;-:..-:.~_-:.s _OL 2l,nc. .=,.
7. Tr::.s ag:::-c2..-2:1"t. shall :)::J"C cl:r.S-::l-:.l~2 2. 'i,.;al\/-=:= D).
e::.;J.-:::: ====.r-=~" 0= C11)- rl~::'LS -:.!"'.a.t l'C rrla~. ':-.Lavs 1.::'ic.er L.--:e Sw""7"u-:-..2=:l JUC~-
neD-C referred ~o above, wl-ch ~e5pec~ -co :and on Sa~d Key TIO-C
~eSC~l~~= ~~ ~X~~bl-:'S ~ or 3; nor snall ~n~s 2g~e~~ent, ne9ctla~lons
~
le~dl~g to ~he exeCu~lon of thlS aq~eementr doc~uents execGted In
co~nec~ion wlth b~lS aS~22~ent or s~a~2ments ~a~e In su??ort ~"~:eo=
~efore ~he Cl~Y CO~~lss~an by represen~a~lves of elL~er party ~e
~~~llz9d ~y el~~er pc~~y ~s an a~~~sslon or eVlderce In a~y aCL~0~
or ?~OC3e~l~S 1n~olv~~; co~~lla~ce or ~o~-c~~pl~ance ~l~h sald
s~-~ary Jud~ent.
r~
November 20, 1980
Dennis P. Thompson, Esquire
1253 Park Street
Clearwater, Florida 33516
Re: Sand Key Zoning Agreement
Dear Dennis:
I have had an opportunity to review with my client your proposal
dated September 30 to settle certain zoning disputes regarding the South
end of Sand Key. '
Frankly, the City is keenly disappointed with your proposal. We
feel that the compromise proposed by my letter of August 19 represents
substantial concessions, and yet your proposal departs radically from
that proposal. The City is concerned that your proposal would violate
the waterfront vista ordinance, would provide for density in excess of
twelve units per acre on the bay side if 120 units were constructed, and
would increase the number of high-rises over what was previously discussed.
Also, the proposal contains insufficient guarantees regarding density transfer
in the event U. S. Steel subsequently conveys a portion of its holdings to a
successor-in-intere st.
In light of this, the City will proceed with plans for re-zoning of
Sand Key. Should you desire to offer a more realistic proposal we will,
as always, entertain your suggestions.
Sincerely,
Frank X. 'KnUlAI.ki,
Chief Assistant City Attorney
FXK:fs
'Ui' :. 1 V "",.D
--
NaY 21 1980
PL/.\:~-~-~~':'
DtFj.d:~7::,~r.N:!
~'\
~
...
TO
FROM
COPIES
SUBJECT.
DATE
c..V OF CLEARWATER
Interdepartment Correspondence Sheet
Anthony L. Shoemaker, City Manager
Frank X. Kowalski, Chief Assistant City Attorney
./bave Healey, PL'lnning Director
Roy Ayres, Director Building Department
U. S. Steel - B\ulding Permit
January 13, 1981
I received the enclosed lette r from Dennis Thompson which reque sta the
Clty to take action on U. S. Steel application for the pending permit, and
which asserts, that the County Land Use Plan can no longer be asserted
upon the City where it is contrary to the zoning.
I recommend that we get together at the earliest convenience to discuss
the matters contained herein.
,)-~ 'I !~~
Frank X. Kowalski Cb;
)\'f\"'\
'v j_2
JAN 111, ~,,1:
.:-.......-""....1.~A\. .1.'" )
r:;:::;, 111~r-~!1~ 1 "~!
FXK:fs
enc.
.,....~..... of '
LAW OFFICES
RICHARDS, NODINE, GILKEY, FITE, MEYER & THOMPSON, P A
RICHARDS BUILDING
RALPH RICHARDS (1693-1960)
WILLIAM W GILKEY
.JOHN D FITE
LARRY K MEYER
DENNIS P THOMPSON
.JOHN E SLAUGHTER .JR
EMIL G PRATESI
.J MARVIN GUTHRIE
R CARLTON WARD
DAVID E PLATTE
1253 PARK STREET
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33S16
(BI3) 443-3281
WILLIAM E NODINE
Of" COUNSEL
January 12, 1981
i!C!l~G)
SALLY FOOTE CORCORAN
GARY R PRESTON
ROBERT 0 SAMMONS
ROBERT M PETRILLO
\lM.:) -'!-,) 1SHl
~D(J..~
~~r~,.~-----
Frank X. Kowalsk1, Esqu1re
Chief Ass1stant City Attorney
C1ty of Clearwater
P. O. Box 4748
Clearwater, Flor1da 33518
Re: Un1ted States Steel Corporat1on Pend1ng
Applicat10n for BU1ld1ng Permit on Sand Key
Dear Frank:
Th1S letter 1S d1rected to you in your capac1ty as
legal representat1ve for the C1ty of Clearwater, to the City
of Clearwater as a mun1cipal corporat1on and to all respons1ble
off1c1als of the C1ty.
On May 27, 1980, Un1ted States Steel Corporat1on sub-
m1tted its appl1cat1on for a build1ng perm1t for South Beach
1480, a proposed condom1niurn structure of 12 stories of condo-
m1n1urn dwell1ng and one level of parking. No formal action was
taken by the C1ty on th1S appl1cat1on but United States Steel was
informally adv1sed that the application would be rejected because
1t exceeded the C1ty'S RM-28 height and dens1ty llm1tations and
the county land use plan's dens1ty llm1tat1ons. Th1S appl1cat1on
was subm1tted upon the bel1ef that the dec1s1on in Un1ted States
Steel Corp. vs. City of Clearwater, C1rcu1t C1V1l No. 78-4765-7,
prov1ded the legal basis for U,S. Steel to construct the 1mprove-
ment described,
The plans for the South Beach 1480 structure are
1dentical to the plans Wh1Ch were submitted and approved for
construct1on purposes for u.S. Steel's adJacent and cont1guous
condomin1urn, South Beach 1460, for Wh1Ch a certificate of occu-
pancy was recently 1ssued. We understand that 1n the 1nterven1ng
years Slnce the applicat10n for 1460 was approved that several
structural, energy and life/safety prOV1S1ons in the bU1ld1ng
code have been changed; however, the arch1tects who prepared the
plans for both 1480 and 1460 have 1ssued the1r cert1f1cations
that revis10ns for 1480 w1ll be subm1tted wh1ch will prov1de for
full compl1ance w1th such measures. We also understand, and
please correct me 1f I am wrong, that 1t has not been uncommon
~
~ '- ,
Frank x. Kowalsk1, Esquire
January 12, 1981
Page Two
for the C1ty of Clearwater, when provided W1th similar cert1fica-
t1ons, to issue a building perm1t but to condit1on later approvals
upon submittals of appropr1ate revisions,
As a result of an apparent d1sagreement as to the
holding of Judge Driver's order in Un1ted States Steel Corp. vs.
C1ty of Clearwater, Slnce July, 1980, representat1ves of the City
and United States Steel, including both yourself and the under-
slgned, have met on a number of occasions to attempt to negot1ate
the differences and arrive at a situation whereby Un1ted States
Steel could obta1n a build1ng perm1t for its pend1ng appl1cat1on,
The C1ty at all times has been adv1sed that unless favorable
action could be taken on th1S perm1t that U.S. Steel effectively
would be unable to complete its building program on Sand Key and
be unable to contract to sell any more condom1n1um un1ts.
