The URL can be used to link to this page

SAND KEY 12-80-10 SANDY KEY CHANGE IN ZONING SURVEYS, SETTLEMENT, STIPULATIONS, FINAL JUDGMENT & NOTICE OF APPEARANCES~~e~ 12-80-10 Sandy Key Change in Zoning Surveys, Settlement Stipulations, Final Judgment & Notice of appearance ,, APPLICATION FOR CH~YGE IN ZONING 112 South Osceola Ave. Clearwater, FL 33516 -~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ` Begin at the SE corner of Section 19, Township . 29 South, Range 15 East, run N 89°04`07~~~v, 2,293.45 feet to a point on the centerline of - Gulf Boulevard; thence id 31°58'0" E; 553.24 feet to a P.O.B; thence S 89°04 07~~ E, 293.05 feet to the mean hi~h ~at~r line; return to P.O.B.; thence N 31 58 ZO E, 273.71 feet; thence by a curve to the left, radius 1,909.86 feet, arc 304.28 feet, chord N 27024'29"~ E, 303.95 feet• t}~en~e N 22050'39" E, 741.08 feet; thence S 67409 21 E, 250.00 feet to the mean high water line; thence southerly along said mean high water line to a point that intersects a line running from the P.O.B. S 89004'07" E, 293.05 feet, less and except right of way for Gulf Boulevard. RECEIVEQ s~~ is issi GENERAL LOCATION East of Gulf Boulevard Adjacent to and South of Sand Key Condo, Bayside Gardens II PRESENT ZONING B lg~s~NCss~ ~'ec~ ~~~~t o~'~zDESIRED ZONING Ri~1-16 ACREAGE : ~lC~ E4~ REASON FOR REQUEST: To reclassify the property to a zoning district consistent with the Comprehensive Land. Use Plan and adjoining existing and proposed development. {,S'ignature) * * * * * * * * * ~ * * * * t */* * * * * t * * * ~ * * * ~ * ~ t * * *'* Planning Department only DATE RECEIVED PAZ Case No. Item ~ ~~ DATE ACTION Reccm. Date Fwd. * * * * ~ * * * * * * * * * * * * ~ * * * * ~ * * * * * * * x :~ * * * x Clerk's Of r""ice only Recd. Copy to PAZ Date Adv*_. ~ FEZ Date Com.*n. Date ~~ DATE 12/24/80 ~• APPLICATION FOR C.HAIVGE IN ZONING 112 South Osceola Ave. Clearwater, FL 33516 t ' LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ' FFromhhthe SE corner of•Section 19;~Township 29 2~L~3:45a~~et15toaatpo nt on89he4Centerline of Gulf Boulevard; said point being the point of beginning; thence N 31°58 20 E, 553,24 ,feet; thence N 89°04 ~ 07~~ W, 328.36 feet P~I.O.L. , to the mean high water line; thence Southwesterly along said mean high water line to a point on the South line of said Section 19; thence S 89004'07" E along said South line to the P.O.B less the right of way of Gulf Blvd. ,: ..~ RECE~ I i JAN 16 191 CITY CLERi~,. GENERAL LOCATION •tiVest Side of Gulf Boulevard Immediately Nest of the Harbour Condominium PRESENT ZONING CG ~ DESIRED ZONING R~~1-28 ACREAGE: 4.39 -• REASON FOR REQUEST: To reclassify the property to_ a~zoninQ district consisten with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan ar~d adjoining existing and proposed development. ( ignature) • t * * * * t * * * * * * * * * ~ * * * ~ * t * ~ t :t * * * e t t t * ~ t'* t Planning Department only ~ ~. DATE RECEIVED P$Z Case No. ' Item ~ •~ DATE ACTION Recom. Date Fwd. ~ * * * * x * * * * * x * * * * * :c * * * * * * * * * * * * ~ Clerk's Office only Recd. Date Advt. PAZ Date Copy to PAZ Cor;~m. Date DATE 12/24/80 r w r. v ~ - Lt O 39 _~~ , MEB 2-~ ~~ 0 ~ t" ~; ~~ PPOP Owner/Applicant ___. Request from C C7 t~ RM- 2 8 OSED REZONING Public Hearing Item Number Planning and .Cite coning Board Commission '~' Section ~ 9 Township 295 Range 15E Atlas Page h- ~ 1 O" moo' _ ~ ~ t~.-_ cu r l c 1. nd . .•~~ Sat,. ,.,,, ^ :dam-~' ~ `- ,, 1. ~t, • ~i a Nurthsldc 3r. ~,j' --~ti v . r ~] ° Q 1 -_ rise 1 Enterp-J~II 1 1 O 1 w n o~ 1 ' ~ (/~\ ~1 Uniun St. ~, i~ p 0 r^ w o w ~,r w -aw s rsa s u 1 u ] 1 " Hain St. b S• 1 1 Sunset Pt'.~ Rd. - -. ~- -- / s > X O `.. is -* ..; ~ oe v 1 .. ~. _ N O ~ ~ ~ i .. U O / / '~ ` to i u m Y / i ,~~ /r; ~ / q `~ 1 H ~ b Q / u ~ ~ fi b __ :r - ~ .-1 - •.1 ~ Drew St. 7' ___ - - ~~~ ClevelanJ St. - -1 ~ - --~___---- ! t Court St. Gulf-to-day B1vJ._ ~t - - -( _ /~-~// Drui;l Rd. _~ _ __ -- 1 > cr ,~ A w I ¢ o d. I t~ I > u I ,ya u ;. ~ r 1 ~ 3 I " -~ __. I S.R. SBU - I --._.---.- w - 1 p n.~ww• 1 ^O Pd SI 1 w w w _._.. ------~- - _- r . `1 S ~, ~ j~- -. w r \ r 1 / C, p. 102 1. I i ~\ 1 ~'1 :A~ I v" A. 588_x__ 1~ u / he / ~-~ ~ 'L / ~~/ / ~.iMR~ Ilio• ~ w w w~l o I -t _ - ~~ - -- - ~ f? Blvd . ! N it ~ • r. ~,~_ . ~ _ ~_ E .) rn ro ~ V Cr___ p - T c ~ Ilurserv Rd._ ---- -------- `- 1 r n. t ~_ ~ nm ~.w- sa- w- ~~ ~ ~ a w cMJE Mlt_F ~ ~ s ... y t w w w .-i__.. _• -- -~'-- c 1 Q !~ ' \ 1 / ,~ ..... ,~ v Q Q ~ ~ o Z Z ~ 8 Q O O to U Cn ORO • 1749 M 8 8 4.78 i ~ NOTE JZEVER X17 ~ACI< rt0 ~ E12 COU 2T^ OtZDE}Z. Y~TCM (.IMi[ ORD 1749 4 78 M E i3 I O V - ~C CG I ~ Iii- ~ ~ ~1 p ^' O ~' Z Z ~ O W ~ U p _ r ac W Q Y C7 Q Cr7 ~ ~ (~ Q 0~ m o ~~ 1 f o ~illlll111 1llili 1749 : "~ 4.78 ~ ' .. •~: C :. :`. .~ ,/r .~ i. J ~ ~ ~ :x., • 1.. r• c - -. __ ~_ ~._ .. V w' ~ ~ - +~ _ppp r 1.~ •• .~ f1 V \\ ~ O 3• ... ` 174 _ rte. ~ ~ ~---. .~. w _~ ~.qil r ~- _ _. .... ~~ MBE 2-I 1/128 ME9 2-2 r _ P~_OPOS~D Owner/Applican t Request from to R.1`M-16 R~ZaNl1~G Property ~, Planning and City Public hearing Item tiumber Zoning Board Commission Section ~ 9 Tok•nshiP 29 S Range (S~ Atlas Pagc T ~ ~ - ~ ^ 0" zoos J (. {1 C~ -;nl n H^... i ~ ;,~ !. 1 n~, ~ ,~•,. i _ t^ - l G r.,~c cc ~ 1~ ..i .. 1; - i 4 - d . ' `. ~ I SITE ~ ~°. ~ f N ca 1 ~ 1 0 ' ~_ ~ v 1 5. R. 58(1 1 wr - / i 0 1 ~O C. It. ID2 _ -` 1 rise Rd. _ -- 1 __ F,nterp ' 1 ~ _~ 1 1 1 1 re• t °; I ' /9 1 1 ^: h.f 1 Unlon St. 1 p '^ >>~ ~Ar !r ~ ~ 17ci~ '~ ~~ ai ~ 1 'rl 1 u f '~ - S.il.58B 1 u f Naln St. f Sunset 1't~.I Rd. _---rte f ~ _ _ ~ , _,~ b~ ~ •' ~ ~ , 1'i ~ ~- / Curlew Rd. Ie~~ ~ ~~• ----- ,..t_ -- ~` 1___.___J~%1~_ -------- - - ~r obi i.r < _ ~ .._ r ~ . v. ) _ ~ ~ S ,b' ,1 i NorthslJc Dr. ti a i _ --- .r ~ ~ _ J~~n C7 D / 7 > ~ --- ~ r -~ o ~' / u e~'n > / ..r o ~. - ~ ~ ~a m ti ''cf _o :r: _ r .._. -.... '.~ 6 O ~ 3 rr ..~ V r~ Drew St. " - - " ~~ ClevelanJ St. 1 ~ 81 v cl . ._.. -1 Court St. Gulf=to-Ray __ -i 1 Urula Rd. _~ - --- _ ~ 1 ~ Qp i~ ®•~ 1 ~ 1 > ~ I o - ~yd we. Ir++ w~ ~M iM F o f _-r _ _ ~ e- - _ ''~ '- u f~j P1vd. 'd o rn ~ - 1' ~ ~ Nur se rv _ RJ--- ----- - - ---- ----- '- ' • ~ .., -- ~i .~ lfelleair Rd. ,._,_..,.....-..........~ r,. ~ ~ A w~1 ~_ _rra /~. ~~ A ~ A crIJF_ Mll_ F ~ ~w ~ 5 5 r- - - -i- 1 0 1 . ...... --~, ~:. • • APPLICATION TO Ai~~ND THE LAND USE PL:~~I C' DATE 12/24/80 '~!`,A~ OF PROPERTY OWNER(S) Clearwater Sand Key Club I Condo ADDRESS 1390 Gulf Boulevard PHONE REPRESENTATIVE (IF Ai~1Y) City of Clearwater ADDRESS~2 South Osceola PHONE 460-6500 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (SUBJECT OF REQUEST) Clearwater Sand Key Club Number 1 Condominium as recorded in condominium as recorded in _Condominium Plat Book 19 Pages 21 through 32 of the public records of Pinellas County, Florida • GENERAL LOCATION 1390 Gulf Boulevard ACREAGE . PRESENT ZONING DISTRICT RM-28 REQUESTED ZONING DISTRICT No Change Note: A separate application is required if the zoning district is proposed to be changed. PRESENT CLEARWATER COMPREHENSIVE LA:vD USE PLAN CLASSIFICATION Commercial/Tourist Facilities REQUESTED CLEARWATER COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLA:v CLASSIFICATIONv High Density Residential REASON FOR REQUEST_ To correct a scribner's error and so as to reflec existing use and zoning classification. PIVELLAS COUNTY COtiIPREHEVSIVE LAND USE PLAN CLASSIFICATION IS THE REQUESTED LA:vD USE CATEGORY IN CONFORI~4A~~,iCE ~~'ITH THE PIVELLAS COUNTY LA:vD USE PLAN CLASSIFICATION? YES NO X ?(UST AN A14ftVD~1EVT TO THE PIVELLAS COUNTY CO~IPREHEVSIV~ LAND USE PLAN' BE APPROVED BY THE PIVELLAS COUNTY PLr11YNING COUNCIL? YES X NO Note: County Land Use Plan amendments require the approval of the Pinellas County Planning Council if the proposed land use for the property in question is not consistent with the County Land Use Plan and the Land area is equal *_o or exceeds the ac rea;e threshold for the intended use as established in Section I~r' of the "Pinellas County Planning Council Pules Concerning the Administration of *he Countywide Comprehensi~•re Land Use Plan" unless otherwise excepted under Section III (~}. ~/ ig•nature) RECEiYE Pe~.iewed by: J,~i1I .6 S31 CaTY 4:.L.p ,. ; ti ~ . _ 3 f 3O~ 9+~-~ . . J~ APPLICATION FOF. CN~vGE IN ZONI~iG • DATE 12/24/80 112 South Osceola Clearwater, FL RECElV~ j~~ 16 1981 LEG.~I, DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Begin at the SE Corner of Section 19, Township 29 South, Range 15 East,' run N 89°04-07" ~V, 2,29x.45 feet to a point on the centerline of Gulf Boulevard; thence N 31°58'20" E, 553.24 feet for a P.O.B.; thence N 89004'07" W, 328.36 feet to the mean high water line; return to P.O.B.; thence N 31°58'20" E, 273.71 feet; then by a curve to the left, radius 1,909.86 feet, arc 304.28 feet, chord N 27024'29" E, 303.95 feet; thence N 22°50'39" E, 1,168.46 feet; thence N 67°12'17" tiV, 416.19 feet to the mean high water line; thence Southerly along said mean high water line to a point that intersects a line running from the P.O.B. N 89004'07" ~V, 328.36 feet. Less right of way of Gulf Blvd. CI'T'Y CLERK GENERAL LOCATION - 1Nest side of Gulf Boulevard adjacent to and South of Sand Ivey Condo South Beach II PRESENT ZONitirG - .ZCREAGE . 18.2 2 a DESIRED ZONING - RI`1-28 REASON rOR -c~:~UEST: •. To.reclassify the property to a zoning district consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and adjoining e.cisting and proposed development. _. . i gnature) y? '"'1? i G ,°^~nr ,en- 0111 ~~ .~ P.~+TS rECEI~'.D P~;Z Case No. D.:TE AC i IO` Reco,:~. ~e*a Dame i ~•+V.. Clerk' _ Office or.11~- Rec' c. Copy to ?,;_ D2=° A(~.'. _. t'~~.. :JGIe CO tea. L3t? ~~.~ • ~~ "~ fVOTr Rc VERTE To PEi aRf~~R. 0 v ~ ~ i Q~ 1C 1 r~itN tl~l BACK ~'o t12T ~' U ~~ ~~ ON c o Z Z ~ - Qo o cn U cn _ ............:i ---- ~ ^ . .. :%°' - i.- t: ~ ... 1749;• ~ ~• M8 B 4.7$' ..~ . I `ry' . ~.. ~.. .. ,~: ~ _~ - ~ - ~ .' ~. v _ ~ W r ~ J '} ~ ~, _. V ~~~1 y ~ '7 ~. ~.. .; ~ - ~ ,~ ~ ~ .. - l~l'~~ • _,. r• - - ~ t w ~. ~ - r ~ .. _ r - _ ai . ..w u ~ : -~.: _. - .. ... w rte.. _ .. ~_` -_.~1 . ~ ORD 1749 ~i s 4•T8 ~,~ c w~ ~, t3 _ _ _ o 'Z s - ~ - :: "f M L B "~ _o ' • ~ 1 ..r r o/ .~~~.~ ~ oI = - ~r ~. -~ r t ~. l.. t C ti% ;, J . l~ 0 CJ~ a" Z ~ W C~ ~ Q r ~ W ~_ r a m ORO 1749 4-78 1 • ~RG~ 1i4~ 4-TB~ ~_ 1 NZ~ M28 Mc=_ 2-z _ PRO~'~S~L~ ~~ZONI~IG ik'i7°".1DDilC3II~ __ PTOD°:"'; ~°pL1P5 ~ ~i OID B • la:li,iil~ a:1G _ ~ ~, i - ~. ~o„ins ~o~r,. ~ Con~,.~ <<,c;; ~•s~A ~p RM- 28 - . .'~"moo. SCC~lOP. ~ 9 i0~.'P.SP.1,^• ~ 9 S :'.c^~° ~~C .~L_c5 .~ i° T- ?,-_~ ~- ~/ s r` P1~4P~1SED LAND RISE -PLAN A11~1~1tilDMEN~" Qwner/Applicant Proper~~• a a c_ c u.. s r -1 °m ~D~tNt~Cra~~TURlST FAUL/TIES r `0 Ff IGW ~e~srTY .~cSrD£•NTrAL T I Y1ann:ng ana Ci ~~• u~ is rearing l~em ~umoer %onina 3carc Com-issor. _^_ . o. ~a~, Sec;.ion ~ G} Township 29S Range SSE Atla_ Page ,T- - J -- -~ • Single =a.;~il~• ®~uplex (~ ~Sulti -: a~ilti• _ ~ 3usiness ~ Vacant a ~ ., u ~ .u. a ,. ro t;' J Northsidc Dr. ti~ ~ ~I~\ ~ ., d, y / :, ,n wA rwr rwr r~ wnww S~'- \~ l I ~ .. 1 ..- / .~ ~, y ~ ~ i ~ o r~ ~ 1 ( ' I __ s. n. saD .o. _ _ ~- i ~ 1 1 I f:nterprisz ~ L.R. ID2 i ~ l 1 ° - - 1 1 l o ~. ,; . ~ o. ~, _, a ~ I 1 union St. 1v, l '? ~ j 1 rlaln sc.~ s.~t.sae ~ ~• ~ Sunset Pc'~ - Rd. _ _~- ~ - ~ u ~ ~•-'' o ~ u _ ^ ..1. U .. ~© `J ~ u y 1/, 'l1 .L. . / r1 . ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ({aV,' 0 .? ~ _ ~ .r. "_J /~~ preN St. ~~ N - - '" ', - ~ l~I" " _ `I ~ _ Cleveland St. 1 5. R.tiD _; -~ Coutt St. ~ Culf•to_aay Blvd_ - __.__--~'-'-" 1 ~ I)ru)d 1lJ. -~ - -- -- I ~ /It• 1 -~. ~' •~ t~ l o ~ o n. 1 0 1 ~ --''r - -- - r• 9d '; it i-- b ~! u '~ a1vJ. .o r ~ .~ (~„_~ - :r: r ^ Nu r s e r v RJ- ---- ---rn --- ----- ~`~ t :~ ~ ~- - ~' l aclleair Rd. rw w r. r ss~.siwir. .arr.. >oe ~irro w rr ww - •.-.•°-^ •-.._.....~ 111 u1,r MtLF y ~~ 1 t -~ - O c tr I-- -.__J____._ .~ ._ -- c~~ F. =' ww~•\ APPLICATION FOR CH.~vG- I:v ZONING 112 S. Osceola Ave Clearwater; FL .33516 LEG.~L DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY See attached GENERAL LOC?.TION West of Gulf Boulevard and jtiest of City Owned Propert}~ PRSENT ZONING ~ ACRtAGy. 1.3 M.O.L. JAN 1fl 1991 CITY CI.~ DESIR~D ZONING CTF-28 R=:.SON FOR R..QULST: To. re-sleet the specific nature of the existing use cf the property and the .limitations of the site and relationship to adjoining uses as tzey relate to any alternative commercial use. G= ~ ~ (Si mature) ~ / * x x t * * t * * x x * * * * * * * * ~ x t x ~ * * ~ * * * :~ * :~ * ' x x t'~ P1G:~nZ1~ K De Ja1 L~eilt Cnly D1.Ti R~.C~IV~D PF,Z Case No. i te^ s DATE ACTION °. Recom. Late :Wd. :t * * * :k * 7t x * * it X yc * :t * ~! X * 7! * * * * x * it X x * K 7t * ~ * x * R Cle ::c' s G,-_ce only YeC ~ ~. l.C~.}' t0 ~v~ I Date advt. PuZ Date Co:.~. Date - ~c'-~lts~'~ 3~30~31 °~ DATE January 15, 1981 • A tract described as follows: From the Southeast corner of Section 19, Township 29 South, Range 15 East (said corner being also the Northeast corner of Section 30, Township 29 South, Range 15 East), Pinellas County, Florida, run North 89004'07" til~est along the North boundary of said Section 30 a distance of 2819.60 feet; run thence South a distance of 1012.67 feet to a point on the centerline of State Road No. 694 (County Road No. 208); run thence Northeasterly along the centerline of said State Road No. 694 along a curve to the right (radius 1909.86 feet) an arc distance of 572.1x" feet (chord - 569.99 feet, chord bearing - North 23023'25" East); run thence North 31°58'20" East along said centerline a distance. of 1393.67 feet; run thence Northeasterly along said centerline along a curve to the left (radius - 1909:86 feet) an arc distance of 304.27 feet (chord - 303.94 feet, chord bearing - North 27°26'30" East) to a point of tangency of said centerline; run thence North 22°50'39" East along said centerline a distance of 1843.70 feet; run thence North 67°12'17" ltiest a distance of 50.0 feet to a point on the Northwesterly right-of-way line of said State Road No. 694; said point being the Easternmost corner of SAND KEY CONDOIv1INIUI~1 - SOUTH BEACH I, as recorded in Condominium Plat Book 14, Pages 83 through 89, public records of Pinellas County, Florida; run thence North 22°50'39" East along said Northwesterly right-of-way line of State Road No. 694 a distance of 290.05 feet to a point of beginning; from said point of beginning, run N 67°09'15" l~~'e.st a distance of 301.45 feet to a cross mark cut in the cap of a concrete seawall as a line marker; continue thence Pdorth 67°09' 15" bti'est to~ the mean high water line of the Gulf of A~lexico to a point hereby designated for reference as point "A"; beginning again at the point of beginning, run i~ortlz 22050'39" East along said P~orthtivesterly right-of-way line of State Road 694 a distance of 198.5 feet, run thence North 66°59'03" ltiest 275.72 feet to a cross mark cut in the cap of said concrete seawall as a line marker; continue thence North 66°59'03" hest to the mean high water line of the Gulf of ~dexico; Run thence Southwesterly along said mean high water line to previously designated point "A". ~. ~S+NC~ KEY CONDC- baYSfDE o°i GARDEl~tS TL o I9- IG r~7tn LIME R~ {~ -- _ - --~ I s.o -~ _ ~ I _ `~' .~ Z _ ~ -. ~a s' - s .. O 4~9 _ ~ ~' ;. ~~;,:~ ! ~ oR~. f 7 j--L- ! -~~ '- ~ ` ~_ ~ - t 6 31 - s. =_--_- nr,~ O I R r 1 C W _ ~ j ~ ~ N r v j ~ ~>^~ ~ ~ ± i ~~ o Z I` wz~ - ~ ~i ~ z W , j u7 U i j c~: O~ ;I V ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ Q ~ o ~ m ~- ~ Y >~ tL.t t`7 ~ fi i ~ Y p m _. m f ~! n l zc~ ~ ~ ~- f ~ ~ ' ~ ~ Q } cn O cr, u% ~ ~ _ ~ ~ Undividec ~:alf ~ j ~ ! i !nteres' ~ _ Una:vide~ Fia:f. OWneriApp?ican~ City Initiated rro~ert~~ heques ~ ~ro;r CC M i, B 1, ror Dior. ~4 4 b 1 _ c to CTS Z8 r \) Curlc~+ RJ. .T---- - ~ ~t.. ~ a~!~ .~ ~a 2.~ i1 ~_ y, .1 ~~ ~ c~ I () ~ ~J 1 Q 1 I 1 S.R. 5811 1 ~-.-._ w 1 `~' H ~ -. _ _ _ IJ 1 - O i .r '~ I "~ ~ ~f I Unlun 5t. ~ v /-~ .ri ww ~ ~ wr wr ! -rr~ rrw w ^ ~; 1- O (S~ / ;°~', /-~ Sunscl Pt;~ RJ. - --~-- ~. - - - - - ai .~ m ~• ,~3 0 ~) v fnterprisa IJ u. .-i ~~i :~ Main St. .. _ `.. I S ~2 / ~-~. o ~-. ~~ ~~,,, . /, p ~d --------'. 9 / ll~ r r. R..-1uZ------ -- ~ ~- I I ~. ~ 1 1 ~~ I ~.~..~. I ,~~. S. R.SBtl I _ ti, u ro ~~-5' " 7 °' •) / p1 ~. c - - > it SIY~. ii •+ .r, ~~ (~ / „ V / " ~ ------------ p i ,.~ 1. C) II _ _ ~" ~. y 7.f 'V u ~ '/ u ^'~~f . .-i , ... _.... ~ . Im ~ U ~~ •.1 ~: Drew S[. ~~ ~~ I ~ _ __ 3, __. .__ _. ...._.._-.___.._ _ -_ - ~___.. - ~~ --~ Court 5t. ~ - _ iJulF~tu_Il.~y 81vd I -' --- - (--- _.-. f - - -- -- I1 r u i J RJ . u - - - - r 1 -r, c~ f ~' I > o D ~ '~) r U -~~~ Nur,~rv HJ, in 2 ~ ~.~_ ._ ~ ;~ 1 %. ticlleali IIJ. rw raw ~ w ~ ars ra ~. rr rri wr I 1 ~-~ l I 1, ~ I ~1 I - ------- ----------- 5 . R . o u MW YW IMYI Ad pWl --~, ~i R l v~l . G~ l - - , .~ ----- ---1--.. G'l== ~ ~~ -~~ r. rw. Mw ~ ~ Isl MGM ~ 1:..-... C ~ .. ~ ,.._ ~ . ..-~ ~( ~ utltz f~11L.F ,/) 5~,-\ c ~~ wwr~r~ \ ~ ~ -- ~~- ~ 3~ ~.~..:-~ o ~ --P ~~~ ~ a.e-- 0--0 ~ -~ ~ ~ - -~. ~~~ o ~~~P _ ~enda No. 1- 22-81 t D . e: a ~, E` ~ ~Q, ~ ~` ~~ ~' • eting Tie ~v~~~' VaI~C~~SSI~R Q~ ~~1~ ~lt~` C)~ C~~~~'~'~~E'.~' Land Use Plan Amendment and 3oning Atlas Amendments for Portions S~ BJ ECT: of Sand ;trey Identified on Attached Maps, E ~ of Sec. 19-295-1.5F (Multiple/Anglican`- ~ ~i RECOMMENDATION= ~it~- Commission receive this request and refer it to the proper departments. D And that the appropriate officiais be fluthorized to execute same. BACKGROUND: I'he properties are located east and west of Gulf Boulevard, on Sand Key ~ The total acreage of -the subject parcels is 43.16 acres M.O.L. They are referenced separately as follows: 1. 3oning Atlas-amendment from CG to RM-28 - north of tennis courts, west side of Gulf Blvd. (U.S. Steel) ' 2. 3oning Atlas amendment from CG to CTF-2S west of Gulf Blvd. and west of ~ I I City- O~~~ned Propert~~. (Ga11er~~ Rest.l 3. Land Use Plan amendment from Commercial/Tourist Facilities to Higi; Densit~~ Residential - south of Galier>- Restauran' . (Clearwater Sand key- Club 1vo. 1 Condol 4. Zoning Atlas amendment from CG to RA7-28 - west side of. Gulf Blvd. adjacent to and south of Sand }~ey Condo. South Beach II. {U.S. Steel I 5. 3oning Atlas amendment from CG to RM-2~ - west side of Gulf Blvd. immediatel~° west of the Harbour Condo. (Bellview Biltmore Cabanna Clubl E~. ~onin~ Atlas Amendment from CG to R1~i-1f - east of Gul ~ Blvd. adiacer:~ ~c and soul}: of Sand he~• Con dc. , Ba~~side Gardens I1 . (U.S. Steel:' ~'`~his: applicatior, is the fifth of approximately- twent~~-four areas in the Cif to be considered for re~-ieu to insure cons istenc~~ between zoning districts , the Land Use Pi an, and e~:isting or desired development characteristics. Or, Januar~• 11, 1979, a Court Order was issued for Case No. 78-4765-7, United States Steel Corporation vs. City of Clearwater finding City Ordinance No,. 1749 to be invalid for the purpose of rezoning those properties on Sand he~° owned b~~ U.S. Steel Corporation. This decision was upheld upon appeal b~~ the 2nd District Court of Appeals. The affect of this decision is to leave- the subject properties classified CG (General Business) as they were prior to Ordinance No. 1749. r:~:o~r;_ir~ tha' the Court found Ordinance .'~c. ;74° invalic; the request ~~,~:;_ ~~,~<<;+~_° sub r+ „r^~°'~ti°s cor.site-r~ ~~:it'r, the Compreh.nsive Land j ., -_--- --- --^ ~- r i«e ~'l.a: anc exis~ i.nn development, subject to a determination: off. the Court that the r.it~~ i~ ~;ithin its le~a1 prerogat3v~: t.o ma}:° the proposed Char.~es. i Commission Disposition: Follow-up Action: Submitted by: Advertised: ^ Affected Costs: 1~!A I~Attachments: Parties Funding Source: Date: Notified ^ Capitol Improve- Dra~,i.n~s {h~` City Ninnoger Paper: of h~eeting ment Budget APPlicatior.~ ^ O ti { o ~ t R ®N i pera ng Budget o equ red QNoi Required ^ Other Originating Deportment": Dc1e 8 Seauogtial Appropriation Code i ,~ „, "~ ,.._ I ~~~~j ~- / ~ /~j ,~_ _~._~, Gam.- _--S''~~-- c_G .-.-.~_z_~ _.~'. - .,l ~ / ~ _. - _ _ _ _ _ _. _ ..__ -_._ ,_~_~.-- itl.._ ___ --_ - -_ - ~__ - - - - ---_ .__ .. ~_ _ ~_ _- -- _ . __ i ~T. /r i ..