As I recall the broad outline of our discuss1ons, the
City basically obJected to the 1480 appl1cat1on because it exceeded
the City's RM-28 height 11mitat1ons and density and the limits 1n
the county land use plan. It was suggested as a measure of com-
promise that both the height 11mitation and dens1ty problems could
be overcome 1f the county's land use plan restr1ctions on both the
Gulf and Bay sides were followed on dens1ty and by an 1rrevocable
transfer of un1ts from the Bay slde of U,S. Steel's property to
the Gulf side. You spec1f1cally, as I recall, ind1cated that one
of the reasons for th1S V1ew was your opinion that the county land
use plan took precedence over the C1ty'S zon1ng and thus would not
allow construction to a maximum of 28 un1ts per acre on the Bay
slde. Thereafter, 1n what could be considered U.S. Steel's final
offer to settle the controversy, U.S. Steel offered to submit an
RPD to develop 1tS non-shopping center propert1es whereby the aver-
age dens1ty on the Gulf side would be approx1mately 34 units per
acre, the average dens1ty on the Bay slde would be somethlng less
than 12 unlts per acre and the average density for both the Gulf
side and Bay slde would be approxlmately 24 units per acre. At
a meeting wlth Mr. Shoemaker Just pr10r to Christmas holldays 1t
was reported to us that there were no hopes that a settlement
could be achieved on the basis that we had suggested, even though
1t was understood that the overall number of people who would 11ve
w1th1n the RPD would be less than the number the City acknowledges
is the max1mum amount allowable under Judge Driver's order.
Since it appears that all avenues of settlement have
been exhausted, U.S. Steel has no choice but to demand the City's
strict adherence to the d1rectives in Judge Driver's order.
Accordingly, demand 1S hereby made that the C1ty 1mmed1ately,
forthwith and exped1t1ously process the pend1ng application for
South Beach 1480 under the conditlons of its subm1ttal, If the
applicatlon is sat1sfactory in all aspects except measures relat1ng
to code changes, then we desire a formal express10n that the
application 1S approved in all respects except for such measures.
.....
..
~ '-.
Frank X. Kowalski, Esqu1re
January 12, 1981
Page Three
If the appl1cat1on is disapproved on grounds other than bU1ld1ng
code reasons, then demand is likewise made that a formal reJection
be made spec1fY1ng the grounds for reject1on. Since delays 1n
obta1n1ng a permit are cost1ng u.S. Steel money, we trust that
the City understands that its act10n on the pend1ng appl1cat1on
should go to the heart of the problem and not be based upon matters
which the BU1lding Department 1S aware w1II be cured by further
submiss1ons.
In conclusion, I call your attent10n to the recent
case of Tob1as vs, The City of Largo, C1rcu1t Civil No. 80-7414-14,
C1rcuit Court for P1nellas County, Flor1da, wherein on December 11,
1980, Judge Fogle specif1cally held that zoning controlled over
the Pinellas County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The final judg-
ment in that case cites a number of other cases as further author-
ity for its pos1tion. I am informed that the C1ty of Largo has
decided not to appeal the decision entered by Judge Fogle. It
would appear, therefore, that there 1S no legal 1mped1ment to the
last proposal submitted by U.S. Steel.
Very truly yours,
~ jJ .J t----r t-
:~~
Dennis P. Thompson
DPT/sco
cc: Mr. G. P. Willard
Mr. F. E. Fel1x, Jr.
J. A. Byerly, Jr., Esqu1re
....
"'
.~",. ,. .....
~ ....,~ .
-...,.. rl
-"",..
-
.,!
January 23, 1981
\ (
~-
Dennis P. Thompson, Esq.
Richards, Nodine, Gilkey, Fite, Meyer & Thompson, P. A.
Richards Building
1253 Park Street
Clearwater, Florida 33516
Re: United States Steel Corporation - Application for Building Permit
Sand Key
Dear Dennis:
This is in response to your letter of Ja.nuary 12 by which you requested that
the City process the application for a building permit submitted by U. S.
Steel for a condominium on Sand Key identified as South Beach 1480.
You will recall that upon receipt of this application on or about rvlay 27, 1950,
tt'1e City notified you and Mr. Frank Felix of certain non-conforming aspf'cts ----
of U. S. Steel's proposal. Since that time, officials of U. S. Steel and of
the City, including ourselves, have met on numerous occasions to attempt to
resolve our differences not only 2,S to South Beach 1480, but as to your
client's proposed development of much of its holdings on Sand Key. As your
letter states, it now appea.rs that these attempts at settling our differences
rega.rding the allowable development of Sand Key have not proven successful.
Your request for processing the application must be denied because the
application is deficient in the following re spects:
"
1. As to the Community Impact Statement:
The following information is required to be submitted under
Section 34.01 of the Zoning Ordinance and is not included in
~"le CIS.
a. Section 34. 01(3)(a) - Legal Description - Current
land assessment and existing and proposed covenants
are not identified.
b. Section 34.01 (3)(g) - Transportation - No information
is provided pertaining to the number of required parking
spaces, the number to be provided, the parking surface.
parking lot landscaping, or pedestrian and vehicular
circulation with and adjacent to the development.
Dennis P. Thompson, Esq.
Re: U. S. Steel - Appl. Bldg. Permit-Sand Key
January 23, 1981
Page 2
c. Section 34.01 {3 )(k) - Architecture - Building height
is not identified.
d. Section 34.01 (3 )(0) - Financial - Post-construction
economic impact is not included.
2. The following information is required to appear on the Site
Plan and does not:
(a) Legal description;
(b) Dimensions of tract~
(c) Building height;
(d) Floor area;
(e) Number of dwelling units; and
(f) Existing zoning district.
Until this information is provided the application cannot be processed. U. S.
Steel will be permitted to supplem.ent its application to provide the necessary
data and will not be required to file a new application, if that is your client' e
desire.
1 must point out, however, that there are certain non-conformities whic.b appear
on the fac~ of the application even in its pre sent, incomplete state. It V\O uld
appear that the application conflicts with current zoning as to building height;
net density; and waterfront setback requi rements. Any departure from Code
for which a variance is appropriate must be identified and an application for
variance must be filed prior to consideration of the project. Of course, any
departure from Code for whicb a variance cannot be obtained would necessitate
denial of the application.
In commenting upon the obvious departures from Code, I wish to emphasize
that I am merely trying to assist your client in assessing his application. This
is not to eay there may not be other non-conformities in the application, but the
above are the only non-conformities of which the City is aware at this time.
However, City officials responsible for reviewing the application in terms of
code compliance (except for the Planning Director's examination of compliance
with the zoning code) have not undertaken their review, pending submission by
your client of a completed application.
...
Dennis P. Thompson, Esq.
Re: U. S. Steel-Apple Bldg. Permit-Sand Key
January 23, 1981
Page 3
Throughout the negotiations, the City has acted in good faith to attempt to
resolve our differences, while at the same time putting you and your client
on notice that the City does not believe your client's holdings on Sand Key
are appropriately zoned. You have been notified on several occasions that
the City has been contemplating rezoning the property. Accordingly, the
City Manager notified Mr. Felix of his intention to present to the City Com-
mission a specific proposal to rezone portions of Sand Key. At last night's
Commission meeting, the City Commission accepted the proposed changes
for receipt and referral and directed this office to seek a declaratory judgment
to determine whether the City has the power to enact the proposed changes to
its zoning code. I am hopeful that a declaratory judgment action will clarify
the issues we presently disagree about and enable the City and U. S. Steel to
proceed with a clearer understanding of our respective rights, powers and
duties. ! hope you share my view that an action [or declaratory judgment may
be the be st vehic Ie for re solving our diffe rence s.
Before closing, I must take issue with a couple of statements in your letter of
January 12th. The City most certainly does not agree that the decision in F. S.
Steel Corp. v. the City of Clearwater, Circuit Court Number 78-4765-7,
authorizes U. S. Steel to proceed with development not in conformity with
CG zoning. Secondly, we cannot accept your assertion that U. S. Steel will
be unable to proceed with development or to market condo units if the application
for a permit for South Beach 1480 is rejected. Surely, U. S. Steel has the
resources to design and build structures conforming to City Codes.
In sum. the City is prepared to proce 8S your client's application for a building
permit as soon as a complete application is submitted. I look forward to
presenting our respective positions to the court and suggest that the judicial
and legislative processes rr.ay be the best forums in which to resolve our
differences.
Sincerely yours,
Frank X. Kowalski
Chief Assistant City Attorney
FXK:f 8
"-
'ill>
CI OF CLEARWATER
Interdepartment Correspondence Sheet
TO
Frank X. Kowalski, Chief Assistant City Attorney
FROM.
David P. Healey, Planning Director
COPIES
SU BJ ECT
Response to U. S. Steel Letter of January 12, 1981
DATE
January 22, 1981
Based on the submission to this office of a community impact statement and site plan on
May 27, 1980 for a building at 1480 Gulf Boulevard, including receipt of the requidite
application fee in tbe amount of $740.00, I recommend we include the following in our
response to U. S. Steel.
There are two levels of concern with tbe submission that preclude its further processing
and consideration by the City as set forth following:
I - Content of Information Provided
A. - Community Impact Statement - The following information is required
to be submitted under Section 34.01 of the Zoning Ordinance and is
not included in the CIS.
o Section 34.01 (3) (a) - Legal Description - Current land assessment
and existing and proposed covenants are not identified.
o Section 34.01 (3) (g) - Transportation - No information is provided
pertaining to the number of required parking spaces, the number to
be provided, the parking surface, parking lot landscaping, or
pedestrian and vehicular circulation within and adjacent to the
development.
o Section 34.01 (3) (k) - Architecture - Building height is not
identified.
o Section 34.01 (3) (0) - Financial - Post-construction economic
impact is not included.
B. - Site Plan - The following information is required to appear on the site
plan and does not:
(1) Legal description;
(2) Dimensions of tract;
(3) Building height;
(4) Floor area;
(5) Number of dwelling units; and
(6) Existing zoning district.
~' 0#
.-)0..
Ct. OF CLEARWATER
Interdepartment Correspondence Sheet
TO
Frank X. Kowalski, Chief Assistant City Attorney
FROM
David P. Healey, Planning Director
COPIES.
SUBJECT
Response to U. S. Steel Letter of January 12, 1981
DATE.
January 22, 1981
Page 12
II - Departures from the Code Which Preclude Consideration
The following three critical considerations appear to be in conflict with
the permitted use of the property under the existing'applieab1e zoning
regulations and cause the plan to be ineligible for further processing or review:
A - Building Height;
B - Waterfront Setback Requirements; and
C - Permitted Net Density
Any such departure from the Ordinance for which a variance is appropriate and
proposed to be entertained must be identified and application filed therefor
prior to further consideration of the project.
I believe it is clear, in responding in this manner, that we are not reviewing or com-
menting on the substance of the impact 'statement or plan but, rather, addressing matters
of content and obvious departure from the current code requirements.
DPH:bd
..--
\
" ,
.-J~
. ~ ". :/f p
#'l J!J~ /", It t,
c.Jfl ' ~ -If \
\\ I "
'- '1-'
, I1J t.,\iA
4~' U
~... '~'VI:,D
LA.V ::)-FIr:.L~
Rl'::14l,.PDS, NC::>INE GILKEY, FilE, II, EYE>=l & THOfv\pSON, PA
-,
OCT ~ r 1980
~ICHAR:i:)5 BLJILD''\JG
1253 PA=l'" STPE~T
PLANNING
DEP ^ PTM17NT'
=iA,~::;)1-' OOI::....t.RDS (893-1990/
CLE:AqWAT~P t::"LORIDA 33516
WILL........... V. GIL"'EY
JO-1N :> FJi:
,213 ~.G.3-3.2S1
W1L_I.!;t.'j E NO;:)I.....c:
L..e.h'i='!'r K N'[:VER
0"" r::'JU :::E....
~::r N 5 ::> THO""PSON
~CM"" :. 5~AUG-n.:::::;' ,JR
::1"'1_ C :::>:::....iESI
_ "1...;:"VIr-, <.:.U.......RI=
SeDtem~er 30, 1980
= :'t.~ _-.:11'" \ ....MD
':-..),Vl':; :: f=:_A.TTE
f-Ip_ND DELIVERY
~... _\....... ;:;-OO-E CORCORA.N
::.....~-., ::: ::=q=STOr-.
PCB~R- C' S,...."-'lMONS
Mr. Frank X. Kowalskl
Chlef Asslstant Clty Attor~ey
Clty of Clea~water
112 S. Osceola hv~nue
Clearwater, Florlda
Re: Sand Key Zonlng Agreement
Dear Frank:
I am encloslng for your review a proposed agreement
relatlng to the future constructlon on tne south portlon of Sand
Key WhlCh would conslst of an agreement by the Clty and U.S. Steel
as to settlement of zonlng dlsputes for that area.
There are one or two changes ln methodology from the
outllne of your proposal In your letter of August 19, 1980, malnly
relatlng to matters of future approvals. We feel very strongly
that all the approvals should be done at one tlme and that the
a~proval of the lnltlal lnpact study ~or the RPD, as an example,
would be sufflclent for the remalnder of the RPD. Llkewlse,
approval of exceptlons of helght 11~ltatloD requlrements should
De Gone once and tnar one tlme should s~f~lce for the entlre RPD.
AnyW~ please reVlew the enclosed and get back Wl th
me at your earllest oppor~unlty.
~~ry truly yours,
L-r-: ~
Ii ),- ~.
J ->-~ -----.____
De~nlS P. ThompsSn
~~ t : -: ~T
..... ........ -* ..,.
DPT/sco
Ene.
cc: Hr.
1>1r.
:. ~
. ;
F. E. FelIx,
Glen l'iilllard
Jr.
.
~~. I
,
(, .It,;,... ~ _l. \
--...;:
9/30/80
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered lnto this day
, 1980, by and between UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION,
of
herelnaf-cer referred -co as "USS" and CITY OF CLRl\RWATER, herelnafter
ref erred to as "Cl ty" ,
WIT N E SSE T H :
\vHERR~S, USS has submitted an appllcatlon for a buildlng
pelTI1t for construct1on of a condom1nlum on the Gulf side of Sand
Key adJacent and contlguous to USS's present condom1n1um structure
known as South Beach 1460, WhlCh bU1ldlng and amen1tles, when
constructed, would exceed certa1n he1ght Ilffiltatlons and waterfcont
slde yard seDback requlrements under the C1CY'S current 20nlng
class1I1catlon (sald bUlldlng and aIDenltles shall be referred La
hereln as South Beach 1480); and
WHEREAS, USS and Clty are 1n d1sagreement as to the
dens1ty and other limitatlons appllcable to the land owned by USS
on Sand Key as a result of that certa1n summary Judgmen-c of -che
Clrcult Court for P1nellas County, Flor1da, dated January 11, 1979,
1n an actlon ent1tled United S-cates Steel Corporat1on vs. C1ty of
CleaIV;a teL"; and
WHEREAS, -che part1es des1re to resolve the1r differences
to the max1mum extent poss1ble by agree1ng on a plan for land usage
for certa1n parts of Sand Key and to allow USS to proceed w1th the
construct~on of South Beach 1480.