~ ___ , ---_ _, _ , _ _ _.. _. _._ _ ~ - _r - -_---,. _ .. __ ~ _ ,._. _ ~.. .. _ _ _ _ _ ~ ,,. _. _ _ _. _--r. °D __ --_ - -- - -_ -LL-- r / _ - -- . _ __ - _ _ ~~.i /`'~i~ ~ ~ _ t ~ .,~..~17 rs ..4''~`.~,-D~^.~-., _ tom....-' ~- ~v~r'r'r+.e . . t ~ f ~~. •~ ... -- _ _ ___~__. __ _~w ,s_ .2 _- _ _ _ _.._ 4 _____- -- ~,., '_ _ - _ - -_ --. T ~~ _~. _ e _. ~!^~ - _T ~_,...__.___ _......_ _ ____.~ ___ - _...__ ~ ~ ..__~-s. . - APPLICAT IO\ OR CLti`'GE Iti ZONING ~~ ,,~. • DATE 12/24/80 112 South Osceola Clearwater, FL ~FCEtYED =~N 1S 1S81 i:EG.~I. DESCRIPTION Or PROPERTY CITY CLE.~' See Attached GENERAL -LOC.~TIO` - Sti'est side of Gulf Boulevard and west of Sand Key Condominium Ba~~side Gardens III PR=S=1; ~O~I\G - B ,, --, .=t ~.. ~.: t L : J . J DESIP~D BONING - R'•!-'_S P,.~SON :CR R..QUEST: 1'o reclassify the Property to a .onin~ district consiste: with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and adjoining existing and proposed development. i ~ ~~ ~ ~ / ~~ f~5iar,a~u=e~ ~ / r, is .. - :'s .. r. z k i is ., r. ~ t is ~ ~ * :k t t .. ii •; - .. / - ,. ~ S 11.'1 .. :~~~. `.l `•~Ll ~1y~ L.GS~ ~J ~.. ~:~ 'J.~. •.i .; 1. ,. l~.\ .`ZeCC-.. ~ ..~ JG- ~.. Clerk' - ~;=ire a,~l•~ :sec' c. Cc~.. `,` ~: - ~ ~: - !'~ ~] .- .• ~ , From the Southeast corner of SECTION 19, TOl4NSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST,. the same being the north- east corner of SECTION 30, TO~~TSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGr 15 East, run North 89°04'07" tii, 2819.60 feet, along the North boundary of said Section 30; thence South 1012.67 feet to a point on the centerline of State Road `694, (County road x208) ; thence along the centerline of said State Road, b~• a curve to the right radius 1909.86 feet, arc 57.13 feet, chore ivorth 23°23'ZS" E, 569.99 feet thence along said centerline, North 31°58'27" E, 1393.67 feet; thence along said centerline, by a curve to the left, radius 1909.86 feet, arc 304.27 feet, chord North 27026'3C" z, 303.94 feet to a point of tangency on said centerline cf State Road `694 ; thence along said centerline North '2°50'39" E, 2459.20 feet; Thence North 67°12'17" 1~, 50 feet to a point of Beginning on the northwesterly right of way line of State Road x694. Thence continue North 67°1" 17" tii~, 309 .43 feet, more or less , to the mean high water line of the Gulf of Mexico and a Point "B" for a Point of Convenience . Returr. to the Point of Beginning. Thence run North 22°50' 3°" E, 80.0 feet, along the northwesterly- boundar~• of slid State Road =69~; ; thence along saia Northwesterly' boundar~• cf sale State Rcad `6°= b~' a CUr\Te t0 the rlght, radluS 2914.79 Seet, arc. 438. 18 feet, chord North 27°09'03"~, 437..- feet; thence run North 67°12' 17" l;', 29~. 70 feet, more or less to the mean high water lire of the Gulf of Mexico; thence run sOUthwesterl'~• al on` sold mear. }llgh ~ti'ater line t0 POlnt "B"; thence run South 67°12.'17" E, 309.4 feet, more or less, to a Point of Beginning. ~ Q ~ _ O Q ~ M ~' B 1' ~_8 4t 8 B ~ ~ {-6 > y ~ ~On . d p ~~W D Z ~ o _ 0 a - _ ~ = ~. v c~ . ~ }, ~ ~ _ _ ~,~ ~ ~ d r ~ V ~ V Q ~ 2 o~ Q 7•i~ ~ O r~7lCM l1sC .. ..~ ~1 ~ _ ~ ff . ~ ~ ~~ _ 1 ~ .... ~ 1.~ rv~f~; J A- ~ ~ ~_ OR DES. I o ~ I V ~{ ~ C` 1-t i On^D =i i O 1904 I ,.._. C /oa 17 4 4/ E i U \.t~ ' -~ I ~~ _ L ~ _ `~ L ~ ~ I i I v ( d v '~ ~~ •-1 ~ ~~ ~~ ~ N. P1~C~~S~D ~LZ0~1~1G - -. ~c Ill''`,- 2~ - ^ - C r - \' , -J it - - Gil ~. ~ ~.. ~ ~ ~ .~ _ ' C ... ... .... .. ,... '~~ r ---~ i J .`_ _ \ [ _ _. Cut Icu IIJ. >~ ~ r 1 . -.o--f~.^--~ -- --- ----- - ~ -t!. - t d1~ ~ ~ d ,,. ;- ~t - ~", ..__ 21u1 [h51dc ih `;'~! IJ I,\ t .1 \ ._ _ n ~(.,t ---- ---- ------ -- /~~, It ~ )~,1 yt~ c-) ,; o J, 1. ~ .- ~ , U -~ ~ ~_-_~- ~ u ';i 3 I 1 _ ---------5. H_ 580 ~ ------- -- - -\--- ---1 1 U I ~~ ~ r rr w r® i /~ I ' 11 _ _/ 1 l I 1J I.I~t¢rl,risc I:J. I:. 11. 102 - I ------- ----- - ~ I 1, ~_. ~ I - ~ %~ ____ -- -- i 1, > O I ~. 1 ~~ ~. , ~ ~~ Z' 1 lhliun 5t. ~ I~ ~ ~~ 1 ~ ~~~ al I ,/•~ I - ~----- rl..i1. st. b' S. a.Sdd ~, ~ Sunset I't:.1 Ild. f- - --___....__------- --___--- 1----u ~l •~~~ .., ~ ,, .. ,' [y ~ ~ 'I ` 1n r1~1 Ota1 ~'IY vr1 ~~ . ~, 11 ^ ~ / ~1 ~~ ' /1 ` ~1 `J i' V .~ , ..; Q o ~ r--- ~, ~~. u ------ .t. l) _ ... '~ ~. S1~~ ~/ ~w. ~~~ _``-' wr ...... ,j~......r rlw .... ,~~;, ~`-~ ~ 1. 71 ~~ Drew St. r _- - l'Icveland St. ___ ___, _ 1-- -- _ ___ __._____.__ _ 1 -1 -.~ Court St. iJulE•to-Illy Illvd._ _-_._.___ _____. --1 --- -- ------~--- ----- ----- ----..... I ilrui.l IIJ, / _ l .- _._..---- -----. .. _ --- I u I %r, cl ~ f /7 I u a P: 1 ~~ 1 i < . ~ --- ---- 1. --- ~yi,. N ~_ _--_--__.-_ - b r 5 . Il . o 11 l__~~.- -_ - - :_ _~; _ :_ ~ 11 a .i H I v,l _i , .1 _ [ ~ I l u r s e 1 v 1111. "' _ C;--~ t _. _ - --- -- --- -- -- --- -- _ _ _ . •~ ~-- Ilcllcail IIJ. ~ ,;' ~ '" - r r.rs )rr "" ullti (.,tlt.r ~ ~ i 5 - _ _..- ~ ~ ~ .. ' u ~ \ ' .~~ I` April 12, 1985 Cheezem Investment Program I, Ltd. 7820 - 38 Avenue North St. Petersburg, FL 3371 • RE: Settlement Stipulation between Cheezem Investment Program I, Ltd. ("CIPIL"), Cheezem Land Corporation, and the City of Clearwater, dated March 27, 1984 - Your Proposed Site Plan for 'the Northern Parcel Gentlemen: You have requested that we review the proposed site plan for the Northern Parcel and provide your lender with certain comfort as to its effect. Please be advised as follows: 1. The aforementioned Settlement Stipulation is in full force and effect, and governs the development of the Northern Parcel, to which the site plan appl ies. ?_. To the extent that the Settlement Stipulation conflicts with any law, rule, ordinance, or regulation of the City of Clearwater concerning the development of the Northern Parcel, there the Settlement Stipulation controls. 3. The site plan conforms to and is enforceable under the Settlement Stipulation and applicable City of Clearwater laws, rules, ordinances, and regulations. 4. The separate ownership of each of the parcels described in the site plan, and the separate mortgaging of each of the parcels shown thereon, is permitted under the Settlement Stipulation, and applicable laws, rules, ordinances, and regulations of the City of Clearwater. 5. Building permits for the improvements shown on the site plan to be located on either of the parcels will be issued by the City of Clearwater for each parcel independently, notwithstanding separate ownership of the parcels that might be occasioned by a mortgage foreclosure, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or similar arrangement. Sincerely yours, G ITY OF CLEAR~JATER By: City tanager .~ -'• ~ ~ • ~ J Permitted Prior to 1/11/79 Project Name ;; of DU's Acres Bldg. Hgt. (Stories) Uate Bldg. Permit Issued uensity (DU/A) ~ Sheraton Sand 398 10.71 9 8/20/73 37.2 Key (motel) hotel/ " motel L Landmark 144 4 20 8/13/73 36 Towers I 3 Harbor Light 136 3.91 19_ 3/14/73 35 Towers 4 Clearwater 101 2.96 15 2/12/73 34 Sand Key Club Sand Key Condo 96 3.07 9 3/17/78 31 3 5 South Beach tJo. " . 1 (1400) $ Sand Y.ey Condo 96 3.07 9 7/25/73 31.3 South Beach No. 2 (1430) ,T Sand Key Condo 144 4 13 3/17/78 36 South Beach (1460 ) $ Isle of Sand 124 3.6 5 16 34 Key 6ayside Gardens 152 12.03 3 4/5/72 12.6 I, II, III & IY Permitted After 1/11/79 Bldg. Hgt. Date Bldg. Density Project iJame ;; of DU's Acres (Stories) Permit Issued (DU/A) 10 Landmark 72 3.3 10 12/1/80 21.8 Towers II ~~ Lighthouse 144 3.8 20 9/4/81 37.9 Towers {Sea Towers) I' ~ 2 Sand Key Condo 144 4.0 13 - ~ 36 South Beach (1480) 1 3 Belleview 90 3.97 9 3/18/82* 25.4 (N) Cabana Club Condo. 14 Oan's Island 176 6.45 12 1/8/81* 27.3 (tJ) 5 Sand Key Yacht 248 9.7 9 5/15/80'` 27 {tJ) ~ Tennis Club 6 Harboura e V 192 6 8 9 ~ ~ g , . 2/19/80 28 ( iJ ) VI, VII 1 7 P•1a ri na Del Pay 72 6.4 3 7/5/79 ~' 11 . 1 (iJ ) (Townhouses) ~$ Harbour Condo. b4 2.36 8 1/18/79 + 27 (iJ) '~ 19 South Bay I 128 1 0.25 9 12.5 & II ?;ote: (iJ) Densi ty is `icur ed on net acres. *Site Plan App roval Date • ~~'J (. _ 1 ~. ~. ~' !/i ,e g, e J-1 / >t /~~ ~_ / ORD 1749 , ° 4.78 ~''~ - .". 8 6 5 -3 ~~ ` ~t ~o 5EC ,e M*•~ J ~ c.~9 ~ .~I~~E ~ •O / ~` ~ ~ti Q v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~• Q ~ 2g~ 2 ~ Qp O ~ . J ~ ~. ~ I ~ • , 1 O ^ ® ~R~~F ~ ° ,, ~~ ~ ~m ~Q~ O ~~ a~o~o 23 2 • •'~ ~~ / ° RM 16i o ~ /T` ~ O V h ORD 1749 ~ ~ ~ ~ 4~8 ~~ ~2 4 4•> a Q ~ 2 a ~/ ~ O J ~ ~ N ~ ~ 2 O ~ cv -~„ 0 2 ~ ~.~ m ~ 0 2 Q 2Q O ~ ,; p Lc! l~ ~ ~O Q (D f~ / f ~' ORD ~ ~ 1789 (L ~ 4.78 goo ~ 4! Q o 2 ~ Q ~ ~ m T•~* o • 3 I `~ ° ~ 1 M & 8 , .~ /-8 c x Mae ~~ I-s Z ~ J ~ ~ p 0 ~ Z ~ O O Q U ~ ~ =~ n r' 0 3 ~ . Q~ V ORU• 151 4•TS i 0 _p a z EXCEPT ALL ZC SHALL L1NE, CE RTI F USE 0~ sEawAF (•A S DE TO THE (AL). T ALL L~ of „E a u~ T L n l I h E ~~ v S ~ c~ ' S ~ F C~ 0~~°~~ ~ < ~~ ORD 1904 ORD 4 79 1749 4 76 ~_~ ^ b%.`.'SiDE o° G.3~.DEtl.°.III ~~ • J I - '-------- ---- PIVI 1~ - -- - ~N loo ME B f MZ;B I-9 U I I -I CITY M6B MEB 1.2 I- 10 ~ ~ I US COAST Mf~B II _ GUARD • MbB ~ ORD. 163- I ~ ~_• 12' u c t w }' O ~ V Q~H .~ ~ N r o Qp{D ~ .~ JQJ - U~V J Y p W Z ~ p ~ _ - ~ ~, 3 Z F- ~ o Q ~ ~ N N e c `" Undivided Half x t..l Interest `~. _ ~ = Q Q } W W W m ~•. ~. T- m Yo =b o 0 p ~ F- N Jm z Z ~ ~ Q O O a (!') U Cn 0 w z 3 ~ W = S O th ~ Y ~ ~.._. U ~p tD ~ j O Z 00 W~ ~ ~~ ~ Z ~ v7 m ~ N Q m r~ V I H O ~ O p Z CO Z W N ~ ~ - U ~ Q • } W Y W ~ Cn Z } Q Q N ~ I Undividea Halfl Interest .~ O d' Z Z O W ~ V p } Q ~ Y O ~ W 0 Z N a} Q •~ 8 0 12 ORD 1749 4.78 ~~ J 0 __-_ --- - -~ -- ------------- _---- J 3 - .,, ~ !{f , - .~_ ~~ .l _..__ ., ~~ OFD ~ 1749 , \4 !8 I t ~ ir~ I I M !r B I ~ t00 .~ .. ~ ~ _~ ~ i '• \ ~ 74 ~) ~_?4/ _ .~ 0 0 y- A~ ~~, \ •. M .~ v W c 1, J Y ~~ V I a I CG 13 RN 28 J ORD 1939 6.79 MEB -+ 17 14 . I ,,, ,,`\N\~ ~ ` ,\ = m ~ ~ ~ ~ \ `\ \ ~ j-` ~\ •, ~\, r- \ \ \ OFtD J o ~ 194 0 ~ z u' s ~9 • o °' U ~ 0~ \ i~ ORD 176 B 6-~8 Nfl S P ~ O ~ O• v, r; B 17-2 SSE GpN~ ::• ` ,~ K%~ g.aa ~ ORD 4 i 7 9 4.78 \/ -~_ M6B 17-3 ..~•. . •,+~ c~`% s ~ i ~ MEB 1 7- I et~~~ .~ \ goo ~~ I ~ I ~ ' ~ I ~'~~ s~`~ o• o"~ z ~~~ I F• Y~ I~ l /i74? ~\_, R~ i ~ 6 ~ ti.1~ ~~- J . ~ ~ ---- ORD ~ 1749 4~79~ ~ '~ \ ~ ~ MA~~ T~ o ~ (1 m ~ ~ i !~ ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ \\ \ \\ \ ~' r _ ~ OkD ~ ~ ~ 194 0 \ z ~ 6 ?9 O ~ U ~ $\ 0~ A+ L Y \~ ~, l~ 1 ~ \ `` ~, o ~\ ~\ ~ . S \ , \, ~.~, ~ •1 O\ \\\\ \\ \ ~ ~ \ \ ,\ \\ 1, \ ~ ~~ \l ,~ \ ` 15 ys R ORD\ 176 B 6 78 P\`v G ~J 0 0• ~ V1 S B 17.2 ~ N0 5~. GO ~ ~~~ .aa ~g ORD i 749 ~.1A 4.78 ME B 1 7-3 \\~ ~~ 1 ~ • MLB 17-I 15 I ~ .t•' ' ~ I 1 ~ - ~~ ,- 1 ~ ~~ ~. e ~~• `t e~~ o• +• ~o / / / / ~~~~ • " '`/ t/ M _ ~0 0 Q~ V ~v •~ I ~ I EXCEPT AS HEREIK ALL ZONING C'ISTR:C SHALL TERMINATE A' L~N~, SUCH LINE TC CERTIFIED SURVEY USE OF pROpERTY. S=AW4R~ OF THE (^S L'ErIhED IN SECTI• Tt~ TN,E CLEA.4'rYATER SAL` T,:,~ Znr~c ci~c i~~. ~i ~ . ~ Z-- (,n~~1 S~.M„ Ic,~ ~ C,,~ r~ ~~n . T ~Z a,4a~J ~~•. c.,~~~ P~~•~ ~ 1 ~n~~-Y, M -~ 3 ~ 2 1 r 0~ CGiw s Sl ~ Q Q l• S -("~ hr Nls Co,~/~-7 S ~ O , (o ~- ~~A r T to Y~ i ~' 1/~'~ ~, s ~ ~ . ~ g ~1~ ;a bar oc~ Iv ~ ~I wl~~ ~ ti~ 'r"w~ (~.C ~GE,d"S i .~ I ~ c. ~~ 4 - - - -- ~ 1~ S`''am ~ L ~' ~ ~ ~~ ~' --~- -- -- ~ ~ ~~~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~" ~ ;~ s"~~ ,2 ,~ ~ z- ~~ ~ ~' ~~ C I T Y O F C L E A R W A T E R CITY MANAGER June 27, 1983 Dennis P. Thompson, Esq. Attorney at Law 1253 Park Street Clearwater, Florida 33516 Gear Mr. Thompson: POST OFFICE 80X 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33516 I am writing in follow-up to your letter of June 16, 1983 ad-dressed to Mayor Kelly and the City Commission and your comments addressed concerning the adoption of Ordinance No. 3075-83. We appreciate your input and I believe you are aware that an amendment to the ordinance was made as follows: Section 7A. The provisions of this ordinance shall not app y to any property governed by a court order or judgment _ existing at the time of the passage of this ordinance where a conflict exists between the ordinance and any court order or judgment until such time as such court order or judgment is terminated, modified, or otherwise changed. While I believe it is clear that no ordinance adopted by the City would attempt to contravene a decision by the courts, even absent such attestation, we trust the language of the amendment is responsive to your request. As was pointed out by Planning Director Dave Healey at the meeting, however, there is no admission or presumption that Ordinance No. 3075-83 does, in fact, conflict with any specific direction from the courts with regard to United States G ~~7UJ/ ,. ~I'-~/ ~ a "Equal Employment and Affirmative Action Employer" •° -`~~ Dennis P. Thompson,~q. June 27, 1983 Page.2 Steel Corporation. It is the City's position that an independent and case-by-case determination will be made with respect to the requirements of the above-referenced ordinance and any potential bearing or conflict that same may have on properties of U. S. Steel with regard to previous determinations by the courts. i ncerely, Anthon L. hoemaker City manager .. r ~''Ealer '' S '~~ .~'~ .~ ~ n :~ ~-_~ - 9~A TES OFFICE OF PLAN NIt~G DEPARTMENT June 2°, 1983 C I T ~' O F tor. Ken Cheezem, Vice President Cheezem Investment Program I, LTD. Cheezem Land Corporation 7820 38th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 Dear tor. Cheezem: U L~,. ~~. T. ~• C L E A R POST CLEARWATER. A. Bustin P. Healey/ ~~T ~. T E ~~ OFFICE BOX -. -°_ FLORI DA 335?~ I am writing in response to your letter of June 16, 1983 con- cerning properties located on Gulf Boulevard, identified by you as "1330 and 130 Gulf Boulevard." Pursuant to your request fo r notification in writing prior to July 1, 1983, this is to advise you that the City of Clearwater does, in fact, object to the attached preliminary design and does not agree to accept and process building pernit application(s) submitted, based solely on conformance with the City of Clearwater ordinances in effect on December 31, 1961. It is the City's position that the preliminary design information ~- submitted by you represents a gross disparity with not only tfie current requirements of the City as to .building height limi- tations; front, side and coastal construction control setback requirements; and density, clear space, parking, building separation distance, and floor area ratio requirements, but also with the development experience of U. S. Steel on Sand Key. Such wholesale departure from both existing standards and the de- velopment norra, given th,.e changed conditions which have occurred and are occurring on Sand Key, poses a. potential threat to the health, safety and welfare of the community and is unacceptable. The City of Clearwater does not interpret ~r believe that it was the intent of the court decision with respecter to the litigation with U. S. Steel Corporation that absolute and unbridled waiver of all acceptable standards, even in the face of changed con- ditions, would be provided to any successor in title... I ~ ~1,, i _ X083 "Ecuel Err:pleymer,t oral Affirrotive Action Enlloyer -~i_,~:_,:~::,.; • t•1r. Y.en Cheezem, Vi~ President •~ June 29, 1983 Page 2 ~. The City is prepared to discuss with you plans for the re- development of this property that are consistent with the design parameters observed by U. S. Steel Corp. under the court decision to which you refer. Absent a willingness on the part of the Cheezem Corp. to adhere to guidelines consistent with the public health, safety and welfare, the City will have no recourse except to seek judicial relief through a declaratory judgment to fulfill our municipal responsibilities and protect the public interest. I trust this is responsive to your inquiry and reiterate the City is willing and anxious to meet with you to arrive at a „ development proposal that is mutually acceptable and recognizes the constraints that U. S. Steel has operated under since the court decision. fi n C 2Y'e• ~ y, Elizabeth S. Haeseker Assistant ity Manager ~~- -~ ~ , ,~ .. . -' ~r,,,.,,, cv .~~~, ~~~- _. Q: ~ ~ _ wO~, rE OFFICE OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT - June 29, 1`983 O F C L E A R ~' 11 T L IZ POST OFFICE BOX 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORI DA 33518 ~~ir. Ken Cheezem, Vice President Cheezem Investment Program I, LTD. Cheezem Land Corporation 7820 38th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 ~~.. Dear Mr. Cheezem: I am writing in response to your letter of June 16, 1983 con- - cerning properties located on Gulf Boulevard, identified by you as "1330 and 1340 Gulf Boulevard." Pursuant to your request for notification in writing prior to July 1, 1983, this is to advise you that the City of Clearwater does, in fact, object to the attached preliminary design and does not agree to accept and process building permit application(s) submitted, based solely on conformance with the City of Clearwater ordinances in effect on December 31, 1961. It i5 the City's position that the preliminary design information - -__ submitted by you represents a gross disparity with not only the current requirements of the City as to building height limi- tations; front, side and coastal construction control setback requirements; and density, clear space, parking, building separation distance, and floor area ratio requirerents, but also with the development experience of U. S. Steel on Sand Key. Such wholesale departure from both existing standards and the de- velopment norm, given the changed conditions which have occurred and are occurring on Sand Key, poses a potential threat to the health, safety and welfare of the community and is unacceptable. The City of Clearwater does not interpret or believe that it was the intent of the court decision with respect to the litigation with U. S. Steel Corporation that absolute and unbridled waiver of all acceptable standards, even in the face of changed con- ditions, would be provided to any successor in title. "Equal Employment and Affirmative Action Employer" _ ~ P1r. Y.en Cheezem, Vi~ President June 29, 1983 Page 2 The City is prepared to discuss with you plans for the re- development~of this property that are consistent with the design parameters observed by U. S. Steel Corp. under the court decision to which you refer. Absent a willingness on the part of the Cheezem Corp. to adhere to guidelines consistent with the public health, safety and welfare, the City will have no recourse except to .seek judicial relief through a declaratory judgment to fulfill our municipal responsibilities and protect the public interest. I trust this is responsive to your inquiry and reiterate the City is willing and anxious to meet with you to arrive at a development proposal that is mutually acceptable and recognizes the constraints that U. S. Steel has operated under since the court decision. Sincerely, ~.. E1 i zabeth S . Fiaeseker Assistant City Manager • l (~ (3 E ~ ~- E-{ a ~ U N 1 ~5. -~ FL~o/~~ ~-- ~~ ~ Uv5 ~ -' X502 ~~~r• ',~.~ . ~(~ 1~ L -{- C'~ . Co c~ A ~- ` z ~-v w~ n'! v-~ A 2E: R- . ~ . ~7 /~ ~- ~v Goa vP~~ Sp~c_ ~ 6 c1 N t T S~- 8 ~~.v o R S ~- -~ EN7 t-tv v 5 ~. ._- ~,. 07 A~ ~~ ~~o a p~N ~s ~r Ta s~~w~~C.. ~~~~- ~~~~ 1 '-f 3 v u~J t i S -~ 2 S T ~ ~-Y. \~~ ~. ~a ~ ~~-o~ S L A- w ~ t. C • - ~3 _ uN 1~~ - - -- ~Z SZ-ot2~ ~b ~T C= ~ O /Y1 5 E-~~ t~ /~ l- L . ~q.~ q18~~~.,~ 133~ ~~~ TJ /~,J~ r f Ufa C. L • ! i ~~N D ~~~~ 'rn ~ erz_~ ~-(. o v A c h E~- ~ 7 `'~o v P CN ~ p~~ ~. ~I~ ~~ 3~ 1~'~ °~SI 7~ v~ t~ ~ - ~ ~~v v 2S - ~2 ~~~i ~ ~. 2~3 a 2 ~ t G-N "1" 7'~ w ~.2 S. 3 3 Frc' ~ ~` ~ S ~~ w ~ c- ~ . ~ ~ u w c7 S - ~~ ~~..~ ~,as. I Cam? ~= ~~-~-- I Sou`(~ _ I~ ~} ~ ~~ ZY ~~ ~~ ~ - :~. ~. _ t~. -__, , 1f ~ ~„ . ~ (f~ J'.