NOW, THEREFORE, 1n cons1deratlon of the premlses and of
the covenants here1n conta1ned, the part1es agree as follows:
1. That USS, wlll re-subffi1t an applicat1on, or supple-
ment its pendlng app1lcatlon to the extent necessary, for a bU11d-
1ng perml-c for a condoffilnlum structure (South Beach 1480) to con1:a~n
12 storles of condom1nlUffi d~elllngs and one level of parking and
provlde vH ill tha t appl1ca tlon a communl ty lmpact study prepared 1n
acco~dance wlth the C1ty'S cus-comary procedures, a Sl1:e plan and
an appl1cat1on for var1ances of the helght restrlctlons under ~1-28
and waterfront slde yard setback requ1rements (the legal descr1pt1on
for South Beach 1480 lS set forth 1n Exhlblt B).
7
( .
2, That wlthin SlX months of the date of thlS agreement,
USS wlll submit to the Clty an appllcatlon for an RPD classlflcatlon
coverlng the tracts of land on Sand Key descrlbed In Exhlbit A,
Such appIlcatlon wlll provlde that development over the bayslde
7
area wlll conslst of 120 unlts (12 unlts per acre). The remalnlng
.
condomlnlUffi unlts wlll be allocated to the gulf side and wlll con-
51st of four bUlldlngs (lncludlng 1480) each havlng 12 storles of
condoffilnlUffi dwelllngs and one level of parklng.
The average denSl~y 7
over all the land descrlbed In Exhiblt A shall not exceed 28 unl~S
per acre,
3. USS, at the tlme of ltS appllcatlon for RPD, shall
SUbffilt a cornrnunlty lnpact statement for the entlre RPD and the
Cl~Y agrees that no further co~~unl~y lmpact statement shall be
requlred wlth respect to the constructlon of lndlvldual bUlldlngs
conformlng to the RPD.
4. The Clty agrees, upon executlon of this agre~~ent,
and approval of the required varlances, to process the appllcatlon
for bUlldlng perrrLlt on South Beach 1480 In accordance wlth ltS
customary and usual permlttlng procedures,
5. ThlS agreement shall cons~ltute any requlred approval 7
by Lhe Clty of varlances of helght restrlctlons for struc~ures
up to and not exceedlng 12 storles of condomlnlUffi dwelllngs and
one level of parking on the gulf slde and up to and not exceedlng
1
four storles of condomlnlUffi dwelllngs and one level of parklng on
the bay slde for the land descrlbed In Exhlblt A to be lncluded In
tne ~PD.
6. USS agrees tha~ cornpllance wlth thlS agreement by
the Cl~y shall sa~lsfy the Cl~ylS obllga~lons under the sw~mary
Judgment referred to above wlth respec~ to the land oescrlbed In
ExhlbltS A and B.
7. ThlS agreement shall not cons~ltute a walver by
elther par~y of any rlghts that It may have under Lhe summary Judg-
ment referred to above, wlth respec~ ~o land on Sand Key not
descrlbed In ExhlbltS A or B; nor shall thlS agreement, negotlatlons
I
l
, .
~~
~:.
~
leadlng to the executlon of thlS agreement, documents executed In
connectlon wlth this agreement or statements made in support thereof
before the Clty CornmlSSlon by represen~atlves of either party be
utlllzed by either party as an ailiulsslon or evidence In any aC~lon
or proceedlng lnvolving COITlOllanCe or non-compllance wlth sald
summary Judgment.
~ 1
l
. . .,
Agenda No. 12.
MEMORANDUM TO: Meeting Date: 1-22-81
The City Com mission of the City of Clearwater
SUBJECT:
--- - - ------ - -- ----- -- -- - - --~ - --
Declaratory Judgment Relative to Rezoning Portions of Sand Key Governed by
the Court Order Resulting from United States Steel Corporation vs. City of
Clearwater Case No. 78-4765-7, January 11. 1979.
RECOM MENDATION:
City Commission direct the City Attorney to seek a Declaratory Judgment to
determine the legal standing of the City to rezone properties on Sand Key
in the SlX applications dated 1-22-81 previously accepted for Receipt and
Referral.
o And that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same.
BACKGROUN 0:
On January 11, 1979, a Court Order was issued for Case No. 78-4765-7,
Unlted States Steel Corporation vs. City of Clearwater. The Order stated
that Ordinance No. 1749 which rezoned properties on Sand Key would be held
inva11d for the purpose of rezoning those properties on Sand Key owned by
U, S. Steel Corporation. In additlon, the Order stated that the U, S. Steel
properties could be developed in accordance with the zoning categorles which
existed prlor to the passage of Ordinance No. 1749,
Recognlzing that the Court found Ordinance No. 1749 invalid, the City has
determined that t4e properties which are the subject of the Court Order and
other properties of a like nature on Sand Key should be rezoned to be consis-
tent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The City proposes to seek a
Declaratory Judgment WhlCh states that the City has wlthin its power to adopt
the SlX proposed changes dated 1-22-81 previously submitted and accepted for
recelpt and referral.
Commission Disposition:
Follow-up Action:
Submitted by: Advertised: o Affected Costs: N/A OAttachments:
~~ Date: Parties Funding Source:
Notified o Capital tmprove-
City Manager Pa pe r: of Meeting ment Budget
x't Not RequIred -xQ Not Required o Operating Budget
1""-Z7 o Other
Originating Department:
Date a Sequential Planning Appropriatjon Code
Reference IZ9 None
..
. ~. ...
Agenda No. ,2-
Meeting Dote: 1-22-81
.
MEMORANDUM TO:
The City Commission of the City of Clearwater
SUBJECT:
Decl-aratOTy Judgment Relati~;--t--;-~~oning-- Porti~n; ~f- s~~-ci Key G~;er~ed by
the Court Order Resulting from United States Steel Corporation vs. Clty of
Clearwater Case No, 78-4765-7. January 11. 1979.
RECOM MENDATION:
City Commission direct the City Attorney to seek a Declaratory Judgment to
determine the legal standing of the City to rezone properties on Sand Key
ln the six applications dated 1-22-81 previously accepted for Receipt and
Referral.
o And that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same.
BACKGROUND:
On January-II, 1979, a Court Order was issued for Case No, 78-4765-7,
Unlted States Steel Corporation vs. City of Clearwater. The Order stated
that Ordlnance No. 1749 which rezoned propertles on Sand Key would be held
invalid for the~purpose of rezoning those properties on Sand Key owned by
U. S. Steel Corporation. In addltlon, the Order stated that the U. S. Steel
properties could be developed in accordance with the zonlng categorles WhlCh
existed prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1749.
Recognizing that the Court found Ordinance No. 1749 invalid, the City has
determined that t~e properties which are the subject of the Court Order and
other properties of a like nature on Sand Key should be rezoned to be conS1S-
tent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The~ proposes to seek a
Declaratory Judgment which states that the City wlthln ltS powrr to adopt
the SlX proposed changes dated 1-22-81 previous submltted and acce ted for
receipt and referral.
~ // -.f-?
Commission Disposition:
FoI low-up Action:
Submitted by: Advertised: o Affected Costs: N/A OAttachments:
Dote' Parties Funding Source'
Notified o Capital Improve-
City Manager Paper of Meeting ment Budget
yQNot Required ~ Not Required o Operating Budget
o Other
Date 8 Sequential OriginatIng Department:
Planning Appropriatjon Code
Reference Ia None
,~
~
..
"
ORDINANCE NO. 1725
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX A, ZONING, OF
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF CLEAR-
WATER, FLORIDA, 1962, TO REPEAL IN ITS ENTIRETY
SECTION 34.01, COMMUNITY IMPACT STATEMENTS,
OF ARTICLE XXXIV, DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
. AND PROCEDURES, AND TO ENACT A NEW SECTION
34.01, COMMUNITY IMPACT STATEMENTS, TO SET
FOR TH THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR APPI,..ICA TION
AND WAIVERS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS; TO SET
FOR TH THE QUALIFICATIONS, RESPONSIBILITIES AND
PERFORMANCE OBLIGATIONS REQUIRED; TO SPECIFY
THE CONTENT OF SUCH STATEMENTS AND TO LIST
THE SPECIFIC AREAS TO BE ADDRESSED; TO SET
FOR TH REVIEW PROCEDURES; TO PROVIDE THAT
FAILURE TO COMPLY HEREWITH SHALL CONSTITUTE
A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE PER EACH ACT OF
NONCOMPLIANCE; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCES
OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH TO
THE EXTENT OF SUCH CONFLICT; PROVIDli'TG FOR THE
SEPARABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS HEREOF; PRO-
VIDING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF THIS
ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR PROPER NOTICE OF
PROPOSED ENACTMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, on September 1, 1977, the City Cornmlss1on of the
City of Clearwater, after proper public Ilotlce, held a public ):1earing on certam
proposed changes to the zonmg ordinance of the City of Clearwater In
accordance W1.th procedure as established; and
WHEREAS, certam of the proposed changes and amendInents to the
zonmg ordinance were approved by the City Cornmiss1on after 1tS evaluatlon
of all eVldence presented at the sa1d pubhc heanng;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Sectlon 1. Sect10n 34.01, Cornmun1ty Impact Statements, of
Artlcle XXXIV, Development Requirements and Procedures, of Appendu:: A,
Zonmg, of the Code of Ordlnances of the City of Clearwater, Florlda, 1962,
lS hereby repealed 1n 1tS entlrety and a new Sectlon 34.01 lS here by enacted
to read as follows:
- 1-
........ ~- ~ - .. .... "'" :::
,~ """I ---
r
~
SE: .In 34. 0 I, CommunIty Impact Statements
t#
(1) GENERAL
(a) Commumty Impact Statement Apphcahon --Developments
$500,000 or More. Community Impact Statements (CIS)
shall be required for projects reqUlrUlg annexation and
zoning, rezoning, or prior to the issuance of building
permit ~f appraised land value as shown on the tax records
of Pinellas County, Florida, and development and
construchon costs are expected to excee~ $500,000.
(b) Application - Developments under $500, GOO. CIS may be
required by the City Manage r for projects where appraised
land value and development and construction costs are
expected to be less than $500,000. Such instances may mc1ude,
but are not limited to the follOWIng:
(I) Where the site is in, part of, or may otherwIse impact
an enviromnentally sensitive area;
(2) Where building or planned activity is located at a
st~,ategIc node of traffic demands;
(3) Where slte development or building WIll affect the
planmng or bUllding of a proposed public facllity;
(4) Where slte or building will affect the planning, building
or 'coordination of a proposed City-County or regIonal
development;
(5) Where project tuning may affect a scheduled utility
extenslon or municIpal project dependent upon pending
co~rt action;
(6) Where more than three specific CIS items of impact
indicate need for special study;
(7) Whenever a conflict is created wlth surrounding archItecture
and uses; or
I
{8} When the project may result in the real property being
removed from the tax rolls.
(c) Phased Development--Separate ProJects. Elements of
phased developments under approved master site plan
or elements of contract agreements relating to annexatIons
shall be treated as separate projects under thIS section.
(d) Waivers--When a PreV'lously SubmItted CIS RemaIns EffectIve.
All or'part of a CIS'may be waived by the CLty Manager li
a CIS has been approved by the Resource Development
Committee Wlthin the preV'lous SlX (6) months in connechon
WIth t~e annexatIon and zonIng or rezoning of the identical
property for wmch a bUllding permlt 1S be1ng requested.
Such waiver shall not be granted, however, li the requested
land u'se 1S different from that addres sed In the ong1nal
subInlttal.
(e) Walvers--When there 1S a Reduchon In Use Intenslty.
In the'case of rezonlngs whlch are less 1ntenslve 1n nature
than the eXJ.shng zone, the CIS maybe wai ved by the City
Manager. Such declsIon shall requue ~ Wrltten record showmg
lack of need based upon eV1dence of a preVIOUS zone Impact
assessment comparison.
- 2. -
..
"'"
()rr. :; 1 7 ? ~
(f) Element Walvers-- When an Approved Master CIS Remalns
Effective. Developments wlth an approved Master CIS
covering the overall development of the proJect may have
elements of the CIS waived for subsequent geographical areas
within their development.
(g) Public Projects. Requuements of thls secnon shall be
apphcable to all proJects whether the applicant is a public,
non-profit or pnvate party.
(2) QUALIFICA TrONS, RESPONSIBILITIES AND PERFORMANCE
OBLIGATIONS.
The Community Impact Statements shall be prepared by
qualified professionalm each field to be addressed and must
lndicate the name of the firm or individuals responslble for
the research and preparation of the Statements and any suppornng
material. The Communlty Impact Statement shall mdicate the
firm or individual who w1l1 asswne responslbility for ensurlng
that the statements, obhganons, and provlsions undertaken m
the Communlty Impact Statement are fulfilled. The Communlty
Impact Statement shall mclude a slgned statement from the firm
or person assUInlng responslbihty for comphance wlth the
proVlsions and performance obhgatlons of the COmD'lUlllty
Impact Statement.
(3) CONTENT.
Cornmunity Impact Statements shall, as a mlnunwn, address
the effects and iInpacts the proposed development will have on
public serVlce facilities, the natural env1ronment, and all other
3.reas that affect the health, safety, general welfare, and quality
of life in the City of Clearwater. Specuic areas to be addres s ed
.J.nd subj ects Wltlun each area may vary wlth the type and extent
of the proposed development but wlll generally conform to the
following:
(a) Legal Descnption. A metes and bounds, plat or other
legal descrlptlon of the property mcluding, but not lunited to:
(1) Reference to the appropnate Plat Book and page of
the Pubhc Records of Pinellas County and recltahon
of names of owners of record.
(2) Reference to surveys and other docUInents pertamlng to
excluded parcels or parcels ldentuied for future lncluslon.
(3) Reference to eXlstlng nghts-of-way, easements, and any
reqUlrements foreseen for future dedlcanon of addlhonal
nghts-of-way as ldentliied In the City or County Land Use
Plan or the Officlal Major Thoroughfare Plan.
(4) Current land assessment.
(5) For contract purchas e, provlde detalls of contract.
(6) A recltatlon of all covenants, both eXJ.shng and propos ed,
to run Wl th the land.
-3-
, , /., /...,...,
.
'"'_-1 ~'''''''''r-
;
(b) Locatlon and Acess. A narratlVe descrlptlon 0 f the
general shape of the tract, 1ts SIze m acres, 1ts locanon
Wlth respect to bordermg roads and natural features, and
a statement of commonly used means and routes of access.
A l'ocatlon map IS a reqUl.rement of this 1tem.
(c) Special Flood Hazard Areas. A statement as to whether or
not the tract lies within an identlfied "SpecIal Flood Hazard
Ar'ea." For tracts so located, the following miormatlon is
also requlred:
( 1) Zone Identification. The zone identification (A, AO,
Al through A30, V, VO, or VI through V30') of the tract
I, as extracted 'from the Flood Hazard Boundary Map
avallable in the office of the City:EngIneer.
(2) Varlances. Intentions, 1f any, to request variances
from the provisIons and requlrement~ of Sectlons 7 -9 and 7 -1 0
of the Code of Ordinances and 1f vanances are to be
,requested, their nature and extent.
(3) Compl1ance, Data mdicatmg comphance Wlth Federal
, reqUl.rements for the mandatory purchase of flood Insurance
1 under the Flood Dlsaster Protection Act of 1973 (Public
Law 93-234) to mclude source of insurance, type and
extent of coverage, effectlve dat'e and other pertment data.