~'~ l 6 ~ i ;~ i ._a ;~ :_ June 16, 1983 Ms. Elizabeth S. Haesaker Assistant City Manager of Operations City of Clearwater City Hall Annex 10 Missouri Street Clearwater, Florida Re: Properties located at 1330 and 1340 Gulf Boulevard Clearwater, Florida Dear Pls. Haesaker: Cheezem Land Corporation 7820 38th Avenue North St. Petersburg. Florida 33710 (813)344-5481 As requested during a meeting held in your office on June 3, 7983 which was attended by you, Mr. Frank Kawolski (City Attorney's office), Mr. David Healey (Planning Department Director) and John Corbet (Cheezem Land Corporation ), the preliminary design information for the captioned properties, although not required by applicable ordinances and zoning codes, is submitted here~~~ith. This preliminary design has been prepared under the provisions of the "B" Business District pursuant to the City of Clearwater's ordinance Nos. 627, 642, 726, 753, 798 and 912 which have been certified by the City Clerk as being the zoning code and amendments thereto in effect as of December 31, 1961, at which time these properties were annexed into the City of Clearwater. The above ordinance numbers, the "B" Business District zoning desig- nation and the successor-in-title rights for the captioned properties were established as a result of the following litigation between the city of Clearwater and United States Steel Corporation in which United States Steel Corporation prevailed: 1) Circuit Court for Pinellas County, Circuit Civil #78-4765-7 Summary Judgment; 2) Second District Court of Appeal, Case #79-178; and 3) Circuit Court for Pinellas County, Circuit Civil #78-4765-7, Order on P•1otion for Contempt. Please be advised that Cheezem Investment Program I, Ltd. purchased these properties from U.S. Steel Corporation and acquired successor-in-title rights running with these properties as established by the above referenced litigation. The enclosed preliminary design has been prepared to be in conformance with the City of Clearwater's ordinances, zoning code and applicable amendments t~~hi ch t•~ere effective on December 31 , 1961. 41e are ready General Partner of Cheezem Investment Program I, Ltd_, a Florida Limited Partnership. .. ~ ,~ •- ~•1s. Elizabeth S. Haesaker - 2 - June 16, 1983 • to commence with the preparation of the specified lot plan and all architectural, structural, civil, mechanical, electrical, plu^~bing, . etc. working dratrings for building permit application(s) submission. Unless we have been notified to the contrary in writing by the City of Clearwater prior to July 1; 1983, it shall be construed that the City of Clea n~rater has no objections to the enclosed preliminary design and has agreed to accept and process the building permit application(s) to be submitted in conformance ~•~ith the City of Clearwater's ordinances, zoning code and applicable amendments which were effective on.December 31, 1961 and.to issue the appropriate building permit(s) accordingly. Very truly yours, C!-!~EZE~1 I" ESTP1ENT P,°.O~P.AM I, LTD. By: CHE EM L ~CORPOP.ATIO". as Ge Partner i ,~ - en Chee em - - Vice P~t~esi dent KC:c~h Encl. cc: 'ir. Frank Kawolski, City Attorney's Office tor. David Healey, Planning Department Director ~. '_ _ Sr~r~ ~E~ ul ~ ~~-~~-r 8~ ~~~/ . ~ 50 ~ ~~,~ Ur~~ _ 1~~~csc-r~ - _ ~7. ol- a.. ,irwG~_ ~~.a.~c-~ 0~1 ~i/ 2Y0 o~~r _ 7` / ~~m . /yl~c _ i~~4 PA~tt.~.~ - - - 0 ~ , 37-5~ ~ 33~ ~~ - D FA.R_ t. S~-aqC/3~ BS~.,.r,~..~ ~~~-or~t5 '~n~.~ o~..t ~.atic R~~ ~~6~83 ` .- ~.: ~ USS Reait ~ uss Y Development C. FRANK HEGNER DlYitiOfl Of UOltad Stetlt SteEl ('iOfpOfatiOn PROJECT MANAGER 200 ST. ANDREWS DRIVE BELLEAIR, FLORIDA 33516 613/443-0631 July 8, 1983 Mr. Anthony L. Shoemaker City Manager City of Clearwater P. 0. Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33518 Re: U. S. Steel Sand Key Properties Dear Mr. Shoemaker: Enclosed is a tract map identifying our undeveloped Sand Key properties together with informational copies of site plans illustrating how we intend to develop those tracts. This submittal is for your information and is pursuant to our several conversations on the matter. It has been discussed and agreed between us that provisions of 1961 zoning and subsequent court orders under which these properties are governed do not require site plan approval by the City of Clearwater. Therefore, these courtesy site plan submittals, in anticipation of making application for building permits, do not constitute a waiver of our rights under the court orders with respect to 1961 zoning pro- visions. It, therefore, is expected that the City will not take exception to our plans for these sites when applications for building permits are submitted. Please acknowledge that these plans fall within the parameters of zoning requirements established by Circuit Civil No. 78-4765-7.°. If you require further information or explanation about the enclosures, we will be most happy to cooperate. CFH/sab Enclosures Very truly yours, i~ ,~ ,...: C. F. Hegner ;~ cc: D. P. Thompson, Esquire • • T0: Charles Siemon, Esquire FROM: David P. Healey, Planning Director SUBJECT: Sand Key Development DATE: August 5, 1983 Attached you will find an overview of all actions taken by both developers and the City with regard to Sand Key. These actions have been noted as prior to and follo~ving January 11, 1979, the date of Judge Driver's decision. A composite view of the developments before and after the decision follows: Permitted Prior to 1/11/79 Bldg. Hgt. Project i~ame # of DU's Acres (Stories) *Sheraton Sand 398 10.71 9 Key (motel) hotel/ motel Landmark 144 4 20 Towers I Harbor Light 136 3.91 19 Towers Clearwater. 101 2.96 15 Sand Key C1_ub Sand Key Condo 96 3.07 9 South Beach No. 1 (1400) Sand Key Condo 96 3.07 9 South Beach No. 2 (1430) Sand Key Condo 144 4 13 South Beach (1460) Isle of Sand 124 3.65 16 K ey Bayside Gardens 152 12.03 3 I, II, III & IV TOTAL 993 DU 36.69 A AVERAGE 13 Stories Uate Bldg. Density Permit Issued (DU/A) 8/20/73 37.2 8/13/73 36 3/14/73 35 2/12/73 34 3/17/78 31.3 7/25/73 31.3 3/17/78 36 34 4/5/72 12.6 v 27.06 DU/A *Not included in totals. 'Charl es Si emon, Esquire August 5, 1983 Page Two Permitted After 1/11/79 Bldg. Hgt. Date Bldg. Density Project Name # of DU's Acres (Stories) Permit Issued (DU/A) Landmark 72 3.3 10 12/1/80 21.8 Towers II {92') Lighthouse 144 3.8 20 9/4/81 37.9 Towers (Sea (167.5') Towers) Sand Key Condo 144 4.0 13 ~ - 36 South Beach (1480) Belleview 90 3.97 9 3/18/82* 25.4 (N) Cabana Club Condo. Dan's Island 176 6.45 12 1/8/81* 27.3 (N) (112') Sand Key Yacht 248 9.7 9 5/15/80 27 (N) & Tennis Club Harbourage V, 192 b.8 9 2/19/80# 28- (~d) VI, VII Marina Del lay 72 6.4 3 7/5/79 ~` 11.1. (N) (Townhouses) Harbour Condo. 64 2.36 8 1/18/79' 27 (N) (72') South Bay I 128 10.25 9 - 12.5 & II TOTAL 1,326 DU 57.03 A , AVERAGE 10.2 STORIES 23.3 DU/A Note: (N) Density is figured on net acres. *Site Plan Approval Date Attached hereto is a chronological overview of actions pertinent to Sand Key. aAV« Rlc«.RD's (leea-roeo~ WILLIAM w. GILRET JO«N D. /ITE LARRY K. ME~'ER DEN NIS P. T«OMPSON JO«N E. LLAUG«TER, JR [MIL G PRATESI J. NARVIN GUT«RI[ R, CAR ETON WARD SALLT FOOTE CORCORAN GARr R. PRESTON RO6ERT M. PET RILLO PATRICK T. MAGUIRE uw occlccs RICWARDS, N NE, GILKEY, FITE, MEYER 6 THOMPSC7I~P. A. RICNARDS BUILDING 1253 PARK STREET CLEARWATER, ILORIDA »616 (61~) 413-D2 B1 August 18, 1983 Frank Kowalski, Esquire City Attorney City of Clearwater City Hall P. O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33518 Re: U.S. Steel - Sand Key Zoning Dear Frank: WILLIAM E. NODINE O-COYM<L~ You will recall that within the last several months you and I discussed fence and construction trailer permit matters on Sand Key. As a result, the construction trailer permit was extended indefinitely. More recently, U.S. Steel sought .an indefinite extension for its permit for its temporary sales center. Only a 180 day extension was granted. See copies of correspondence attached. Why the difference in treatment; the same rules under the 1961 ordinance apply, it seems to us. Please review and let us know the reasoning. Thank you. Very truly yours, ~___.~1~-- ~-- Dennis P. Thompson DPT/sco Enc. cc: Mr. C. Frank Hegner ~ ~ ~~ ~_ o~ C I T Y ~ z ~9~AtER~~~~ C~Tr MAMAG[R August 24, 1983 O F C L E A R w A T~E R rOST OFFICE 00X I~~t CLEARWATER, FLORI OA 33518 Mr. C. F. Hegner U.S.S. Realty Development ' 200 St. Andrews Drive Belleair, FL 33516 Dear On a alf of the City of Clearwater, I have, with the assistance of my professional staff, reviewed the materials submitted to the City in regard to U. S. Steel Sand Rey Properties under cover of your July 8, 1983, letter and Dennis Thompson's follow-up letter of August 18, 1983. Please accept this letter as official notice that the City of Clearwater does not agree with your expectation that the development contemplated in the plans "fall within the parameters of (the) zoning requirements established by Circuit Civil No. 78-4765-7." The proposed development involves a significant departure from the character and magnitude of nominal development on the island and repre- sents a drastic change in conditions for the island. Moreover, the scope and scale of the development now proposed raises serious questions in regard to the City's responsibilities and power to issue building permits under the provi- sions of section 380.06 of the Florida Statutes. The City is ready to discuss its position with you and your representatives and sincerely hopes that an understanding may be reached as to the force and effect of Judge Driver's order and controlling law. However, I feel obligated to advise you that the significant change in conditions on Sand Rey which is proposed by persons claiming rights under the court order raises serious ques- tions as to the continuing effect of the decision. The City does aot believe that the intended parameters and effect of the order contemplated development which far exceeds the character and magnitude of development at issue in U.S. Steel v. the City of Clearwater. Let me reiterate the City's desire to work with your company in this matter, and I hope you will avail yourself of my invitation to meet and discuss this matter. Ems: - H:~, F=? Very truly yours, ~ ~~ ~ 1:~..~:;r. hoemaker AUG 26 1983 , 6~1 0~~ ~ ! S:.9 JLJ r'"' -.. ~ KAH -_ : ~., "Equal Employment and Affirmative Action Employer" ~ • September 8, 1983 Per. Dave Neal ey Planning Department City of Clearwater 112 S. Osceola Avenue C1 earti~~ater, F1 on da Dear Dave: Enclosed please find copies of the surveys for our parcels entitled Sand Key V, Clearwater, Florida. If you need any further information, please feel free to contact me. Very~.r~uly yogis, ~ John M. Scott Architect JMS:csh Encl. - -- v `' ~ SEP 9198~i ~~ ; ~ ~~--_ _ ": F` . . ~-~: Community Design Corporation 7820 38th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 (813) 344-5481 C. FRANK HEGNER PROJECT MANAGER uss USS Realty . Development Olvi>aton of United States Steel Corporation 200 ST. ANDREWS DRIVE BELLEAIR, fL0 RIDA 33516 613/413-0631 September 28, 1983 / Mr. Anthony L. Shoemaker City Manager City of Clearwater P. 0. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33518 Dear Tony: Please refer to your letter of August 24, 1983 concerning plans for our remaining undeveloped properties at Sand Key. It is our opinion that the proposed plans fall with the limits of Circuit Civil No. 78-4765-7 and that we would be entitled to imme- diate issuance of building permits upon submittal of applicable construction drawings, but perhaps we have overlooked something. If so, please let us know what that oversight might be. It is our opinion that each project falls below DRI thresholds and, therefore, that Florida Statute, Section 380.06, is not applicable. Again, please inform us what we may not have taken into consideration. . If it is true that our proposals as submitted do fall within the limits of Judge Driver's decision, we request your acknowledgement thereof. Very truly yours, --~~ ;.. i ,i.:. C. F. Hegner CFH/sab cc: Mr. D. P. Thompson , - a+w ~wr+ r~- 111 .~_.z _.._ ~ ~ ~ ,~JN 16 ,`~ - Cheezem i ;?~~.__ Land • Corporation June 16, 1983 7szo381nAvenueNortn St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 ' (613)344-5481 Ms. Elizabeth S. Haesaker Assistant City Manager of Operations City of Clearwater City Hall Annex 10 Missouri Street Clearwater, Florida Re: Properties located at 1330 and 1340 Gulf Boulevard Clearwater, Florida Dear Pls. Haesaker: As requested during a meeting held in your office on June 3, 1983 which was attended by you, Mr. Frank f:awolski (City Attorney's office), Mr. David Healey (Planning Department Director) and John Corbet (Cheezem Land Corporation), the preliminary design information for the captioned properties, although not required by applicable ordinances and zoning codes, is submitted herewith. This preliminary design has been prepared under the provisions of the "B" Business District pursuant to the City of Clearwater's ordinance Nos. 627, 642, 726, 753, 798 and 912 which have been certified by the City Clerk as being the zoning code and amendments thereto in effect as of December 31, 1961, at which time these properties were annexed into the City of Clearwater. The above ordinance numbers, the "B" Business District zoning desig- nation and the successor-in-title rights for the captioned properties were established as a result of the follo>riing litigation between the City of Clearwater and United States Steel Corporation in which United States Steel Corporation prevailed: 1) Circuit Court for Pinellas County, Circuit Civil #78-4765-7 Sumrna.ry Judgment; 2) Second District Court of Appeal, Case #79-178; and 3) Circuit Court for Pinellas County, Circuit Civil #78-4765-7, Order on P•1otion for Contempt. Please be advised that Cheezem Investment Program I, Ltd. purchased these properties from U.S. Steel Corporation and acquired successor-in-title rights running with these properties .as established by.the above referenced litigation. The enclosed preliminary design has been prepared to be in conformance with the City of Clea nvater's ordinances, zoning code and applicable amendments t~~hi ch tvere effective on December 31 , 1961. 4Je are ready General Partner of Cheezem Investment Program I, Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnership. J•9s. E1 i zabeth S. Hae~r - 2 - Ju~16, 1 °83 to commence with the preparation of the specified lot plan and all architectural, structural, civil, mechanical, electrical, plu^~bing, etc. o-ror..king drawings for building permit application(s) submission. Unless we have been notified to the contrary in writing by the City of Clearwater prior to July~l; 1983, it shall be construed that the City of Clear-,rater has no objections to tf design and has agreed to accept and oroces application(s) to be submitted in conforms Clear~aater's ordinances, zoning code and s vrere effective on.Jecember 31, 1961 and.tc building permit(s) accordingly. Very truly yours, C!-!EEZE"1 I^ ESTP1ENT P°OGP.AM I , LTD. By: CHE Eh1 L ' ~CORPO;',ATIO': as Ge Partner i` ~f ~ - .. " en Chee em Vice P~-~esi dent KC:csh Encl. cc: sir. Frank Ka~~rol ski , Ci tv Attorney `s C i~1r. David Healey, Planning Department i i ., ~Z, C i -_ I~ }{E~~f-1T S,rIT~~K . ~Q~ ~~uT - ~ .ter, _ ~ ~-r-z-~:~~~~~ ~~.~.f~.~~ ~u~~ ~2o a crux%~ - /03 ~~ _ .S ~ - UJ~~O~ / _ 1~~r,csc-~~? ~~ ~ ~-~r~ sP,~ ,- - v- ~ 03'~ off. 5~ PAS ~ = ~ fP'J -~a-c-~o -t-~a,~y . ~i*t G-7.-r~r _ ~a.Q ~ 2Sa ,.~-c~o~.~o-L~~cx~c-d / / D F~utr.-.Dr~G'z ~~,~~c~Ti~t.L . ~ts~~c~ 3~ 5 ~ o~ ~3 ~ ` ~ ~ ~ - F/~.R_ l.s~r,.a-~C/3- BS~o .r~,~ ~cu~mus '~ =~~ 0~-1 u.a~ R~_.D ~~6 f g3 ~ --= - -- ,,~~~ ~- rr` SE~I~"~`~i 'rv~,~ I,, ~''~' '-~` -„ ~~ VO~~ =~~AT ER ~~ OFFICE OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT • ` , C I T Y O F C L E A R ~1' A T E R - POST OFFICE BOX a748 CLEARWATER, FLORI DA 33518 June 29, 1983 ~~Ir. Ken Cheezem, Vice President Cheezem Investment Program I, LTD. Cheezem Land Corporation 7820 38th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida- 33710 Dear tdr. Cheezem: I am writing in response to~your letter of June 16, 1983 con- cerning properties located on Gulf Boulevard, identified by, you as "1330 and 1340 Gulf Boulevard." Pursuant to your request for notification in writing prior to July 1, 1983, this is to advise you that the City of Clearwater does, in fact, object to the attached preliminary design and does not agree to accept and process building permit application(s) submitted, based solely on conformance with the City of Clearwater ordinances in effect.-on December 31, 1961. It is the City's position that the preliminary design inform.a.tion - submitted by you represents a gross disparity with not only the current requirements of the City as to building height limi- tations; front, side and coastal construction control setback requirements; and density, clear space, parking, building separation distance, and floor area ratio requirements, but also with the development experience of U. S. Steel on Sand Key. Such wholesale departure from both existing standards and the de- velopment norm, given the changed conditions which have occurred and are occurring on Sand Key, poses a potential threat to the health, safety and welfare of the community and is unacceptable. The City of Clearwater does not interpret or believe that it was the intent of the court decision with respect to the litigation with U. S. Steel Corporation that absolute and unbridled waiver of all acceptable standards, even in the face of changed con- ditions, would be provided to any successor in title. "Equal Employment and Affirmative Action Employer~~ - - ~ r h1r. Y.en Cheezem, Vi~ President June 29, 1983 Page 2 The City is prepared to discuss with you plans for the re- development of this property that are consistent with the design parameters observed by U•. S. Steel Corp. under the court decision to which you refer. Absent a willingness on the part of the Cheezem Corp. to adhere to guidelines consistent with the public health, safety and welfare, the City will have nv recourse except to seek judicial relief through a declaratory judgment to .fulfill our municipal responsibilities and protect the public interest. I trust this is responsive to your inquiry and reiterate the City is willing and anxious to meet with you to arrive at a development proposal that is mutually acceptable and recognizes the constraints that U. S. Steel has operated under since the court decision. Sincerely, Elizabeth S. Fiaeseker Assistant City Manager .;. • '' Svv i ~ ~ E~~~ ~~ U tit ET~r -~ F~vo~~ ~-- Q~ ~~~5~ ~So2 F-~~T- ~ . ~7 ~ ~- ~v Goo oP~rJ SA~c ~~ i ~S ~~ ~-o S~Aw~C-L, 6 V 1J 1 7 S r g ~(~(~ O Q. S '~' -~ ERlT f-~v V S ~. '3.07 A~ ~~ % oPc=f~ ~ s ~~- T a s ~~ w•9 ~~. ~1r{'~~- ~~~~ ~o~T~-F ~~~~~ ~ I `-f 3 c.~ u~/ r ~ S -. 2 5 7 ~Y. ~~~ Y r-~ ~ ~s z S ~/d c-~Ew ; pA~~. ~-I ~ G ~ A cQ LS . . ~b ~ F~ c r/I 12.:. SZ-o (~~ - 1 S `'~~ UPS 5 ~~ c,,J ~4 L L.. , ~q 8 q19 = az z ~ 133 a ~~~ TJ ~~ 13 6 _ ~~-~ S~~~G~~ ~sll ~~~ ~q~ 3 I~~ °~SI L-1a IJ D ~ ~ Gt. (~ ~" n 4J C r2__. ~. O v ~ c. r2 E --- ~ 7 v/o v P CN 1~~" ~~~~ J~~ ~~ S~~ rto c.~~~S ~ ~ ~~- y ~ .~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 1 ~ C~ U N t ~~ S - 1 `7 ~L o o ~ 1 - ~ ~ ~ ~L {~-~-. 3 , ~ v ~ c~c~~~ , - 31 ~~~ oP ~ ~ s p~ ~ 3 3 F-r ~ ~--0 5 C~ w ~ t_ L.. l- ~ C~ ~ t~ ~ ~ v S~ `t- ~ w ~2~, ~ ~f ~( uk/ c7 S -- ~~ ~w~,2s -- I ~7 ~~~T SoU ~ ~ _ (~ t~ Y 1Z b vN~~ ~ ~~D~,- ~.~~Gpv/2-5 ~~ ~'T~ D, 2 -3 ~ Gtr ~~a. z a U~U ~~~ S~G~. ~~ ~~ y - • ~ ~ ~ ~~ _ uss CUSS Realty _ Development C. FRANK HEGNER Division of United States Steel Corporation A/ PROJECT MANAGER /' 200 ST. ANDREWS DRIVE 111.E BELLEAIR, FLORIDA 33516 tJ~ ` 873/aa3-0631 ~ ~~~~ July 8, 1983 '~ ~~ 'l~~ ~: Pir. Anthony L. Shoemaker ~ City Manager City of Clearwater ~ ~ P. 0. Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33518 Re: U. S. Steel Sand Key Properties Dear Mr. Shoemaker: Enclosed is a tract map identifying our undeveloped Sand Key properties together with informational copies of site plans illustrating how we intend to develop those tracts. _This submittal is for your information and is pursuant to our several conversations on the matter. It has been discussed and agreed between us that provisions of 1961 zoning and subsequent court orders under which these properties are governed do not require site plan approval by the City of Clearwater. Therefore, these courtesy site plan submittals, in anticipation of making application for building permits, do not constitute a waiver of our rights under the court orders with respect to 1961 zoning pro- visions. It, therefore, is expected that the City will not take exception to our plans for these sites when applications for building permits are submitted. Please acknowledge that these plans fall within the parameters of zoning requirements established by Circuit Civil No. 78-4765-7. If you require further information or explanation about the enclosures, we will.be most happy to cooperate. Very truly yours, ,' . ' _ ~-- C. F. Iiegner CFH/sab Enclosures cc: D. P. Thompson, Esquire RAL-M RIGNARDS (1693-1oe01 WILLIAM W. GILK ET JoNN o. rITE uwwr K. MfrfR DENNI$ P. TMOM PSON JOHN E. SLAUG MTER, JR [MIL G. PRATESI J. MARVIN GUTN qIC R. CARLTON WARD SALLr FOOTE CORCORAN GARY R. PRESTON ROBERT M. P[TRILLO PATRICK T. MAGUIRE LAW OFFICES • RICHARDS, NODINE, GILKEY, FITE, MEYER & THOMPSON, P. A. ///~~~ R ICfIARD$ 9UILDING `~ 12:53 PARK STREET - CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33416 (B13) 443-3281 WILLIAM E. NOOINE 0•000Ni[L August 18, 1983 Mr. Anthony L. Shoemaker City Manager City of Clearwater P. O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33518 Dear Tony: D ~ C~r~^~ 11 1 Fit.l- i~0~ Recently, Frank Hegner and I met with Dave Healey and you to provide information concerning U.S. Steel's further plans on Sand, Key. This meeting was preceded by Frank Hegner's letter of July 8,, 1983 which provided informational copies of site plans. At the con- clusion of the meeting you indicated, as I recall, that, upon further reflection on the plans and consultation with the City Attorney, you would respond to us with the City's reaction to the site plans. The response, I believe, was to be in the context of Mr. Healey's com- ments to the City Commission on June 16, 1983 as reiterated in your letter to me of June 27, 1983. While we understand that we cannot require the City to respond formally to Mr. Hegner's letter and our meeting, we feel that it is beneficial to all parties if each is fully aware of the other's inten- tions and position. In this way there will be no miscalculations and unforeseen results. We look forward to your response. Thank you for your previous courtesies. ~Jery truly yours , ~- ~J~ ,..~s~-~-- ~ Dennis P. Thompson DPT/sco cc: Frank Kowalski, Esquire C. Frank Hegner ;:: '~ r . August 24, 1983 ____-_ ___ ._ Mr. C. F. Hegner ._. _. .. U.S.S. Realty Development _,_,, ._,_ _ . 200 St. Andrews Drive _ _ __ Belleair, FL 33516 ~, _ :__ _ Dear Mz. Hegner: .._,_ --- -- •. Oa behalf of the City of Clearwater,, -.I have,. with the assistance of my professional staff, reviewed the materials submitted to the City do regard to U. S. Steel Sand Rey Properties• under, cover of your July 8, 1983, letter and Dennis Thompaon's follow-up letter of August 18., 1.983. Please accept this letter as official notice that .the_City, of_Clearwater does not agree wtth your expectation that the develoJment-contemplated in the plans "fall Within the parameters of (the) zoning zegyirements, established by Circuit Civil No. 78-4765-7." The proposed development iavoivea a significant departure from the character and magnitude of nominal development on the island and repre- sents a drastic change in conditions far.-the island. Moreover, the scopes and scale of the development now proposed raises-serious questions in regard to the City's responsibilities and ~over.to issue building permits under the provi- sions of section 380.06 of the Florida Statutes. The City is ready to discuss its position with you and your representatives and sincerely hopes that as understanding may be .reached as to the force and effect of Judge Driver's order and_controlliag.law. _However, Z feel obligated to advise you that the significnrnt.change_in-conditions on Sand Key which is proposed by persona claiming rights under the court order raises serious ques- tions as to the continuing effect, of _the decision. The City does not believe that the intended parameters sad effect of the order contemplated development which far e:ceada the character add magnitude of development at issue in D.S. Steel v. the Cit9 of Clearwater.,-_ __ _ _ Let me reiterate the City's desire_to work.with your-company in this matter, and I hope you vil2 avail yourself of my invitation to meet and discuss this matter. _ _-__---• Very truly yours, _-.. _ _. . ~j Anthony L. Shoemaker _-_ _ _ _ _ City *fanager _ _ _ . . .~ P O S T O F F I C E B O X 4 7 4 8 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33518 OFFICE OF PL P.N NING DEPARTMENT September 15, 1983 mr. l•Jilliam A. Ockunzzi, Executive Director Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 9455 Koger Boulevard St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 Dear Bill: I am attaching for your information correspondence between the Cheezem Development Corporat-ion, U. S. Steel Realty Development and the City of Clearwater pertaining to proposed development on Sand Key. In brief, U. S. S. Realty Development and Cheezem Development Corporation own properties on which they propose massive increases from the already too intensive development pattern on Sand Key under rights they claim in the Circuit Court decision rendered by Judge Driver in 1977. The City is evaluat ing all of its potential courses of action, including that reference in City manager Shoemaker's letter of August 24 to U. S. Steel concerning the potential applicability of Chapter 380.06 FS; that is, developments of regional impact. Tony asked that you be apprised• of these preliminary communications in order that you might be aware of same in responding to any inquiry made of the Council from the developers or the State Department of Community Affairs. If you are contacted concerning this matter, the City would appreciate being involved in any follow-up discussion with either the Cheezem or U. S. Steel interests. Sincerely, ~i d P. Neal ey, AICP , Planning Director " - DPN:bd Att. c.c City f~•~ianager Anthony L. Shoemaker "Equal Employment and Affirmative Action Employer" ~ ~ C I T ~' O F C L E A R W A T E R P O S T O F F I C E B O X 4 7 4 8 CLEARWATER, FLORI DA 33518 OFFICE OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT September 27, 1983 Ms. Susan G. Connelly Siemon, Larsen & Purdy 200 S. Wacker lirive Chicago, Illinois 60606 Dear Susan: Please find enclosed, in accord with your request, a summary tabulation and accompanying maps, referenced to the tabulation by number, for possible inclusion as an exhibit in any brief you may prepare. I believe the information is self-explanatory but, if not, feel free to call me. Further, if additional information is needed or if some other form for the attached information would be more useful to you, don't hesitate to let -ne know. Sincerely, David P. Healey, AICP Planning Director UPH:bd Enc. c.c. Frank X. Kowalski, Chief Assistant City Attorney l~..~ lG- "Equal Employment and Affirmative Action Employer" T0: t~1ax Battle, Public Works Director; Keith Crawford, Traffic Engineering Director; Cecil Henderson, Utilities Director FROM: Davi d P. Healey, Planning Di rector-~~~~/ COPY: City Manager Anthony L. Shoemaker ""55'''' SUBJECT: Development Impacts/Sand Key DATE: t~ovember 10, 1983 The following is offered for the purpose of allowing you to assess the impacts which may result from development of the four remaining vacant parcels on Sand Key under the 1979 court order which has been interpreted to permit development consistent with 1961 zoning and development regulations rather than current zoning and development regulations. Based on recent discussions I have had with representatives of the corporations which own the four sites, the prospective development plans for all four sites will include, in all or part, some density-measured development (i.e., residential dwelling units or hotel units): This being the case, to assist you in formulating the potential impact on the City, I am referencing the different unit counts which may result for each parcel consistent with the court ruling as distinct from that permitted under present zoning and development standards. (1) Adjacent and south of the Sheraton Hotel is a parcel of land with an area of approximately 11.60 acres currently zoned CTF-28 Commercial-Tourist Facilities which is owned by Cheezem Development Corporation (plus some 3.4 acres of accreted land that may or may not belong to Cheezem). Under present standards, a range of 324 to 420 dwelling units may be developed on the site depending upon final determination of ownership. The City does not consider the 1979 court decision to be applicable to this site. Cheezem has proposed 420 units for this site. (2) On the east side of Gulf Boulevard opposite the Cheezem property referenced immediately above is.a parcel of land owned by U.S. Steel with an area of approximately 7.83 acres, the northerly one-fourth M.O.L. currently zoned CG General Business and the remainder zoned RM-16 Medium Density Multiple Family. Under present standards, a maximum of 146 dwelling units may be developed on the site. Under 1961 standards, a maximum of 412 dwelling units may be constructed on the site. U.S. Steel's tentative plans are to construct a massive retail-office-residential (or hotel) project providing for some 300 dwelling units or 600 hotel units, 100,000 f~1.0.L. sq. ft. of retail and 25,000 M.O.L. sq. ft. of office space. 'y Wovember 10, 1983 Page 2 (3) Plorth of the Sand Key Club tennis courts is a parcel of land of approximately 3.89 acres currently zoned Rini-28 High Density i~tul ti pl e Family which i s owned by Cheezem Development Corporation. Under present standards, a maximum of 108 dwelling units may be developed on the site. Under 1961 standards, a maximum of 210 dwel-ling units may be developed on the site. Cheezem's tenta- tive plans are to construct 240 dwelling units on this site. (4) Between the Cabana Club property and South Beach IV is a parcel of land measuring approximately 8.39 acres currently zoned RM-28 High Density Ptultiple Family which is owned by U.S. Steel. Under present standards, a maximum of 234 .units may be developed on the site. Under 1961 standards, a total of 453 dwelling units may be developed on the site. U.S. Steel's tentative plans are to construct 386 dwelling units on this site. Please evaluate the potential impacts in your area of responsibility as a result of: {1) development consistent with the maximum permitted under present standards, (2) development consistent with the maximum permitted under the court order, and (3) development consistent with the tentative plans which I have identified, where different from items (1) and (2). Please include your written qualitative findings based on the quantitative comparisons and forward to me if at all possible by Thursday the 17th for a follow-up meeting scheduled for that day with counsel. DPH/JDR/dw DEVELOPMENT IMPACT CHART/SAND KEY HEIG[iT PARKING F.A.R. DENSITY SETBACKS Permitted Proposed Required Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Proposed Required Proposed 5. of Sheraton 88' 80'/88' 1.5 Sp. 1.5 5p. N/A 28 28 Front: Front (Cheezem) Per ll.U. D.U. D.U. 15'-20' 15'-20' Per Per side: ~.de• ~ ' Net Acre Gross 128'-192' -60 2 Acre Rear: Rear: 0' function of ligt . Opposite Sheraton 88' 150' 1.5 Sp. N/A ~N/A for N/A 28 D.U. 38 D.U. Front: N/A on 1;. side Gulf lslvd. Per ll.U. CG,Except Per Net ~1 U-21' (U.5. Steel) + for Multi Acre Units 1 sp. per l Family ~er Gros cre + Side: ' UU sc~.ft (which 351 - Retail F.A.R. is Retail 526' area + 15) .5 I Uffice Rear: 1 sp. RM-16 25' per 300 f sq. t i Office ~ Area I 1~. of Tennis Courts 88' 150' 1.5 sp. 1.U4 sp. 1.5 2.73 28.D.U. 61.7 Front:2C' 20'+ ~ (Cheezem) per D.U. per D.U. per net D.U. per Side: acre rQ oss Interior acre 103' S' • Street & water- f ront 155' S' (.~GL . 42.5' 42.5'+ ~ , S' for i i ~ f lle ck 0' l N. of Cabana Club 88' 150' 1.5 sp. 1.5 sp. 1.5 2.8 28 ll.U. 46 D.U. Front:20' 2U'+ (U.S. Steel) (15 per D.U. per U.U. , , per net per Side: Stories) ~ acre r~ oss 'interior: y acre x197' x30' f Street & f water- ~ front f , L95' X60' ~ I CCCL: ~ ---,- ~ ~ ~ 42.5' DEVELOPMENT IMPACT CHART/SAND KEY HEIGIiT ,PARKING F.A.R. DENSITY SETBACKS Permitted Proposed Required Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Proposed Required Proposed S. of Sheraton 88' 80'/88' 1.5 Sp. 1.5 Sp. N/A 28 28 Front: Front (Cheezem) Per D.U. D.U. D.U. 15'-20' 15'-20' Per Per side: s~.de• ' Net Acre Gross ~ 128'-192' 25 -60 Acre Rear: Rear: 0' 1i'unction of ligt . Opposite Sheraton 88' 15U' 1.5 Sp. N/A ~N/A for N/A 28 D.U. 38 D.U. Front: N/A on ) side Gulf Blvd. Per ll.U. CG,Except Per Net hotel U-21' (U.S. Steel) + for Multi Acre Units 1 sp. per Family ~er Gros cre + Side: ' I lUU sc~.ft (which _ 351 Retail F.A.R. is Retail 526' area + 15) .5 Uffice Rear: 1 sp. RM-16 25' er 300 f i sq. t Office Area i I~. of Tennis Courts 88' 15U' 1.5 sp. 1.04 sp. 1.5 ~ 2.73 28 D.U. 61.7 Front:20' 20'+ ~ (Cheezem) per D.U. ,per D.U. per net ll.U. per Side: acre r~ oss Interior acre- 103' S' i Street & Hater- ~ front 155' S' cccL: , ~ 42.5', 42.5'+ ~ j 5' for ~ Deck U' , N. of Cabana Club 88' 15U' 1.5 sp. X1.5 sp. 1.5 2.8 28 D.U. 46 D.U. Front:20' 2U'+ I (ll.S. Steel) (15 per D.U. per D.U. per net per Side: ~ Stories) ~ acre r~ oss Interior: acre x197' x30' ~ ~ ~ Street & water- front 295' X60' ~ CCCL: ~ f; I 42.5' DEVELOPMENT IMPACT CHART/SAND KEY HEIGLiT , PA1tKING F .A. R. DENSITY SETBACKS Permitted Proposed Required Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Proposed Required Proposed S. of Sheraton 88' 80'/88' 1.5 Sp. 1.5 Sp. N/A 28 28 Front: Front (Cheezem) Per ll.U. D.U. D.U. 15'-20' 15'-20' Per Per side: ~de• ' ~ Net Acre Gross ~ 128'-192' -60 2 Acre Rear: Rear: 0' function of Ilgt . Opposite Sheraton 88' 15U' 1.5 Sp. N/A ~N/A for N/A 28 D.U. 38 D.U. Front: N/A on E. side Gulf Blvd. Per D.U. CG,Except Per Net Hotel U-21' (U.S. Steel) + for riulti Acre Units 1 sp. per Family ~er Gros + Side: ' l0U s .ft ~ (which cre 351 - ' ltetai F.A.R. is Retail 526 ' area + 15) 5 Uffice Rear: 1 sp. RM-16 25' p U0 f 3 sq. t i Office Area i i.. of Tennis Courts 88' 150' 1.5 sp. 1.U4 sp. 1.5 2.73 28 D.U. 61.7 Front:20' 20'+ ~ (Cheezem) per D.U. ;per D.U. per net ll.U. per Side: acre rg oss Interior acre 103' S' i Street & water= { front 155' S' CCCL: 42.5', 42.5'+ j 5' for ~ 1 Deck U' N. of Cabana Club 88' 15U' 1.5 sp. '1.5 sp. 1.5 2.8 28 D.U. 46 D.U. Front:20' 20'+ ~ (~J.S. Steel) (15 per D.U. per D.U. ~ per net per Side: ~ Stories) ~ acre r~ oss tnterior: j acre x197' x30' j Street & ' water- ' 4 front i 295' x6o' uccL: ~ ! ~ ~ , 42.5' ~k" DEVELOPMENT IMPACT CHART/SAND KEY HEIGLiT . PAIUCING F .A. R. DENSITY SETBACKS Permitted Proposed Required Proposed Permitted Proposed Permitted Proposed Required Proposed 5. of Sheraton 88' 80'/88' 1.5 Sp. 1.5 Sp. N/A 28 28 Front: Front (Cheezem) Per ll.U. D.U. D.U. 15'-20' 15'-20' Per Per side: s~.de• ' Net Acre Gross 128'-192' 25 -60 Acre Rear: hear: 0' Function of ligt . Opposite Sheraton 88' 150' 1.5 Sp. N/A ~N/A for N/A 28 D.U. 38 D.U. Front: N/A on C. side Gulf Blvd. Per D.U. CG,Except Per Net hotel U-21 (U.S. Steel) + for riulti Acre Units 1 sp. per Family PAer Gros cre + Side: ' I l0U sy.ft (which _ 351 Retail F.A.R. is Retail 526' area + 15) .5 Uffice Rear: 1 sp. RM-16 _ 25' per 300 f ~ sq. t j Office Area i iJ. of Tennis Courts 88' 15U' 1.5 sp. 1.04 sp. 1.5 2.73 28 D.U. 61.7 Front:2C' 20'+ ~' (Cheezem) per D.U. per D.U. per net ll.U. per Side: acre r~ oss Interior ~, acre 103' S' Street & Water- • f ront 155' S' ~ ~ C~CL: 4`1.5' 42.5'+ , 5' for ~ ~ Deck U' R N. of Cabana Club 88' 15U' 1.5 sp. '1.5 sp. 1.5 2.8 28 D.U. 46 ll.U. Front:20' 2U'+ (J.S. Steel) (15 per D.U. per D.U. per net per Side: ~ Stories) ~ acre rp oss Interior: ~ acre x197' x30' i Street & water- front 295' X60' i (.CCL ~ ~ ~ 42.5' TU: l~1ax Battle, Public Works Director; Keith Crawford, Traffic Engineering Director; Cecil Henderson, Utilities Director FROM: Davi d P. Healey, Planning Di rector-~~~/l/ COPY: City Manager Anthony L. Shoemaker '~'`" SUBJECT: Development Impacts/Sand Key DATE: ldovember 10, 1983 The following is offered for the purpose of allowing you to assess the impacts which may result from development of the four remaining vacant parcels on Sand Key under the 1979 court order which has been interpreted to permit development consistent with 19b1 zoning and development regulations rather than current zoning and development regulations. Based on recent discussions I have had with representatives of the corporations -rhich own the four sites, the prospective development plans for all four sites will include, in all or part, some density-measured development (i.e., residential dwelling units or f~otel units): This being the case, to assist you in formulating the potential impact on the City, I am referencing the different unit counts which may result for each parcel consistent with the court ruling as distinct from that permitted under present zoning and development standards. (1) Adjacent and south of the Sheraton Hotel is a parcel of land with an area of approximately 11.60 acres currently zoned CTF-28 Commercial-Tourist Facilities which is owned by Cheezem Development Corporation (plus some 3.4 acres of accreted land that may or may not belong to Cheezem). Under present standards, a range of 324 to 420 dwelling units may be developed on the site depending upon final determination of ownership. The City does not consider the 1979 court decision to be applicable to this site. Cheezem has proposed 420 units for this site. (2) On the east side of Gulf Boulevard opposite the Cheezem property referenced immediately above is.a parcel of land owned by U.S. Steel with an area of approximately 7.83 acres, the northerly one-fourth M.O.L. currently zoned CG General Business and the remainder zoned RM-16 Medium Density Multiple Family. Under present standards, a maximum of 146 dwelling units may be developed on the site. Under 1961 standards, a maximum of 412 dwelling units may be constructed on the site. U.S. Steel's tentative plans are to construct a massive retail-office-residential (or hotel) project providing for some 300 dwelling units or 600 hotel units, 100,000 iY1.0.L. sq. ft. of retail and 25,000 T+1.O.L. sq. ft. of office space. ~IJovember 10, 19~i3 Page 2 • (3) Plorth of the Sand Key Club tennis courts is a parcel of land of approximately 3.89 acres currently zoned RP~I-28 High Density ~~lultiple Family which is owned by Cheezem Development Corporation. Under present standards, a maximum of 108- dwelling units may be developed on the site. Under 1961 standards, a maximum of 210 dwelling units may be developed on the site. Cheezem's tenta- tive plans are to construct 240 dwelling units on this site. (4) Between the Cabana Club property and South Beach IV is a parcel of land measuring approximately 8.39 acres currently zoned Rt~l-28 High Density P1u1 ti pl e Family which is owned by U.S. Steel. Under present standards, a maximum of 234 units may be developed on the site. Under 1961 standards, a total of 453 dwelling units may be developed on the site. U.S. Steel's tentative plans are to construct 386 dwelling units on this site. Please evaluate the potential impacts in your area of responsibility as a result of: (1) development consistent with the maximum permitted under present standards, (2) development consistent with the maximum permitted under the court order, and (3) development consistent with the tentative plans which I have identified, where different from items (1) and (2). Please include your written qualitative findings based on the quantitative comparisons and forward to me if at all possible by Thursday the 17th for a follow-up meeting scheduled for that day with counsel. -- DPH/JDR/dw F' ~ • POST OFFICE BOX 47i!! CLEARWATER, FLORI DA 33518 OFFICE OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT i~ovember 10, 1983 Its. Susan v. Connelly Siemon, Larsen & Purdy 200 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois b0606 Uear Susan: In follow-up to your letter of October 29, please find enclosed the following: 1. Copy of memorandum to my staff counterparts attempting to summarize the available numbers we have for the reinaining undeveloped property on Sand Key and requesting their evaluation of the relative impacts,. comparing what the current zoning would permit as compared to the 1961 requirements and, where available, to what is actually being proposed, and 2. Summary chart attempting to respond to your request to compare what we understand Cheezem and U. S. Steel would be proposing as compared to the City's current minimum zoning regulations. In addition to the surlmary of information in the accompanying table, other key distinctions between what is proposed and the current regulations, of course, include recent procedural requirements, including the transfer of development rights provision and the site plan process itself, inherent in wi~ich are included Borne of the more important, if less measurable, criteria by which to review any proposed development project. I have not had a chance to follow up with Tony Shoemaker con- cerning his ideas on a community impact statement. I would agree we need to tabulate and attempt to illustrate graphically tFre distinctions between, and impacts resulting from, development consistent vrith our current regulations versus that which vrould be permitted under the 1961 requirements. I'm not sure, however, that a formal community impact statement would be the best vehicle for making this comparison. "Equal Employment and Affirn+ative Action Employer" ' fAs. Susan G. Connel~ tovember 10, 1983 ' Page 2 Lastly, with respect to your question concerning extensions to the six-month time limitation, the quick answer is that it has frequently been requested and, without exception, granted by the City Commission. An initial request for a six-month extension is granted almost as a matter of course. Any subsequent extension is reviewed more carefully and requires documentation as to the reasons therefor. Of course, if a zoning regulation has been arnended in the interim, this is brought to the attention of the Commission and to the extent it would be applicable to a specific project an adjustment to the site plan would be required. While we have had an occasional project that was extended for more than a second time; that is, beyond twelve (12) months of the initial plan approval date, for the most part since we instituted this time •l imitation, the project has either gone forward within twelve (12) months of that initial approval date or has been tabled at that juncture. 