(d) Flood Control A bnef descnption ,of the tract WIth respect
to such matters as rehef, flood hazards, existlng outfalls
and canals, natural and artIfical water courses on or abutting
~e property, any prIor ground or surface water studies, and
SIte draInage problems whIch have eXlsted, whlch now e~st,
i
or are forecast. An acceptable pl<l;n for ponding or other
disposihon of surface runoff 1S an essential portlon of thlS
sechon, as is an mdicatlon of the relatlonshlp between SIte
d:rainage under full development and dralnage as shown In the
Clearwater Master Dramage Plan. A topographic survey and
prelimmary drainage map are reqUl.rements of tins 1tem,
(e) L:.and Uses and Zomng.
(1) Current On-Site. A statement hsnng all current uses
and zomng of the tract.
(2) Adjacent. A brIef descrIptlon of surroundlng land us es
(and known planned uses and zomng) adjacent to the tract.
Statements as to the age of eXlstlng structures, recent
sale prIces or valuatlon In area, eVldence of neIghborhood
prIde or the lack thereof, and the status of vegetatlon are
appropriate, PrOVIde land assessment data for adjacent
parcels.
(3) Site Plan, A SIte plan for the proposed land use along
WIth a current aenal photograph of a mlnunur.n scale of
1: 100 ( 1 mch to 100 feet) are reqUIrements of t1u.s 1tem,
The reqUlred aenal photographs may be purchased from
the City EngIneerIng DIVISIon.
-4-
..
'"'
Ord. ~ 17 25
(f) Demograpmcs. Studies or knowledgeable estunates of the
m.unber of persons to occupy the development, by phase,
and suitable breakdowns of the totals by age and economIC
status are requlred. Data as to the mix and total number
of school age children is especIally important. Locatlon of
schools receIving additional enrollment should be docUIIlented
wIth mformahon as to whether transportation will be furnIshed
by the school system. If students WIll be reqw.red to walk to
a school facuity, need for future SIdewalk construction along
route should be documented.
(g) Transportation.
(1) Traffic and Parking. An extensive descnption of proposed
mean! of compliance WIth Traffic, ParkIng and Parking
Lot Beautificatlon Ordinances, as well as a discussion of
pedestrian and vehicular traffic clrculahon both WIthin and
adjacent to the development, methods of parkll1g proposed,
parking surface material, and projected traffic counts
(average and peak). The vehIcular traffic unpact on publ1c
facilitles elsewhere shall be discussed. .All parklng pro-
posals and discussions wlll conslder storm water runoff,
exishng tree preservatlon (as canopy and screen) and
erosion preventlon. Worksheets showmg trlp generahon
rates, reference source used to determme the rate,
direcnona1 flow, and other computations are to be submItted
separately to the Traffic Englneerlng Department for
analysis.
(2) Traffic Control. A complete rundown of the traffic control
and traffic safety equlpment needed as a result of the
proposed project, melusive of increased traffic flow 111
the inunediate area to public serVlces, such as the beach
and library. Data furmshed must address both mternal
and external measures and must list by type, quantlty and
location all requuements for street lighhng, traffic control
SIgnS and SIgnals, and street name SIgns.
(3) Mass Translt. A bnef sununary of eXlstmg mass tranSIt
semce, If any, to the area of proposed development,
to include locahons of bus stops and weather shelters.
Als 0, a pro] ectlon of r eqw.r ed mc r eas e s to all of the above
as a result of development,
(h) Uhlitles.
(l) Sanltary Sewers. .A..ny and all lIlformatlon avallable as
to the proxinuty of sewer lmes, the practlcal1ty of
tying into eXlsting sewer lines, the quantlty of sewage
and quality expected to be generated, the treatInent
facilIty proposed to handle the sewage and any other
InformatIon deemed materlal to the Issue at hand.
(2) Water Supply. InformatIon relatlve to eXlstlng and
proposed water maIns and trunkhnes and theIr capacItles,
and comprehenSIve data as to_forecast reqUlrements for
potable water, water for lands cape prlnklmg, and IntentIons,
If any, to dnll shallow or deep wells In partlal or total
satlsfactIon of water reqw.rements.
-5-
11/3/77
Ord . :: 1 7 2 5
./
(3) Natural Gas. Iniormatlon relatlve to eXJ.sting and
proposed gas mams and trunklmes, thelr capacltles, and
other pertment mformatlon on gas consUIIlptlon.
(4) Refus e Collection. A statement pertalnlng to the extent
of dUIIlpster serVl.ce or curbside plckups that will be
7"eqUlred and utllized. Also, any antlcipated speclal
pickup reqUlrements.
(i) Public Semces.
(1) Library. A brief summary of the unpact the proposed
development would have on Clearwater's llbrary facllities
m terms of patronage, library personnel, reqUlrements
for new or expanded facllitles and any other l1brary
unpacts/reqUlrements ~nticipated as a result of the
contemplated development, including traffic flow.
(2)IHealth Services. A discusslon of additional community
health services and facilitles requued as a result of the
"
proposed development. Data should be quantltatlve and
'mclude the nUIIlber of doctors, nurses, hospltal beds and
nursing home beds and, on large scale proJects, should
be tune phas ed,
(3) Dedication of Park Sites (Annexatlons Only). A statement
, of response wluch satlsfies the Clearwater requlrement
for dedication of ten per cent (10%) of annexed land for
'parks or recreatlonal purposes or, li acceptable to the
City, monetary contrlbuhons for park acqUlsltlons or
recreational purposes m lleu thereof. All apphcants
, shall discuss antlcipated usage of munIclpal and county
recreahon and park facilitles arising from the proposed
proj ect.
(4,) Fire Prevenhon, An mdication of comphance WIth all
building and fire prevenhon codes, submlsslon of data
, relatlve to accesslbIlity of the site by fire :fi ghtlng equlp-
ment, locatton of fire hydrants, and topographIcal or
other constramts to fire fighting, and probable mcreases
m fire service staff and eqUlpment needs.
(5) Pollee and Fire Protectlon, A short statement of antlcipated
I
, reqUlrem.ents for police or fire serVIces or general 1ncreas ed
I personnel and eqUlpment on dutx' functlons funded by the City
of Clearwater and off duty reiInbursable functlons,
(J) Housmg. An analysis of the effect the proposed development
would have on the avallablhty of housIng for persons already
r'esiding m Clearwater, expecIally those of low and moderate
4lcomes. Developers of hOUSIng should estlmate the extent of
whIch resldents of theu development WIll be drawn from
outside the City. The proposed price/rent range of hOUSIng
should be stated, Developers of non- reS1dentlal propertles
should mdlcate the extent to whlch theIr pro] ect mlght attract
new reSIdents who would 1ncreas e the demand for hous1ng 1n
the City. If a rezomng or plan change 1S requested, the net
dwelllng unlt lmpact of the change m use should be calculated.
I
-0-
11/3/77
I --
'""
Ord. ~ 1 725
(k) Archltecture,
(1) Compatlbility. A general discusSlon of the more
slgnliicant architectural and aesthetic characterlstics
of the proposed development to mclude overall character
of design, helght, bulk, open space, or sunllar ltems,
together with like data pertaining to structures on adjolnmg
parcels and an analysis of the compatlbll1ty, or lack -
thereof, between the existlng and the proposed structure
are a reqUlrement of this ltem along wlth reasonable
assurance that the style and layout wl.ll not be altered
s ignlficantl y .
(2) View Interference. A brief statement as to the unpact
the proposed structures might have with regard to
obstructing or degrading tradltional view to and through
property.
(3) Shadow Effect, A dlScusslon of any and all effects the
proposed development would have lD. the way of restrlctlng
or altering benefits currently enjoyed by occupants of
adjacent propertles wlth regard to the free flow of au
and the direct exposure to sunhght.