1 hope this is helpful and I will attempt to have the input from the various departments available for discussion at our Thursday, November 17th ~r~eeting. If there is anything additional I can provide in the meantime, please feel free to call. ICP DRH:bd Enc . Sincerely, ,^ 4 r~~~~ /i iii ~ ~ It`ll ~` k,, ~,~y` _ M-:.-~ ;-vim, ;i;,j^r,°~ ~n4 - -_- ~~1' ~r~ TES'. ~,~~', OFFICE OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT • POST OFFICE 80X 4740 CLEARI+VATER, FLORI DA 33556 i~ovember 10, 1983 ~~is. Susan G. Connelly Siemon, Larsen & Purdy 200 South ivacker Urive Chicago, Illinois u0606 Uear Susan: In follow-up to your letter of October 29, please find enclosed the following: 1. Copy of memorandum to my staff counterparts atterpting to summarize the available numbers tive have for the remaining undeveloped property on Sand Key and requesting their evaluation of the relative impacts,. comparing what the current zoning would permit as cor~pared to the 1961 requirements and, where available, to what is actually being proposed; and - 2. Summary chart attempting to respond to your request to compare what we understand Cheezem and U. S. Steel would be proposing as compared to the City's current minimum zoning regulations. In addition to tl~e summary of information in the accompanying table, other key distinctions betvreen what is proposed and the current regulations, of course, include recent procedural requirements, including the transfer of development rights provision and the site plan process itself, inherent in wi~ich are included Borne of the more important, if less measurable, criteria by which to review any proposed development project. I have not had a chance to follow up vrith Tony Shoemaker con- cerning his ideas on a community impact statement. I vrould agree we need to tabulate and attempt to illustrate graphically the distinctions between, and i..^~pacts resulting from, development consistent vrith our current regulations versus that which vrould be permitted under the 1961 requirements. I'm not sure, however, that a formal community impact statement would be the best vehicle for making this comparison. "Equal Employment and Affirmative Action Employer" ~" P~Is. Susan G. Connel• tuovember 10, 1983 • Page 2 Lastly, with respect to your question concerning extensions to the six-month time limitation, the quick answer is that it has frequently been requested and, without exception, granted by the City Commission. An initial request for a six-mo-nth extension is granted almost as a matter of course. Any subsequent extension is reviewed more carefully and requires documentation as to the reasons therefor. Of course, if a zoning regulation has been arnended in the interim, this is brought to the attention of the Commission and to the extent it would be applicable to a specific project an adjustment to the site plan 4vould be required. While we have had an occasional project that was extended for more than a second time; that is, beyond twelve (12) months of the initial plan approval date, for .the most part since we instituted this time limitation, the project has either gone forward within twelve (12) months of that initial approval date or has been tabled at that juncture. I hope this is helpful and I will attempt to have the input from the various departments available for discussion at our Thursday, ~iovember 17th meeting. If there is anything additional I can provide in the meantime, please feel free. to call. Sincerely, 6avid P. Healey, ICP Planning Dir DP-H:bd Enc . 5. of Sheraton (Cheezem) Opposite Sheraton on L. side Gulf ~tlvd. (U.S. Steel) I~. of Tennis Courts (Che~zem) I ( ~ I ! N. of Cabana Club ~ 88' 15U' 1.5 sp. 11.5 sp. 1.5 2.8 28 ll.U. 46 D.U. Front:20' 20'+ i (U.S. steel) (15 per D.U. per D.U. per net per Side: ~ Stories) acre ross Interior: i ~ acre x197' x30' Street & ~ water- ~ front i 295' X60' UCCL: (i I 42.5' ~e~ s, J,~... ~ ~~ 5~~~ ~~ ~~~ • • ~- bRAFT Dear Bennis: This is in response to your inquiries regarding the processing of building permits for U. S. Steel property on Sand Key. It is difficult to respond to your general, hypothetical question. I do not believe the City is required to advise you of your rights, nor to respond to inquiries which do not relate to specific development plans on particular tracts. I believe that the City's position is outlined in the City Manager's letter of August 24, 1983. The City will respond specifically to any application for a building permit your client chooses to file. As of yet, I know of no formal application, and I know of no plans or design drawings which have been formally submitted for the City's perusal. LAW OFFICES RICHARDS, DINE, GILKEY, FITE, MEYER & THOM~N, P. A. RICHARDS BUILDING RALPH RICHARDS (1893-19 BO) WILLIAM W. GILKEY JOHN D. FITE LARRY K. MEYER DEN NIS P. THOMPSON JOHN E. SLAUGHTER, JR. E MIL G. PRATE SI J. MARVIN GOTH RIE R. CARLTON WARD SALLY FOOTE CORCORAN GARY R. PRESTON ROBERT M. PETRILLO PATRICK T. MAGUIRE 1253 PARK STREET CLEARWATE R, FLORIDA 33516 (813) 443-3281 WILLIAM E. N001NE OF COUNSEL November. l5, 1983 Frank Rowalski, Esquire Chief Assistant City Attorney City of Clearwater P. 0. Box 4748 Clearwater, Flgrida 33518 Re: U.S. Steel - Sand Key Zoning Dear Frank: c i ~~~ r.,.i ~] ~ 1983 ~1TY ATY~R~~~ On July 8, 1983, Mr. Hegner, local project manager for U.S. Steel, forwarded information to the City Manager illustrating U.S. Steel's plans for development of its remaining Sand Key properties. A copy of the letter of transmittal is enclosed. As a result of that letter, Mr. Hegner and I met with Mr. Shoemaker and Mr. Healey and informally discussed the plans. On August 18, I wrote Mr. Shoemaker requesting a response to Mr. Hegner's letter and the meeting. A copy of my letter of August i8, on which you were copied, is enclosed. On August 24, 1983 Mr. Shoemaker wrote Mr. Hegner. advising him that "the City of Clearwater does not agree with your expectation that the development contemplated in the plans 'fall within the .par- ameters of (the) zoning requirements established by Circuit~Civil No. 78-4765-7.'" Notwithstanding that statement, however, the let- ter is somewhat ambiguous in that it does not appear to clearly state that the City will refuse to process an application of build- ing permit applications based on the proposed development plans. A copy of Mr. Shoemaker's letter is enclosed. Thereafter, Mr. Hegner, on September 28, specifically requested Mr. Shoemaker to respond on the building permit question. A copy of that letter is enclosed. Earlier, in connection with Ordinance No. 3075-83, Mr. Shoemaker advised me as follows: "It is the City's position that an independent and case by case determination will be made with respect Mr. Frank Kowalski November 15, 1983 Page 2 to the requirements of the above referenced ordinance and any poten- tial bearing or conflict that same may have on properties of U.S. Steel with regard to previous determinations by the courts." A copy of Mr. Shoemaker's letter of June 27, 1983, is enclosed. However, even earlier, in your letter to me of February 12, 1981,'you said, "any application for a building permit on U.S. Steel property on Sand Key would be considered in light of the business zoning as it existed at the time of annexation". Preparation of working drawings for the project proposed by U.S. Steel will cost several hundreds of thousands of dollars, pos- sibly in excess of $500,000. This is not an inconsiderable. sum for any organization to commit. Therefore, in anticipation of making a commitment to its architects and engineers for the preparation of the working drawings, which, when submitted, will be in com liance with the Southern Standard Building Code as in force in t e City of Clearwater, we want to be sure of and not misinterpret the City's position. Accordingly, with specific reference to the informational plans submitted to Mr. Shoemaker with the July 8 letter, are we to interpret Mr. Shoemaker's letter of August 24 as a refusal of the City to process applications in accordance with the B-Business zon- ing classification of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Clearwater as it existed at the time Sand Rey was annexed into the City of Clearwater in December, 1961? I look forward to your early response. Very truly yours, --/' -, Dennis P. Thompson DPT: so/bg :: • .. - ~ CITY~F CLEAR~W•ATER lnterd artment Correspondence Sheet TO: Anthon~yy L.. Shoemaker, City Manager Dave Healey, Planning Director FROM: Frank Kowalski. Chief. Assistant City Attorney COPIES: SUBJECT: U. S.. Steel -Sand Key Zoning _ DATE. November l7, 1983 I am enclosing a copy of a letter that I just received from attorney Dennis Thompson. • , • I need to respond to this letter, and. I am sending a copy to attorneys Charles Siemon and Susan Connelly. I believe that we should await a suggested response from our attorneys; and. then meet to consider their draft. Assuming. this meetis~ with your approval, I will delay responding to Dennis Thompson. pending a reply from our attorneys. •. C I T Y O F C L E A R W A T E R OFFICE OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT fovember 30, 1983 Mr. William A. Friedlander Corporate Counsel Cheezem Land Corporation 7820 38th Avenue Idorth St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 Uear Bill: POST OFFICE BOX 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORI DA 33518 _ I am responding to your letter of tJovernber 21, 1983 concerning,a proposed agreement between the Cheezem Investment Program 1, Ltd. ("CIPIL") and the City of Clearwater hand-delivered to my home on the evening of the 21st. Condition a. of your counterproposal indicated that it was tendered based upon City staff recommendation of such agreement to the City Commission not later than November 30, 1983, and condition b. -of the _agr_ee-ment_ r_equi r_ed _Ci_ty Commission-_ approval ---- - - ------I of~such agreement not later than December 16, 1983. Since you 'i advised me at approximately Noon on November 22 that a lawsuit was being filed that day by Cheezem against the City_in contra- diction to and without any consideration for the timetable set ~, out in your letter of the 21st, I can only conclude that the counteroffer for settlement was frivolous and not tendered in ', good faith. You acknowledge in the second paragraph of your letter that considerable time and effort was expended by both Cheezem and the City during the period of mid-June through mid-November to reach an acceptable understanding on what was permitted and could be mutually agreed to as concerns the development of your properties on Sand Key. It is both disheartening and alarming, therefore, to find that part of the suit that has been filed inaccurately and falsely charges that the City has delayed Cheezem in the development of their property during this period of time in which both parties were negotiating in what we thought to be a good faith effort to resolve legitimate differences. "Equal Employment and Affirmative Action Employer" ~~~ ~~~~ ,~ ! • Mr. William A. Friedlander IJovember 30, 1983 Page 2 I believe the City's good faith effort throughout this matter is further evidenced by your request for a permit for a temporary sales facility on the southern parcel at Sand Key which we agreed to issue, even after the lawsuit was filed, based on your letter assuring us that the issuance of such permit is without prejudice and will not be an issue in the litigation. Given the fact that Cheezem Land Corporation has chosen to put forth an offer of settlement on the one hand, while filing suit on the other, and the City's need to concentrate in response to the lawsuit, we see no purpose to be served by giving further consideration at this iunc_ture to your counterproaosal for settlement. Sincere 1, , ,,-' ~i/ avid P. ealey, P1 anni ng Dire or DPH:bd c.c. City i~ianager Ar Chief Assistant `~`~--~ ~. ~- DEG 5 ~;;~`~ , ~____ 4 ~Ei~f-: i'~ December 1, 1983 P4r. David P. Healey Planning Director City of Clearwater P. 0. Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33518 Dear Dave: 7820 38th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 (813) 344-5481 Thank you for your lette~° of November 30, a copy of which is attached hereto for your reference. I am also attaching a copy of Cheezem Investment Program T, Ltd.'s (CIPIL's) settlement proposal dated November 21, 1983, to which your November 30 letter is addressed. I have reviewed your November 30 letter and have discussed it with you by telephone today. Please accept this correspondence as CIPIL's formal response to your November 30 letter and the comments made in our telephone conversation today. Be advised as follows: 1. CIPIL's offer of November 21, 1983, was made in good faith, and in ar: attempt to settle and resolve all pending disputes between CIPIL and the City of Clearwater. We had advised you on November 1 of 1983 that CIPIL intended to commence an action against the City of Clearwater and that we believed it was necessary to file such an action in order to avoid continuous delays in the negotiating process. Finally, I provided you with a copy of the proposed Complaint along with our November 21 settlement offer. In view of the foregoing, and in light of the fact that I have, since the filing of the suit, advised both you and Frank Kowalski that CIPIL remains ready, willing, and able to complete a settlement in accordance with our November 21 proposal, it is difficult to understand how you can describe our proposal as "frivolous and not tendered in good faith." The fact that your personal aspirations have not been met, i'ri that we elected to commence an action and to allow it to remain pending as negotiations continued, should in no way be translated into a broad assumption by the City of Clearwater that CIPIL's proposal is either frivolous or without merit. The November 21 proposal remains outstanding. I believe that it is encumbent upon you and the City to give it your consideration and to respond to the proposal. A decision to do otherwise can only be construed as a decision by the City (or the staff) to discontinue all negotiations and to leave the fate of the City's zoning program in the hands of the Circuit Court. c Cheezem Land Corporation General Partner of Cheezem Investment Program I, Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnership. ` . Mr. Healey Page 2 December 1, 1983 2. Your refusal to even consider the November 21, 1983, proposal cannot possibly be justified. As you know, we have made substantial concessions in this proposal and have agreed to reduce the total number of units to be constructed on our two. parcels to 610.. This is the same figure that was contained in your "final offer". I can understand that you are personally. dismayed with our conclusion that at least 144 of those units must be constructed on the southern parcel. Keep in mind, however, that CIPIL has made substantial concessions with respect to the number of units to be constructed and has agreed to dedicate half of the southern parcel to the City for use as a park. These concessions will 6e host to the City of Clearwater forever in the event that you and the City force us to litigate our development rights to a conclusion. How can you possibly justify a refusal to negotiate under these circumstances? 3. CIPIL and' its officers and attorneys are of the belief that each and every one of the factual allegations contained in our Complaint are true and correct. You are right that numerous meetings were conducted between mid-June and mid-November by members of the Planning staff and representatives of CIPIL. During the course of those meetings, however, we never received an indication from you that you had authority to bind the City to any proposed settlement To the contrary, throughout the negotiations you continuously indicated that any concessions that you were willing to make would have to be approved by the City Manager and then by the City Commission. In an attempt to short circuit these time- consuming processes, we asked that you arrange ,a meeting between Charles K, Cheezem, our Chief Executive Officer, and the City Manager. You scheduled such a meeting, and Mr. Cheezem traveled to Clearwater from Miami on November 1 for same. Upon arriving at the meeting, we learned that Mr. Shoemaker was not in Clearwater and had no intention of attending. I don't know whether this was an intentional shun of Mr. Cheezem by Mr. Shoemaker or simply some sort of administrative snafu, but it is fair to say that standing up the Chief Executive Officer of the development company is hardly conduct conducive to .reaching some sort of negotiated settlement. 4. It is ironic that you would point to the issuance of a building permit for our temporary sales center as evidence of the City's good faith in its negotiations with CIPIL. We see it a little differently than that, Dave. As you. may recall, the acting Director of the Building Department and the City Attorney had already concluded that CIPIL was entitled to the issuance of a building permit for the temporary structure, and the only reason that the permit was not issued was that you interceded and instructed the acting Director of the Building Department to hold up on its issuance. Your refusal to give us any reaction to the November 21 settlement offer and your holding up of the building permit were instrumental in CIPIt's decision to immediately commence the suit. Your concession after the suit was filed to issue the permit (to which we already had an absolute entitlement) simply doesn°t sound like evidence of the City's good faith to me= To the the contrary, a more logical explanation would 6e that you were advised by your attorneys that you had exposed yourself and the City to additional legal liability by wrongfully interceding and precluding the issuance of the permit in the first instance. 9 i i C Mr. Healey Page 3 December 1, 1983 5. In our conversation today, i again advised you that a hearing was scheduled for December 27, 1983, before Judge Driver on our fi1otion for Summary Judgment. I~ further advised you that we believed we would prevail in that hearing and that the Court would order the City to process our app1i~cation for a building permit to construct 240 units on the southern parcel. In refusing to respond to our November 21 offer, you are jeopardizing the proposal of CIPIL to dedicate a substantial parcel of property to the City for use as a park and to reduce the number of units to be constructed on the southern parcel from 240 to 144. Do you have the authority to take such a risk on behalf of the City of Clearwater? Finally, I would like to address myself to your statement in the last paragraph of your November 30 letter that '.'we see no purpose to be served by giving further consideration at-this juncture to your counterproposal for settlement," I assume that your reference to the word "we" is intended as a reference to the City of Clearwater. I assume further that you are representing that the City is refusing to further negotiate with respect to the settlement proposal and is inviting us to the summary judgment hearing on December 27, 1983. If you do, indeed, have authority on behalf of the City of Clearwater to notify us that the City has no intention of further considering our settlement proposal,- then I assume that it would serve no purpose to discuss the matter any further. On the other hand, if you are merely representing the staff of the Planning Department in advi'si'ng us that you will not respond to our most recent offer, then I believe it is in the interests of CIPIL to allow the offer to remain outstanding until the appropriate authorities can give it due consideration. For that reason, I am not withdrawing our November 21 offer at this time. Instead, by copy of this letter, I am advising the Mayor, the City Manager, and the City Attorney that CIPIL stands ready, willing, and able to conclude a settlement in accordance with the provisions of our November 21 correspondence to you and that we will gladly meet with the appropriate City officials to document such a settlement and to assure that it is concluded prior to the December 27, 1983, hearing date. Please govern yourselves accordingly. Sincerely, CHEEZEM INUESTMEPJT PROGRAM I, LTD. by Cheezem Land Corporation, Gene~al Partner a l~li 11 i am A. Friedlander Corporate Counsel WAF/lf cc: idayor Kathy Kelly; City D1ana.ger, Anthony L. Shoemaker; Chief Assistant City Attorney, Frank X, Kowalski `~ • C I '~ Y O F C L E A R W A T E R P O S T OFFICE 8 0 X 4 7 4 8 CLEARWATER, FLORi DA 33513 OFFICE OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT December 12, 1983 Nlr. William A. Friedlander Corporate Counsel Cheezem Land Corporation 7820 38th Avenue North St. Petersburg, F1 on da 3371 0 Dear Bill: I am in receipt of your 1 etter of December 1 and your advisements therein contained. I do not intend, nor do I think it would serve any useful purpose, to engage in a continuing written dialogue setting forth the sorts of allegations, innuendoes and sei f-serving editorial statements contained i n your 1 etter of the 1st. I think your lawsuit speaks for itself and it i s to the issues contained therein that we should responsibly address ourselves. Let me reiterate, a s I did to you i n our tel ephone conversati on of December 1st, that my response to your counterproposal in my 1 etter of November 30 purports to speak only for me as the Planning Director and as the principal participant in the negotiation process over several months. This i s obviously clear to you, since you had al ready taken the initiative to seek the intervention of the City Commission directly prior to my letter of November 30. Let me assure you that the City Commission i s being appri sed of all communication with staff. "Equal Employment and Affirmative Action Employer" ._._. ~~~ r Mr. William December 12, Page 1 A. Fri e~ander 1983 ~~ If the City Manager or City Commission disagree with my response of November 30 and- desi re to pursue negotiations with you prior to the hearing on December 27, they will be i n direct contact with you. Sincerely, -j - ~ ~ ~, David P. Heal ey, AICP Planning Director DPH:bd c.c. Mayor Kathl een F. Kelly City Manager Anthony L. Shoemaker Frank X. Kowal ski, Chief Assi scant City Attorney CITY ~ CLEARWATER ' ~ Interdepartment Correspondence Sheet TO: . , ~ i ty ?~1an~ FROM: David P. COPIES: SUBJECT: Attached DATE: December 3ger Anthony L. Shoemaker Healey, Planning Director e r to Dennis P Thom son - Re:~d Ke L tte p _~ 19, 1983 It is recommended that you sign the attached letter addressed to Attorney Dennis P. Thompson. DPH:bd Att. • • C I T Y ~ O ~' C L E A R W A T E R POST OFFICE BOX 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORI DA 33518 CITY MANAGER December 19, 1983 Dennis P. Thompson, Esq. Attorney-at-Law 1253 Park Street Cl ea rwat er, Florida 3351 6 Dear Mr. Thompson: This i s i n response to your inquiries regarding the processi ng o f building permits for U. S. Steel property on Sand Key. It is difficult to respond to your general, hypothetical question. I do not believe the City i s required to advise you o f your rights, nor to respond to inquiries which do not relate to speci fic development plans on particular tracts. I believe that the City's position i s outlined i n my 1 etter of August 24, 1983. The City will respond speci fical ly to any application for a building permit your client chooses to file. As of yet, I know of no formal application, and I know of no plans or design drawings which have been formally submitted for the City's p eru sal . Si ncerely, Anthony L. Shoemaker City Manager "Equal Employment and Affirmative Action Employer" RALPH RICHARDS (1893-1980) WILLIAM W. GILK EY JOHN D. FITE LARRY K. MEYER DENNIS P. THOMPSON JOHN E. SLAUGHTER, JR. EMIL G. PRATE 51 J. MARVIN GUTH RIE R. CARLTON WARD SALLY FOOTE CO RCO RAN GARY R. PRESTON ROBERT M. PETRILLO PATRICK T. MAGUIRE WILLIAM E. NOOINE OF COUNSEL Frank Kowalski, Esquire ~~~ l~v 1983 Chief Assistant City Attorney ~~~ City of Clearwater •~-~'~t,~~ P. O. Box 4748 ~~~ Clearwater, Florida 33518 Re: U.S. Steel - Sand Key Zoning Dear Frank: I have tried to contact you concerning the City's position on the matters discussed in my letter of November 15, 1983. I believe that we are entitled to a response. However, if you. have not responded by December 23, 1983, we will assume that your answer to my question in the first full paragraph on page two of my letter is in the affirma- tive and we will take steps accordingly based on that assumption. Very truly yours, ., _ i / / Dennis P. Thompson LAW OFFICES • RICHARDS, NODINE,GILKEY, FITE, MEYER & THOMPSON, P. A. RICHARDS BUILDING 1253 PARK STREET CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33516 (813) 443-3281 December 14, 1983 DPT/sco cc: Mr. C. Frank Hegner United States Steel ~ ~ Benda No. t • ~(~''~ ~ Meeting Date: i/s/8a MEMORANDUM TO• The pity Cornrnission of the city of Clearer®ter Clearwater Pass North Shore Beach Nourishment Contract S U 6 J ECT: Proposal Fronting Private Properties RECOM M EN DA'ri®N ~ The City Commission establish terms and conditions for an agreement to include the Clearwater Pass North Shore (privately ,owned properties) as a construction site for the present dredging contrac- tor . ~ And that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. BACKGROUND: Dredging work of Clearwater Pass is presently scheduled for completi~ - L__ t____ _ _ _ __ ~__ _ _ _ __ to place sang February. As yet, no a3 struct a beac Negotiations resolution. presented, is in time to b~ Public Works approved ina; liability fo: Commission Oise 1. Approved as Recom Z Con4inued to dat¢ Submitted by: City Manager Date & Sequenti~ Reference • • CONTRACT FOR BEACH CONSTRUCTION PROJECT This is an agreement between. the City of Clearwater,. a Municipality located in Pinellas County, Florida, hereinafter called "CITY", and the following property owners, all of whom are riparian upland owners whose properties front on the Gutf of Mexico, or along the north shore of Clearwater Pass inlet: Caribbean Gulf Hotel 430 South Gulfview Boulevard Clearwater.Beach, Florida 33515 (Owner) HBE-Florida Corporation 440 West Condominium Association, Inc. Suite 203, 430 South Gulfview Boulevard Clearwater Beach, Florida 335!5 Holiday Inn Clearwater Beach 521 Gulfview Boulevard Clearwater Beach, Florida 33515 (Owner) Equitel, a joint venture composed of the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States and HYPROPS, a Georgia general partnership Lagoon Resort Motel Attn: Mr. William M. Shephard, Owner 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33515 Clearwater Beach Development, Inc. dba/ Gulf Sands Beach Resort 655 South Gulfview Boulevard Clearwater Beach, Florida 33515 Continental Towers Association, Inc. 675 South Gulfview Boulevard Clearwater Beach, Florida 33515 Sea Wake Inn, Ltd. dba/ Best Western Sea Wake Inn 691 South Gulfview Boulevard Clearwater Beach, Florida 33515 Clearwater Beach Sunset Hotel Associates Limited dba/ Clerwater Beach Hilton lnn 715 South Gulfview Boulevard Clearwater .Beach, Flordia 33515 the property owners joining in this agreement severally and not jointly. • • (Basic version of page 1 presuming Adam's Mark participation in the project) • • CONTRACT FOR BEACH CONSTRUCTION PROJECT This is an agreement between the City of Clearwater, a Municipality located in Pinellas County, Florida, hereinafter called "CITY", and the following property owners, all of whom are riparian upland owners whose properties front on the Gulf of Mexico, or along the north shore of Clearwater Pass inlet: 440 West Condominium Association, Inc. Suite 203, 430 South Gulfview Boulevard Clearwater Beach, Florida 33515 Holiday Inn Clearwater Beach 521 Gulfview Boulevard Clearwater Beach, Florida 33515 (Owner) Equitel, ajoint venture composed of the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States and HYPROPS, a Georgia general partnership Lagoon Resort Mote I Attn: Mr. William M. Shephard, Owner 619 S. Gulfview Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33515 Clearwater Beach Development, Inc. dba/ Gulf Sands Beach Resort 655 South Gulfview Boulevard Clearwater Beach, Florida 33515 Continental Towers Association, Inc. 675 South Gulfview Boulevard Clearwater Beach, Florida 33515 Sea Wake Inn, Ltd. dba/ Best Western Sea Wake Inn 691 South Gulfview Boulevard Clearwater Beach, Florida 33515 Clearwater Beach Sunset Hotel Associctes Limited dba/ Clerwater Beach Hilton Inn 7l5 South Gulfview Boulevard Clearwater Beach, Flordia 33515 the property owners joining in this agreement severally and not jointty. • . Alternate version of page 1 with no participation by Adam's Mark property • Recitals I. Certain properties under ownership by the above listed property owners are particularly exposed to severe damage from hurricanes which represent a public hazard as well as a private hazard. 2. A previous effort by the CITY to build a beach in this area was ineffective due to lack of resources at that time to place a beach of sufficient size to endure. 3. The CITY is currently dredging Clearwater Pass which results in fill sand which it needs to dispose pursuant to the requirements of F.S. 161.042. 4. Said property owners are willing to permit construction of a beach and dune system fronting their properties. Further, the property owners are willing to undertake certain bulkhead repair and protection efforts expeditiously to enhance the protection value of the beach construction project. And, the property owners are willing to fund a dune vegetation program and a public access dune walkover structure. 5. The CITY is willing to undertake a program of constructing a new beach fronting these properties to provide general public welfare as represented by the property protection and recreation value of the new beach. Such construction shall be in consideration of having an economical location for placement of the dredged fill sand and in consideration of acquisition of Public Access Easements over a portion of the new beach, including extension of an existing Public Access Easement to the new beach Easement area. 6. The CITY is presently obligated to expeditiously undertake other beach and dredge fill activities, both on Sand Key and around the foundation pilings of Clearwater Pass Bridge. This project shall be deemed high priority only as dredge operations dictate in addressing these prior commitments until such time as those other commitments are met. Conditioru Precedent For this agreement to become binding upon the parties, each and every one of the following conditions must have been satisfied:. I. The (Holiday Inn Property Owner) has granted an extension of the Public Beach Access Easement and furnished same to the CITY. 2. The requisite temporary construction easements for the project have been granted and furnished to the CITY. 3. Any necessary permits are granted by the regulatory agencies and the project approved as required in F.S. 161.161(3). 4. The project as approved by the board of trustees as described in F.S. 161.161 is approved by the City Engineer. -2- • • 5. This contract is signed by all of the property owners listed in the opening paragraph of the contract. 6. This contract is approved by the City Commission for the City of Clearwater and executed by the City of Clearwater. Covenants of the Parties The CITY agrees to do the following: I. It will act as requesting authority within the meaning of F.S. (6!.151 and will undertake to secure approval of a beach construction project for that part of Clearwater Beach Island bounded on the north by the City-owned public beach, in a location generally recognized as the north jetty, and bounded on the .east by the Clearwater -Pass Ave. R.O.W/Clearwater Pass Bridge. The project will be the type contemplated by F.S. 161.141-21 I as effective on October I, 1982. 2. It shall conduct the necessary surveys and apply for any necessary permits to undertake the project, if permitted by the regulatory agencies. 3. Because F.S. 161.141 has been amended, effective October 1, 1982, to delete the requirement for an erosion control line for beach construction resulting from inlet construction projects, this project is to be undertaken without a requirement for the property owners to relinquish riparian ownership rights, save certain limited Public Access Easements as elsewhere described herein. 4. The CITY shall endeavor to undertake this construction expedifiiously, prior to, or concurrently with, public beach construction on Sand Key Park and Clearwater Beach Island, subject only to prior commitments to complete the Sand Key Beach and fill around the Clearwater Bridge Pilings. However, during the course of construction under the prior commitments, operational considerations, such as pipe and booster pump. equipment maintenance functions may afford opportunities to undertake small increments of beach filling in this project area. The CITY shall, when deemed appropriate by the -City Engineer, perform such occasional beach filling activities during these opportunities. The CITY shall insert no other projeet for the dredge as a higher priority before this project, save those previously described in the recitals. 5. The CITY shall allocate a maximum of 100,000 Cubic Yards of sandy beach material, in place, to the beach constructed seaward of the properties involved in this project. Subject only to alternate direction from specific propert owners reducing a typical design section fronting said owned properties and to the I~0,000 CY maximum, the CITY shall endeavor to place such fill in a manner to include a 40 foot wide vegetated dune ridge at the elevation of the seawall cap along the entire project length, a beach berm at an elevation of S foot MSL extending seaward for 40-60 feet, plus a seaward beachface slope of approximately 5:1 to the existing bottom. The landward dune limit line shall at all places be the seawall fronting the private properties of the project area. Further, the CITY shall construct a dune walkover structure at the Public Beach Access Easement now existent. In the future, the CITY shall maintain the dune walkover structure at the public access easement at public expense. . -3- ~ ~ ~ 6. {f any of the individual property owners desire to have a dune walkover constructed between his property and the beach, the CITY will apply for and secure the necessary permits at the cost of the property owner, and the property owner shall have the option to employ the CITY or an independent contractor to construct said dune walkover. 7. The C[TY shall construct the project generally in accordance with the beach grant contract now in force between the CITY and the Florida Department of Natural Resources. All material measurements shall be performed in accordance with the terms of said beach grant funding contract. 8. During the construction phases of the work, the CITY shall have the right to place construction and survey equipment and otherwise ase the beach area for construction purposes. The CITY shall not enter upon private lands for construction purposes, except on temporary construction easements as further described in this contract. 9. The CITY shall restore to original condition all disturbed landscaping and appurtenances on private property. A photographic record of the project area will be obtained just prior to construction and will serve as a basis for restoration. 10. The CITY agrees that the quality of file that will be used in the construction of the beach will be such that the beach will be a sandy one and not of the consistency of consolidated material. ` The property owners agree to the following: I. That by the execution of this contract they agree to the undertaking of the beach erosion control project described in this contract subject to the fulfillment of the conditions precedent heretofore listed. _ 2. That the property owners shall fund the dune vegetation and one dune walkover structure at a uniform self-assessment of $12.00 per lineal foot of seawall fronting their several properties along the project length. The dune vegetation is to be sea oats placed en a level sand ridge of approximately forty feet breadth placed just seaward of the seawall- and to the elevation of the seawall cap. The plant spacing shall be three feet on center along rows spaced by three feet. The property owners shall maintain and protect the dune vegetation planted by the CITY pursuant to this contract to the extent that such can be reasonably done dependent upon the elements that are beyond the control of the parties. The property owner recognize that maintenance of the dune vegetation is highly desirable as part of the beach itself and shall expend those funds and those efforts as a prudent man would to protect his beach. The dune walkover structure shall be constructed at an existing public access easement. 3. The property owners agree that they are prohibited from including new lands, title to which may be obtained under this project, as lands for calculation of unit density for future construction under the CITY's zoning ordinances. All land entitled to private owners at the time of the execution of this contract shall remain the basis for unit density allocations under the zoning ordinances in effect at the time of building permit processing. ~_ . ~ ~. • Basic version of pages 5 ~ 6 stating terms offered by the CITY staff • • 4. The property owners agree that they shall not erect fences seaward of the seawall. However, they reserve the right to place "no trespassing" signs appropriate under the C1TY's sign ordinance and in accordance with the State's trespassing statute so that property owners may enforce their private property rights to the lands not ' within a public pedestrian access easement. 