(4) Energy Cons ervatlon. A narratlve outhne of the efforts
that wl11 be made by the development to conserve energy,
lncluding use of solar heat, use of absorbent matenals,
lnsulatlon, relatlng source of heat to pomt of usage, and
planting of wmd breaks or other sunllar conservatlon
activitles.
(5) Handicapped and Elderly. A narratlve outline of the
efforts that wlll be made by the development to accommodate
ease of use and convenlence of access to faclhtles for the
handicapped and the elderly, mcluding sldewalks, ramps,
elevators, doorways, restroom facihtles, telephone
locahons, and parklng areas.
(1) Natural Envuomnent.
(1) SOlls. A mappmg of the mdivldually ldentlfied sOlIs
accordmg to the SOlI Survey of Pmellas County, Flonda
(U. S. Departm.ent of Agnculture, SOlI Cons'ervatlon
Servlce, in cooperahon wlth Unlverslty of Flonda
Agricultural Experunent Statlons) that presently exists on
the tract and an analysls of the unpacts or constraints to
development assoclated Wlth these solls, lncludlllg beanng
capaclty, flood hazard, corroslveness, depth to seasonal
lugh water, or other sunllar factors 1S a reqw.rement of
thlS ltem, Any proposed 5011 removals or fills, whether
from on or off slte. An overlay of the proposed development
over the SOlIs map lS also a requlrement of th1S 1tem,
(2) Vegetatlon. A deta1led mappmg and accountlng of all
mdlvldually 1dentlf1able vegetation communlty types found
on the trast. A quahtahve and econom1C as s es sment of
all vegetattve resources, especlally trees, and any plant
specles known to be rare, endangered, threatened, of
speclal concern, or unlque to the area. A detalled statement
as to the 1mpacts of the proposed aevelopment on the
tractl s vegetahon, mc1ud1ng all propos ed removals and
subsequent landscap1ng actlV1tles. _-\11 overlay of the proposed
development over the vegetahon-t"'v-pe map lS a requlrement of
th1S 1tem.
-7-
11/3/77
Orc. . ~ 1 725
..(
(3) Wildlife. An assessment oi the wIldlife resources on
the'tract, emphasIzIng any speCIes that are consIdered
by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife SerV'1ce or the FlorIda Game
and Fresh Water Fish CommIssIon to be rare, endangered,
threatened, oi specIal concern, or unlque to the area.
All' impacts of the proposed developIT_ent upon the wlldliie
re~ources, thelr habltat, and any breedmg areas that may
be ,found to eXlst, elther seasonally or permanently, on
the' tract.
I
(4) Water Quality. A general assessment oi the eXlstmg water
quality of all creeks, streams, and ditches and all surface
bodies of water, All iInpacts upon the natural 'enVlromnent
resultmg irom the flood control or drainage activlties
ldentiiied m ltem (d) Flood Control. All unpacts upon
surface water quahty resulting from surface runoff, erosion
and sediInentation, vegetahon removal, grade changes,
well drllling, or any other known actlvity whlch may cause
a degradation of water quahty. An assessment of all
unpacts antlclpated upstream and downstream from the
tract Wlth respect to water quahty. An assessment of
all exisnng or antlcipated problems wlth exotlc and nOXlOUS
aquatic vegetahon. Any potentlal pOlnt or non-polnt
sources of pollunon other than normal resldentlal fertilizing
and pesticide usage. All dralnage and other surface water
management unpacts must relate to the adopted City
policies in the conservatlOn element of the Cityl s
comprehensive Plan.
(5) Ecology. An assessment relatUlg the four prevIous
envlromnental ltems to the physlcal features of the slte
and each other on a systems baslS. All blonc and physlcal
factors assoclated WIth the defined 'ecosystems and all
unpacts of the proposed development upon these ecosystems
will be fully addressed,
(6) Air and NOlse Quality. A statement of overall slte achvlty
whlch wlll generate, create, cause, or sustaln alr or noise
pollution to melude differenhahon and 1denhficahon of
pOUlt sources or complex sources, 'both durIng construchon
and after construchon 1S completed.
NOTE: All items under "Natural Envlromnent" must be
I
prepared by professlOnals irom hie sciences, earth
sciences or land resource management fields and must
conform to the claniicahon sheets provlded by the
Plannlng Department.
(m) Arc,heological/Histoncal Signliicance. A narrative outhne
concernmg early human cultures (li any) WhlCh may have occupled
the SIte together wlth data as to arhiacts WhlCh have already
beezt uncovered at or near the SIte and knowledgeable estunates
of the degree to WhlCh development of the SIte would 1nhlb1t or
ehmmate the poss1blhty oi slgnliicant archeologlcal flnds. A
report oi findings from the Suncoast Archeolog1cal Soc1ety, or
othe:r such agency chartered by the State of Flonda, Dlvl,SlOn of
History and Archlves, satlSfies thlS requlrement,
-8-
11/3/77
'~
Ord, :: 1 725
(n) Cultural and Aesthetlc Impact, A narrahve outhne
of the efforts made by the development to rmprove
the cultural or aesthenc appearance of the communlty,
lncluding art work, mosalCS, sculpture or other art
forms for the pubhc use and enjoyment,
(0) Financlal.
(1) Market Analysls. ThlS ltem shall lndicate the financ1al
feas1bihty of the proposed development. The appl1cant
should consider both eXJ.shng demand factors of the
resldent market and prOjected changes m market size
to the bU1ld- out period.
(2) Economic Impact. The local economlC rmpact of a
project shall be estunated for both the construction
phase and the proposed project's ultimate use. The
impact of constructlon shall show both num.ber of skllled
and unskilled workers needed, the length of trme they
will be employed, and the total wages to be pald. The
post-constructlon impact shall be estunated by the labor
force reqUlred for non- residential constructlon or the
jobs required to support the occupants of new hous1ng
construction.
(3) Tax Effect, A loglcal1nterpretatlon and evaluatlon of
the extent to wh1ch the proposed development wlll add
to (or detract from) the tax base of the Clty of Clearwater.
(4) Financial Interest. A statement as to the total estrmated
project value, the party or partles financ1ally mvolved,
l.D.c1uding corporate identlty, prInc1pal officers, major
(over 50/0) stockholders, and all financ1al arrangements
made or contemplated to l.D.c1ude:
a, The identlty of the lending mstituhon furmshmg
mortgage money or, li more than one lnstltutIon
1S mvolved, the ldenhties of each and the dollar
amounts bemg furnlshed by ea::h.
b. An indlcahon of parcel break-out from total tract
per future sale or separate financlng, li any.
c. Types and quantItles of lnsurance to be earned
together wlth l.D.formatlon as to the company or
companles underwrItlIlg lnsurance,
(p) Constructlon Scheduhng. The Communlty Impact Statement
shall set forth reasonably accurate constructlon completlon
schedules for the proposed proJect.
(q) Non-Local Coordlnatlon. An md1canon of non-local
eoordmatlon reqUlrements already effected and a status hstlng
on those yet remalnlng. A parbal hstlng of agencles WIth
whom deve~opers may have to coordinate, together WIth
examples of the types of development necessltatIng coorcllnatlon
WIth each follows:
-9-
11/3/77
Ord. if 1 725
...!
(1) Pinellas County School Board--reservatlon of
land for school sItes.
(2.) Pinellas County Planm.ng Cou.~c1.l and Pinellas County
Planning Department--coniormance with the County
Land Use Plan; annexabons.
J
(3) Pinellas County Health Department--sewage treatInent
plants and effluent discharges.
(4) Pinellas County Water and NavIgab.on Control Authonty--
any proposed actlv1.ty seaward of the mean hlgh water
line on coastal and estuanne shorelines.