5. The property owners agree a perpetual public access easement shall exist over the new beach area for the seaward one-half of the sandy beach surface lying between the vegetated dunes and the instant MHWL. As this contract is to be recorded in the official Records of Pinellas County, no specific easement documents shall be prepared on this term. Rather, this contract shall serve as record of the existence of such easement over said properties. Genera! Provisions I. Title to the lands shall be vested and transferred according to F.S. 161.141 as in force on the date of the execution of this contract. The property owners are entering this contract and funding the dune vegetation and dune walkover structure in reliance that title to the new lands will vest in them in perpetuity and that such land cannot be hereafter divested by any amendment of title as provided in F.S. ! 61.191 and F.S. !61.21 I as set forth in those statutes as effective on the date of this agreement. 2. The CITY assumes the liability and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the property owners from any liability arising during the undertaking of this project. The City of Clearwater, in acting as requesting authority within the meaning of F.S. 161.151, is not acting as an agent for the land owners. 3. This project is purely a project of opportunity arising out of the ongoing Clearwater Pass Dredging Project. Although it is recognized the proposed beach will be of both major public and private benefit, particularly as to hurricane hazard mitigation, the beach project is facilitated purely by the concurrent inlet project. The CITY, by undertaking this bench project, does not guarantee or warrant that the constructed beach shall have permanence or durability, as to location or profiles, and the provisions of this contract shall not be construed to impose such a guaranty or warranty. The parties to this contract recognize that elements of risk exist in constructing such a project and also recognize that a beach is continually subject to the forces of nature, and that no obligation is imposed on the CITY by this undertaking beyond the initial construction. 4. However, in the event that during the next ten years the renourished beach erodes and recedes to its approximate present location, as depicted on Exhibit "A", the CITY agrees that it shall remain available to act as agent for or assist the property owners in seeking any available grants-in-aid to assist in the funding of such works in accordance with F.S. Chapter 161. Further, in the event the CITY must undertake an inlet maintenance project simultaneous to the need for additional beach at this project site, then the. CITY shall give consideration to placing any beach quality material generated by such inlet maintenance onto this beach project site consistent with City requirements to maintain public beaches. And, should grants-in-aid not be available and all the property owners are able to develop the ability to fund a project jointly, -5- C~ the CITY shall be available to seek permits and let contracts to construct a subsequent beach nourishment project at the cost of the property owners. CITY participation in a privately funded project shall only be available to a minimum of 4 contiguous properties. The CITY shall not serve to design and construct privately funded projects involving 3 or less contiguous properties. S. This project, being a project of opportunity arising out of the ongoing Clearwater Pass Dredging Project, is dependent upon available funding for that project. The commitment of the CITY to undertake this proposed beach project is contingent upon the requirement of the CITY to complete said dredging project. In the event that completion of the proposed project becomes impossible because of an act of God or general inability to fund completion of the inlet dredging, then no provisions contained herein shall be construed as a commitment for the CITY to separately fund and dredge sand material purely for the purpose of constructing this proposed beach. In such an event, any contributed unexpended dune vegetation and dune walkover structure funds shall be returned to their sources with pro-rata deductions of the expended funds. 6. All notices pursuant to this contract shall be by registered mail to the property owners at the addresses shown in this contract and to the CITY, c/o the City Manager, City Hall, City of Clearwater, Florida, 112 S. Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida 33516. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this contract hove herein set their hands and seals this day of 19 -6- Alternate version of pages 5 & 6 containing terms offered by 440 West Condominium Association 4. The property owners agree that they shall not erect fences seaward of the seawall. However, they reserve the right to place "no trespassing" signs appropriate under the CITY's sign ordinance and in accordance with the State's trespassing statute so that property owners may enforce their private property rights to the lands not within a public pedestrian access easement. 5. The property owners agree a perpetual public access easement shall exist over the new beach area for the seaward one-half of the sandy beach surface lying between the vegetated dunes and the instant MHWL. As this contract is to be recorded in the official Records of Pinellas County, no specific easement documents shall be prepared on this term. Rather, this contract shall serve as record of the existence of such easement over said properties. General Provisions I. Title to the lands shall be vested and transferred according to F.S. 161..141 as in force on the date of the execution of this contract. The property owners are entering this contract and funding the dune vegetation and dune walkover structure in reliance that title to the new lands will vest in them in perpetuity and that such land cannot be hereafter divested by any amendment of title as provided in F.S. 161.191 and F.S. 161.21 I as set forth in those statutes as effective on the date of this agreement. 2. The CITY assumes the liability and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the property owners from any liability arising during the undertaking of this project. The City of Clearwater, in acting as requesting authority within the meaning of F.S. 161.151, is not acting as an agent for the land owners. 3. This project is purely a project of opportunity arising out of the ongoing Clearwater Pass Dredging Project. Although it is recognized the proposed beach will be of both major public and private benefit, particularly as to hurricane hazard mitigation, the beach project is facilitated purely by the concurrent inlet project. The CITY, by undertaking this beach project, does not guarantee or warrant that the constructed beach shall have permanence or durability as to location or profiles, and the provisions of this contract shat( not be construed to impose such a guaranty or warranty. The parties to this controct recognize that elements of risk exist in constructing such a project and also recognize that a beach is continually subject to the forces of nature, and that no obligation is imposed on the CITY by this undertaking beyond the initial construction. 4. However, in the event that during the next ten years the renourished beach erodes and recedes to its approximate present location, as depicted on Exhibit "A", the CITY agrees that it shall remain available to act as agent for or assist the property owners in seeking any available grants-in-aid to assist in the funding of such works in accordance with F.S. Chapter 161. Further, in the event the CITY must undertake an inlet maintenance project simultaneous to the need for additional beach at this project site, then the CITY shall give priority to placing any beach quality material generated by such inlet maintenance onto this beach project site consistent with City requirements to maintain public beaches. And, should grants-in-aid not be available and all the property owners are able to develop the ability to fund a project jointly, -5- the CITY shall be available to seek permits and let contracts to construct a subsequent beach nourishment project at the cost of the property owners. 5. This project, being a project of opportunity arising out of the ongoing Clearwater Pass Dredging Project, is dependent upon available funding for that project. The commitment of the CITY to undertake this proposed beach project is contingent upon the requirement of the CITY to complete said dredging project. In the event that completion of the proposed project becomes impossible because of an act of God or general inability to fund completion of the inlet dredging, then no provisions contained herein shall be construed as a commitment for the CITY to separately fund and dredge sand material purely for the purpose of constructing this proposed beach. in such an event, any contributed unexpended dune vegetation and dune walkover structure funds shall be returned to their sources with pro-ra#a deductions of the expended funds. 6. This agreement does not work as a .release or waiver of the property owners' rights against the CITY for any damages caused by the Clearwater Pass Dredging Project. 7. A!I notices pursuant to this contract shall be by registered mail to the property owners at the addresses shown in this contract and to the CITY, c/o the City Manager, City Hatl, City of Clearwater, Florida, 112 S. Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida 33516. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this contract have herein set their hands and seals this day of 19 -6- • (Basic version of page 7 presuming Adam's Mark participation in the project) .. Countersigned: CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA BY Mayor-Commissioner City Manager Approved as to form Attest: and correctness: ' ity Attorney City Clerk ATTEST: HBE-FLORIDA CORPORATION BY (SEAL) ATTEST: 440 WEST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. By (SEAL) ATTEST: EQUITEL, a joint venture composed of the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States and HYPROPS, a Georgia general partnership By (SEAL) By (SEAL) ATTEST: LAGOON RESORT MOTEL BY W i I I iam M. Shephard, Owner -7- Alternate version of property page 7 with no participation by Adam's Mark .~~ ... Countersigned: Mayor~Commissioner Approved as to form and correetness: City Attorney ATTEST: ATTEST: CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA By City Manager Attest: City Clerk 440 WEST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. BY (SEAL) EQUITEL, a joint venture composed of the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States and HYPROPS, a Georgia general partnership By (SEAL) By (SEAL) ATTEST: LAGOON RESORT MOTEL By W i I I iom Ni. Shephard, Owner -7- .~~- ATTEST: CLEARWATER BEACH DEVELOPMENT, 1NC. dbo/ Gulf Sands Beach Resort ATTEST: ATTEST: By (SEAL) CONTINENTAL TOWERS ASSOCIATION, INC. BY SEA WAKE INN, LTD. dba/ Best Western Sea Wake, Inc. (SEAL) BY (SEAL) ATTEST: CLEARWATER BEACH SUNSET HOTEL ASSOCIATES LIMITED dba/ Clearwater Beach Hilton Inn BY (SEAL) -8- a ~ ~ /3-~~ ~~ ~~ ~; ~. f "~ ~'l'-ems ~' ~-~-~ ~ o r a -- ~ ~~ -' L.~/ ' -S r~ .~ _._ ~~ r i ,'. ~~~ f i -- f~ / ~~ J~ i I~ ~ J I, ~; • ~ ~-~- SPBCI~I. CI?Y COrfl~IISSION l~LTING March 26, 1984 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in special session at the City Hall, Monday, March 26, 1984, at 2:12 p.m with the following members present: Kathleen F. Kelly Rita Garvey James Calderbank Absent: James L. Berfield William Justice Also present were: Mayor-Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Anthony L. Shoemaker City Manager Thomas A. Bustin City Attorney Frank X. Kowalski Chief Asst. City Attorney Charles Siemon Special Attorney for City Cyndie Goudeau Assistant City Clerk The Mayor called the meeting to order. The purpose of the meeting was to consider and approve the settlement agreement with Cheezem nd Corpora ti~,on and Cheezem Investment Program I, Ltd., regarding their development rights on the property on Sand Key, which is presently the subject of litigation. Bill Friedlander, attorney for Cheezem Land Corporation, reviewed the history of the case. They purchased the property from U.S. Steel Corporation in July 1983 with the understanding the development rights provided by the courts went to successor-owners. He said that all development proposals submitted to the City had been rejected and litigation began in December, 1983. The agreement that has been reached proposes a density they feel is .much less than what they are permitted. They have also agreed to pay impact fees which have been established by ordinances since the property was annexed. These fees,, in the amount of $900,000, are to be made as the certificates of occupancy are issued and are to be spent for projects on Sand Key. The City Manager reported that due to the loss of litigation with U.S. Steel, the judge had let stand the 60-unit-per-acre zoning that had previously been on the property. He stated the proposed development will have an overall density of 32 units per acre with a density transfer occurring from the north to the south tract. In the stipulation, Cheezem Land Corporation is recognizing the impact fee to the advantage of the City. Charles Seiman, representing the city, stated that the developments existing in the area have a density averaging from 28 to 44 units-per-acre and he feels that the agreement we have reached is probably the best we could do if we proceeded with the litigation. He summarized the agreement point-by-point. Special Meeting 424. March 26, 1984 • Three citizens spoke regarding concerns of maintaining open space, outgrowing utilities and other services, such as police protection, and also the problems with evacuation in the case of an emergency. One citizen spoke opposing the 20-year time span for completion of the project, stating the beach is very changeable. Mr. Friedlander spoke regarding the 20-year time span stating they do not know when they will begin construction on the north site and they want the flexibility to change with the market. Charles Sieman reported programs are in place to provide adequate utilities. Discussion ensued regarding alternatives and going to court to try and bring the project into compliance with the county land use plan of 30 units per acre. The City Manager reported that if we go to court probably the best we could obtain is what is being proposed in the agreement. In answer to a question, Mr. Friedlander reported that, in addition to the $900,000 impact fee, there will be approximately $1,000 per unit in other types of fees to the city. Commissioner Garvey questioned whether or not there would be road money and a landscape buffer. She requested a report on fire safety of the building and response time of the fire department. In response to a question, the City Manager indicated that the $900,000 can be used for other uses than park land as long as it is spent for projects on Sand Key. Further discussion ensued regarding trying to bring the project down to 30 units per acre. Mr. Friedlander stated it is not economically feasible for Cheezem Land Corporation to lower the density any further. Mr. Cheezem spoke stating they have already spent time, effort and money in compromising to reach this agreement. Commissioner Calderbank moved to accept the settlement agreement with Cheezem Land Corporation and Cheezem Investment Program I, Ltd., and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. Motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. ITEM - Agreement with Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. This agreement will authorize city law enforcement officers to perform various activities outside the legal boundaries of the city and will allow appointment by the Sheriff of certain city law enforcement officers as deputy sheriffs with appropriate powers and responsibilities under the laws of Florida. The city will be responsible for maintaining adequate self-insurance coverage on such personnel receiving commissions as special deputy sheriffs. This is an annual agreement between the Pinellas County Sheriff's Department and the City of Clearwater. Special Meeting 425. March 26, 198~- J • w • Commissioner Garvey moved to approve the agreement with the Pinellas County Sheriff's Department and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 4:09 p.m. Special Meeting 426. March 2b, 1984 ~ CfT~OF CLE~-R~ATER ~:~ ` I nterde artment Corres ondence Sheet k P P TO: Resource Development Committee FROM: Elizabeth S. Haeseker, Assistant City Manager COPIES: SUBJECT: Settlement Stipulation--Cheezem -vs- City DATE: April 2, 1984 Attached is a copy of the above-cited settlement. You should become familiar with this settlement. Paragraph reference on page 6, paragraph 11(A): Although not specifically indicated, water and sewer impact fees will he required of the developer. Please telephone me if you have any questions. Attachment DISTRIBUTION: Cecil Henderson,-Utilities Director / Chris Papandreas, Acting Planning Director Joe Molnar, Fire Marshal Ream Wilson, Parks and Recreation Director Keith Crawford, Traffic Engineering Director Ed V. Bethel, Building Director Max G. Battle, Public Works Director ~; ~ L~ ~ ~~ ~L~. ~p~ 41984 ~ Ili ~~ e ~eZ~ ~ r ~ , ~,,. .. J~ '~~u 4`'4 ~ L' • ~.I ), (^/ . ~~ 'l 4 • • IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CIRCUIT CIVIL N0. 83-14905-7 CHEEZEM INVESTMENT PROGRAM i, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, and CHEEZEM LAND CORPORATION, a Florida corpora- tion, Plaintiffs vs. CITY OF CLEARV~ATER, a municipal corporation, Defendant. SETTLEMENT STIPULATION The Plaintiffs, CHEEZEM INVESTMENT PROGRAM I, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, and CHEEZEM LAND CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, and the Defendant, CITY OF CLEARWATER, a municipal corporation, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs have filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Compensatory and Punitive Damages and Injunctive Relief in this Court against the Defendant. It is stipulated and agreed that this cause be settled upon the terms and conditions as specified herein (the "Stipulation"), and that a Final Judgment be entered by the court incorporating the Stipulation such that the Stipulation shall have the full force and effect of law. A copy of the proposed Final Judgment is attached to this Stipulation and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A". 2. The Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Compensatory and Punitive Damages and Injunctive Relief is directed to parcels of land tying and located on Sand Key in the City of Clearwater. These parcels in the Complaint are referred to as the "Southern Parcel" and the "Northern Parcel". This Stipulation resolves the disputes in regard to both parcels of land; however, the terms of this Stipulation address each parcel individually. s ,~ ~/z7~~-- ~. K', ~ •~ I. SETTLEMENT OF THE SOUTHERN PARCEL 3. The parties stipulate to the following facts: (a) CHEEZEM INVESTMENT PROGRAM I, LTD., is the owner of a parcel of real property located on Sand Key in the City of Clearwater, Florida, whose legal description is more particularly described in Exhibit "B" attached to this Stipulation and made a part hereof. This parcel of real property, for the purposes of this Iltigation~and the purpose of settlement, shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Southern Parcel". (b) CHEEZEM LAND CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, is the general partner of CHEEZEM INVESTMENT PROGRAM I, LTD., a limited partnership. CHEEZEM LAND CORPORATION has its principal place of business in St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida and has the right, along with CHEEZEM INVESTMENT PROGRAh1 1, LTD., to develop the "Southern Parcel". (c) There exists a controversy between the Plaintiffs and Defendant as to the appropriate and legal zoning code which should be applied to the "Southern Parcel" and the "Northern Parcel", the manner and scope of development of the parcels and the payment of .respective impact fees and other fees upon development of the parcels. 