(5) Southwest Florida Water Management DIstr1.ct--water
wells two inches or more m dlameter.
(6) Tampa Bay RegIonal PlannIng Councll--developments of
r,egional unpact; conformance wIth Coastal Zone Manage-
ment pohc1.es; coniormance WIth Sect:Lon 208 water quahty
plan.
(7) Flor1.da Department of Enviromnental Regulatlon--
complex source permIts (au quahty); water quality
cert1iicat1.on permits; sewage treatInent plants; any
actiV1.ty seaward of the mean hIgh water lme on coastal
and estuar1.ne shorehnes or the ordInary mgh water line
on interIor ponds, lakes, creeks, streams, or other
surface bodies of water; review of proposed land develop-
ment projects In the coastal zone through Bureau of
Coastal Zone Plann1.ng; bulkheads, docks, piers, or other
I
sinlllar construction m coastal or' estuarIne waters.
(8) Florida Departm.ent of Natural R esources--coastal
construction setback lmes on Gulf of MeX1.co through
DiVIsion of Beaches and Shores.
(9) Flor1.da D1.VISIOn of State Planning--Developm~nt of
RegIonal Impact (DR! ) review and r'bmding letters of
1
lnterpretatlon, "
II
(10) FlorIda Game and Fresh Water Flsh Comnuss1.on- - speCIes
'of plants and animals that are rare, endangered, threatened,
'of special concern, or unIque to the area,
(11)1 Federal Housmg Adnnnlstratlon- -land us e mtensIty
, standards.
I
(12.), U. S. Envuomnental Protectlon Agency- -any achvlty m
1 areas defIned as "D. S. waters", lncludlng wetlands;
,any discharge of e.ffluent lnto U.S. waters.
(13) U. S. Army Corps of Engmeers--Sectlon 4,04 DermltS for
, .
, constructlon and actlvlt1.es ln U. S. waters, lncludlng
, wetlands; effluent dlscharges.
(14) U. S. F1Sh and Wildhfe SerVIce, Department of btenor--
specles of plants and anunals that are rare, endangered,
threatened, of speclal concern, or unlque to the area.
-10-
11/3/77
..
--
..Jf-ol & )(Q)
(4) REVIEW PROCEDURES.
(a) Pre-appllcation Conference,
conference W1.th the Plannlng
reqUlrement of this sectlon.
A CIS pre-apphcatlon
Department staff 1S a
(b) Resource Development Committee. In accordance W1.th
an AdmlDlstratlve Duecnve of September 17, 1973, the
"Resource Development Commlttee (RDC)" was established
for the purpose of reviewlng development actlV1.tles and
detennining potential envlromnental iInpacts on the resources
of the City. The RDC reVlews the unpact statement for
completeness of data presented, adequacy of ass'essment,
reasonableness of concluslons and attempts to mlt1.gate
adverse iInpact. Such committee, as appointed, and by
record hereby lS the essentlal coordinative element that
effecnvely applies thlS section's reqUlrement to public and
private development proj ects. Any appeals from an RDC
detenninahon shall be directed to the City Cornnus Slone
(c) CIS Processing. The CIS is recelved and distr1.buted by
the Plannmg Department. The Planmng Department wlll
lnfOrm. the apphcant of the nmnber of coples reqUlred for
the CIS texts and complete slte and development plans
according to the magnitude or mtenslty of the proposed
development. Reports recelved are distrlbuted to the
members of the RDC for reVlew and comment, Comments
are discussed at a meetlng called by the chauman at which
time any unresolved problems are discussed. Withm five
days after this meeting the apphcant is informed of such
problem areas in order that he may respond Wlth addltlons
or correchons or confer Wlth the committee whlch then
develops a coordinated staff report which su:mmanzes the
poslhon of the commlttee. Such report is submltted by the
City Manager to the City Commlsslon for conslderahon
approvmg or reJ ecting the apphcation for development.
Contents of thlS report are transmltted to the apphcant ten
days prior to the City Commlsslon meehng.
(5) NONCOMPLIANCE.
Failure to comply wlth the statement of perfonnance contalned
lD the C.ommunlty I:mpact Statements as approved by the Clty
officials shall constitute a v1.01ahon of tlus ordinance per
each act of noncomphance.
Sectlon 2. All ordmances or parts of ordlnances III conilict herewlth
are to the extent of such COnillCt hereby repealed,
Sectlon 3. Snould any part or provlslon of thlS ordlnance be declared
by a court of competent Jurlsdlctlon to be lnval1d, the same shall not aiiect
the vahdlty of the ord1nance as a whole, or any part thereof other than the
part declared to be lllvahd.
-11-
Ord. ~1725
11/3/77
~ ,..
Sec=.o~
_4.r.y pe:so=."
or pe:SOIlS,
~-
C:-' co=::o:-a::ioI:. or assoC:'2::'C=.
oi pe:so=.s,
who
s~::s 11 vioh:e 0: ~i1 to COI::.?lj. ~~
a:::..4tfi
.
oi
:..::.e
:e==:.s 0=
p::'OV'lsio:s 0:
::Us
o=~.;-~....c~
s~,
1::-:: 0 :t
co:vic:oI:9 ~e ~~ e.-l :0: e..~c:ee~~"'g
1-
0= Q?=!.so::.ed l::. Jtil :0:- :ot
t::.e S't---- 0:': FIve E,=ced Doll2.:'~ ($500.00),
....... ........:;- ~
~-----~
six:.., (60) c.a.ys 0: by bo~ s'U::=:. ~e
a.:rl i=:.p=:.s O=e.::.:
i::.
-... ...
'--
di.s c=etio:: 0: :::.e
- . I
J 1.l::.g e.
~a.6 a~;- .~~:
a v:.o12::'o::, :.s
... .--.. ""'- ~ ,.;
~e_____,-___
:~ e.:C.s-:
s1:.a.!.l COIlSt::.=e a. se:)a:a:e o:e~se.
. ,
Sec:.o:. 5.
, .
NOo.ce 0: Ce p:-opos eci
.a~~ C --, e.:.t of t::.:s
c:::i=a.::c ~
.
=.as
be~ ?:-o,?e:ly aae::is ed i=:. a. :ewspa?e: 0= ge:e:21 c:.:c::.J.2.::.o::. .- a.cco:-"':~ - ce
wit:. O:.apte: 166. 041, no:-ic.a. Sb.t-.:;:es.
Sec-:ion 6.
T.=.e ?'T::s--;-g- Di:ec'to:- is cec-:ed :.0 l.::.c.!.t:.c.e a..::.::. Se: 01:.:
a.=ld s1:.ow 1:?on t::.e oE,cal zo"';-g a~~,s oi t:.e C=:r oi C!e2.=-;;-ate: =e :o:-egci=g
~~ e,:"' ~e:::.:,s as
. _I.
.:.e=e"-.o: OOve
3 et o~.
Secou
~
I .
nie
P =-ovt.-.S i o:r...s
ot
. .
:.::.:.s
O-....._~ -,....
-~ ...-
s:-.~ 11
::a.:~ .e
.a~Q'--
--....
. .... .
=ec:..a.:~y ~o::. ;,:s ?a.s sa.ge.
P;...s:s~ ON E'!3.S"!' 3.Z..A.DDiG
Oc::cce: 2.0, 1977
,
?A.s3~i) ON S:::COND _~ )i1J ::::f..;..L
RZ-.o\.DDrC _~~"'!J .""...!JO:?':'':''TI
AS A~1E~DED
Nove:loer 3, 1977
/ s/ Gabriel Ca.z:a:es
Mayo:. Co~-' S S:.o:::.e:
.o\::es-::
/ s / R. G. Whitehead
C1.=; Cle:k
-12.-