4. The development rights agreed to hereunder with respect to the Southern Parcel shall remain .in full force and effect for a period of 20 years. During that period, Plaintiffs shall have the right to develop the Southern Parcel in accordance with the provisions of this Stipulation, and Defendant will, in good faith, permit such development and cooperate with Plaintiffs as required by this Stipulation. 5. The Plaintiffs, CHEEZEM INVESTMENT PROGRAM I, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, and/or CHEEZEM LAND CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, shall have the right to build certain improvements on the "Southern Parcel" according to the following requirements: (A) The Plaintiffs, at their election, shall have the right to develop the."Southern Parcel" pursuant to and according to any of the schematic diagrams attached to this Stipulation as Exhibits "D", "E", and "F" . (herein "approved schematic diagrams") or in the alternative, a schematic diagram which contains any modifications to an approved schematic diagram provided that the schematic diagram does not involve, an increase of height of buildings, reduced setbacks,~increased density, or reduced clear space and v;ew corridors from the approved schematic diagram being modified. -2- Plaintiffs shall submit any proposed site plan to the City h4anager of the City of Clearwater or his designated representative for approval. Within fifteen (15) days after such submission, the City Manager shall determine, in writing, whether or not the site plan is in conformance with the provisions of this Stipulation. In the event that the determination of the City Manager is in the negative, then Plaintiff shall have the right to appeal the decision of the City Manager to the City Commission and/or, at their option, shall have the right to obtain judicial review by enforcing the Final Judgment incorporating this Stipulation. (B) The Plaintiffs may construct up to 120 residential dwelling units on the "Southern Parcel". In addition, Plaintiffs may construct an additional 120 residential dwelling units on the Southern Parcel (for a total of 240), if the Plaintiffs determine, in their sole discretion, to transfer or cluster up to 120 dwelling units from the Northern Parcel onto the Southern Parcel, provided that evidence of such transfer is recorded on the chain of title of the Northern Parcel and constitutes a charge on the title. (C) In conjunction with the development of residential dwelling units on the Southern Parcel of land, Cheezem shall be authorized to develop up to 3000 square feet as a designated non-residential unit, for the purpose of a real estate office which, upon completion of the sale of dwelling units developed on the Southern Parcel, may be used for the purposes of management and resale of the units, or other commercial or professional office uses primarily devoted to the provision of goods and services to the owners of residential dweFling units constructed and sold by Plaintiffs and their affiliated companies. Plaintiffs will not erect any exterior signs which advertise any commmercial uses other than sales and rentals of residential dwelling units. No bar or restaurant open to the public will be permitted or operated on the premises. (D) The development of the construction on the "Southern enacted in the future. (E) In development of the "Southern Parcel ",the Plaintiffs Parcel" sha_il strictly be controlled by fihe provisions in this Stipulation without any reference to any other zoning codes or ordinances of the CITY OF c:IFARWATER, whether the same be enacted in the past, be presently in effect not be required to provide more than one (1) parking space per ential dwelling unit. - 3 j. ~~ `• ~ • II. SETTLEMENT OF THE NORTHERN PARCEL 6. The Plaintiffs and Defendant agree that the facts stated herein as to the "Northern Parcel" are true and correct and may be utilized for the purpose of this Settlement and entry of Final Judgment. CHEEZEM INVESTMENT PROGRAM I, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, is the owner of a parcel of real property which is located on Sand Key in the City of Clearwater, Florida, and more particularly described In Exhibit "G" which is attached to this Stipulation and made a part hereof. Such real property shall be r referred to hereinafter in this Stipulation as the "Northern Parcel". 7. The Plaintiffs, CHEEZEM INVESTMENT PROGRAM I, LTD., and CHEEZEM LAND CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, shall have the right to build certain improvements on the "Northern Parcel" according to the following requirements: (A) The Plaintiffs, at their election, shall have the right to 4 .- .-,~,.~-_ ~- develop the "Northern Parcel" pursuant to and according to any of the A schematic diagrams attached to this Stipulation as Exhibits "H", "I", "J"; "K", "L", "M", "N", and "0" (herein "approved schematic diagrams"), or in the alternative, a schematic diagram which contains any modifications to an~ approved schematic diagram provided that the schematic diagram does not involve an increase of height of buildings, reduced. setbacks, increased density, or reduced clear-space and view corridors from the approved schematic diagram being modified. Plaintiffs shall submit any proposed site plan to the City Manager of the City of Clearwater or his designated representative for approval. Within fifteen (15) days atter such submission, the City Manager shall determine, in writing, whether or not.the site plan is in conformance w-ith the provisions of this Stipulation. In the event that the determination of the City Manager is in the negative, then Plaintiffs shall have the right to appeal the decision of the City h'anager to the City Commission and/or, at their option, shall have the right to obtain-Judicial review by enforcing the Final Judgment incorporating this Stipulation. (B) The Plaintiffs may construct up to 490 residential dwelling units on the Northern Parcel provided, however, that in the event Plaintiffs determine to cluster or transfer units to the Southern Parcel pursuant to Paragraph 5(b) of this Stipulation, then the maximum number of units on the "Northern Parcel" shall be reduced by the number of units clustered or transferred to the "Southern Parcel". (C) In development of the "Northern Parcel", the Plaintiffs n .. shall not be required to provide more than one (1) parking space per residential dwelling unit. (D) The Plaintiffs shall be entitled to construct or convert one or more of the planned buildings on the "Northern Parcel" from residential use to hotel use. In the event that the Plaintiffs elect to construct one or more contemplated structures for hotel use, then the Plaintiffs shall be entitled to 1.5 hotel units in lieu of each permitfied residential dwelling unit. (E) The development of the "Northern Parcel" shall strictly be controlled by the provisions in this Stipulation without any reference to any other zoning codes or ordinances of the CITY OF CLEARI~;ATER, whether the same be enacted in the past, be presently in effect, or be enacted in the future. (F) The development rights agreed to hereunder with respect to • the Northern Parcel shall remain in full force and effect for a period of 20 years. During that period, Plaintiffs shall have the right to develop the w Northern Parcel in accordance with the provisions of this Stipulation, and Defendant will, in good faith, permit such development and cooperate with Plaintiffs as required by this Stipulation. III. GENERAL CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO "SOUTHERN PARCEL" AND "NORTHERN PARCEL" F 8. The following provisions, Paragraph 9 through 22, shall apply to both the "Southern Parcel" and the "Northern Parcel". 9. In~development of the "Southern Parcel" or "iorthern Parcel", the Plaintiffs shall, after obtaining approval of the site plan as provided for above, only be required to submit building plans to the CITY OF CLEARWATER in order to initiate the process of applying for a building permit. The City shall expedite, promptly process, and not delay in any way the issuance of any required permits, and otherwise cooperate with Plaintiffs in their development submissions. The City shall not require the Plaintiffs to comply with any requirements or hearing requirements pertaining to community impact statements, or to attend hearings relating to same, nor shall Plaintiffs be required to obtain site plan approval from the City Commission. The City shall be entitled to submit the building plans and specifications filed with the City by the Plaintiffs to its respective department heads, and/or to the City's resource development committee, for the sole purpose of determining whether or not the working drawings comply with this Court's Final Judgment, and with health and safety codes in -5- ~~ i - ~: ~ ~ existence as of the date of submission. All permits and building permits - shall be issued forthwith no later than 45 days from the filing of the r working drawings by Plaintiffs with the City of Clearwater, provided the building plans and specifications comply with the terms of this Stipulation. It is further agreed that Plaintiffs shall be entitled to a foundation permit within 10 working days of submission of a site plan, together with structural drawings for the foundation, sealed by a licensed structural engineer, so as to permit Plaintiffs to commence work on the project. Issuance of the foundation permit will not .constitute final approval of working drawings for the entire structure, nor will same guarantee issuance of a final building permit. 10. The parties agree that~the total number of residential dwelling units of six hundred and ten (610) hereby authorized to be placed upon the "Southern Parcel" and "Northern Parcel" is consistent with the general concept of approximately thirty two (32) residential dwelling units per acre. 11. in order to resolve the controversy between the parties as to the fees and impact fees payable by Plaintiffs, it is agreed that Plaintiffs shall pay the following to the City of Clearwater, in lieu of any and ali fees, charges, impact fees, assessments, imposts, land dedication - requirements or other costs of any kind or nature whatsoever that would otherwise be imposed by the City, whether presently provided for or created by future ordinance: - (A) As to building permits applied for in the first 10 years during which this Stipulation is in effect, Plaintiffs will pay the City's permit application fees, water connection fees, sewer connection fees and developmental impact fees (as provided for in Cifiy of Clearwater Code, Chapter 50 and Chapter 133.08) at the rates presently charged for same, which fees will be payable as final building permits are issued for construction of each building or other improvement. During the second 10 years in which this Stipulation. is effective, such tees shall be charged at the rates then in effect under the City's ordinances #or similar projects. This paragraph is not applicable to the impact fees described in paragraph il(B) below. (B) Plaintiffs will pay a Combined One-Time Impact Fee of n„ p $900,000 to the City in I1eu of the fees required by Ordinances Nos. 3128-83 0~ and 3129-83, and in lieu of any other charges against the land, whether ~ existing or created in the future by passage of new laws or ordinances. This - 6 - - • ,'° Combined One-Time Impact Fee will be prorated among the 610 residential dwelling units to be constructed hereunder, and paid to the City as each certificate of occupancy is issued, at the rate of $1,475.40 per residential dwelling unit or $983.00 per hotel unit, based upon the number of units to which the certificate of occupancy applies. The monies paid to the City hereunder are to be reserved for use in acquiring, maintaining and improving parks and other public facilities on Sand Key. 12. This Stipulation and the Final Judgment shall be enforceable by either party by injunctive relief or any other legal or equitable relief available in civil actions under law. - 13. The Final Judgment and this Stipulation shall be deemed to establish property rights and obligations which run with the land, and which are binding upon and enforceable against and in favor of Plaintiffs, their successors in title, and upon the City of Clearwater. 14. The parties agree that the Plaintiffs and their successors shall not be entitled to develop either the "Southern" or "Northern" parcels under any zoning regulations other than those contained in this Stipulation and that this Stipulation limits the rights of both parties. 15. The parties agree to be bound by the terms of this Stipulation upon fihe entry of Final Judgment in this cause, unless the terms hereof are modified by mutual agreement of the parties and approved by the court at a later date. 16. It is agreed that the court shall retain jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties to this cause for the enforcement of the Stipulation and Final Judgment. --- _ 17. The parties agree that. the Stipulation and Final Judgment in ' this cause shall be recorded-at the expense of the Plaintiffs. 18. No other agreement, either expressed or implied, which is not made a part of this Stipulation and .the Final Judgment of the court shall be binding and enforceable against any of the parties hereto with the exception that any modifications or amendments shall~be in writing, signed by all parties, and app loved by the court. 19. The-City agrees to dismiss with prejudice the law suit entitled City of Clearwater vs. U. S. Steel, et at which has been brought against CHEEZEM INVESTMENT PROGRAM I, LTD., and CHEEZEM LAND CORPORATION, Case No. 84-844-15, now pending in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County of Florida, as - 7 - .' • • DATED this 7~ 7 ~ day of March, 1984. Countersigned: ay r-Commissioner Approved~as tom o m .-__-- / an~rrectness ~CLtyflttorney CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA y: City N Hager Attest: By : ~C~x`~C l erk ~ l CHEEZEhS I VESTMENT PROGRAM I, LTD., :~~ ~ - By~ KE~'CHEEZEM, Vice President CHEEZEM LAND CORPORATION ByE KE,~~CHEEZEM, Vice President ~i HN ALLEN, 45 Central Ave ue rth St. Petersburg, FL 33710 (813) 321-3273 Attorney for Plaintiffs FRAN X. KOWALSKI P. 0. Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33518 (813) 462-6760 Chief Asst. City Attorney Attorney for Defendant ~~ - 9 - IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR P]NELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CIRCUIT CIVIL N0. 83-15905-7 CHEEZEM INVESTMENT PROGRAM I, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, and CHEEZEM LAND CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF CLEARWATER, a municipal corporation, Defendant. FINAL JUDGMENT THIS ACTION coming on to be heard upon the Settlement Stipulation between the parties CHEEZEM INVESTMENT PROGRAM I, LTD. and CHEEZEM LAND CORPORATION and the CITY OF CLEARI~rATER and the Court being fully advised in the premises, it is ADJUDrED THAT: 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject a matter of the 1 itigation_ 2. .The Plaintiffs and the Defendant were and are fully authorized to enter into the Settlement Stipulation, and the Settlement Stipulation is valid and binding upon the Plaintiffs and Defendant. 3. The Court accepts, confirms and incorporates the terms of the Settlement Stipulation dated March ~, 1984, filed herein, and the parties are hereby ordered to comply with the terms and conditions of the Settlement Stipulation as if said terms and provisions ~•.er~e fully set forth herein. 4. All claims, damages, actions, and causes of action of any kind, including claims for costs and attorneys' fees, arising out of the subject matter of this 1 itigation, with the exception of the rights of the parties acvuired by this Judgment, are hereby forever discharged. EXHIBIT A Pagelof4 ~~ S. The~urt shall - retain ,~ur~sdict~on of this cause for purposes of enforcement of the provisions of this Final Judgment and the Settlement Stipulation which is incorporated herein. 6. This Final Judgment is intended, and shall be construed, as creating a covenant which runs with the land, and same shall be hindinq upon Plaintiffs, (lefendant and any and all successors in title to the real property located in Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida, which property is more fully described in Exhibits I and II attached hereto. ,7. Any party hereto, or any successor in title to the real property described in Exhibits I and II, shall have the right to enforce this Final Judgment by motion for injunctive relief, or by any other civil legal remedy. DONE AND'_/ORDERED, in Chambers, at Clear~vater, Pinellas County, Florida, this ~i~L day of March, 1984. Copies i o: John T_ Allen, Jr_, Esq. Frank X. Kowalski, Esq. EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 4 ~~ CIR UIT UDG ~~ ~ 'RUE COPY Circuit Judea ~~ •~~ ~ ~ EXHIBIT ] TRACT A- 4 LEGAL D~SCRI PT] O'J ' A portion of Section 19, Township 29 South, Range IS East., being further described as follotirs: ~ - From the Southeast corner of Section 19, Township 29 South, Range 15 East, the same being the nor th~aat corner of Se-coon 30, Township 29 South, Range 15 East, Run T2, 89'04'07' H,, 2819.60 feet, along •the J)orth'bbundary of said Section 30; thence South 1012.67 feet to a point on the center] ine of State Roed 1 694 tCounty Road . t 20B)-; thane, along the center] ine of said State Road, by e curve to the right, radius 1909.86 feet, arc 572_]3 feet, chord N. 23.23'25" E,, 569_99 feet; thence alonc3 said centerline N. 31°58'20' E_, 1393.67 ce ; thence along said cencerline by a curve t~ the left, radius 1909.86 feet, arc 30{ . 27 feet, chord N. 27 • 26 ' 30" E. , 0~ 3:94 fret to a; point ' of tangency on said centerline of State Read 1694; t}ie;~ce along said -centerline, N. 2?'50'39' E., 184r~? ?0 feet; thence N. 67.12']7 Y..; - 50.00 feet to t2:e North~+esterly right-of-..ay 1 ine of said State Road; th ne ce h. 22' SO ` 3 9 ` E. , n~l ong .said right--of-way I ine, b 1 5.5_0 feet to the Point of Bc.~oinning; thence N. G7'1?' 17' •W. , ?65.10 feet to an 'X" cut on a concrete seevall;~ once ____>-...F-- -~--,--~__~g ztt~ -a , 2 Or 2.? 2 f eet t o a n ` X c u t=h`i~ri'c=c°^•'1°c w i n g s a"i"L' v a lrl N_ 6 7 17 4`9:`x`0-fee't""`to a point on their~enn hoh Hater 1"i'ne--of--t'he GiST'f of~ ~. , -~._._ ,exico as of September 9, 19 2 said point being hereinaf car referred to. as point....,~•A' fo_r convenience; return thence -to-'t:fie Point of Beo11t- Wing; thence along the aforementioned rinht-of-~.+ay fine by the follc~: ing •tuo courses; N. ~2'SO'39" E., 80.05 fcet_ to a point of curve; thence along the arc of a curve to the right, radius 2914,7.9 feet, arc 97.85 feet, chord N_ 23.48'21" C_, 97.85 feet; thence leaving aair~ line N. 67•i2'17" S:_, 303.8 feet to the mecn high Later line~of the Culf of 1•Sexico as of September 9, 1972; thence SouthLesterly along said mean ~hic~h ~.-a ter ~1 ine and binding tt~ere..•j th to the aforementioned point "A". _ - TRACT A-5 LEGAL DESCRI YTION :" A portion of Section 19, .To~..+i;ship 29 South, Range 15 East, being , i further described as fo] ]oti+s: ' Fr cm the Southeast corner of Saction 19, Township 29 South, Ranye 15 East, the same being-the -t+ortheast co~r,er of Section 30, ?•ouA_ ship 29 South, Ranye ] 5 East, run t:. 89 ° 04 ' 07" N. , 281 9. b0 feet, along the North boundary of said Section 30; thence South 101_67 . feet to a point on *_he center] ine of State Rodd t b94 (County •Robd 1208}; thence a]ony the centerline o` said State Rcad, by a~ curve io the right, radius ] 909. 8b feet, arc 572.13 feet, chord 1:_23'23''5" E., 56_ 9.99 feet; t}~enc-e a]ono said c~ntc-rl ine N. 31'Se'20^ F'_, ' ]3~ 3.67 ft•et; ther,co along said centerline by a curve to the left,- : ads us 1 9D9. 36 Scot , :,rc 304.27 feet, c',ord N. 27 • 26' 30" F: ~ - - - -0~ 3=94^l~ci to a Joint of t~no~ncy on szid centrrl3<r-,-e-~-f~5.aa~te Poad 1644; U,~nce Zlcnq said centerline N. 22'SO'3S" E.~43.70 feet; thence N: L7'l2']7r f:_ SOi O_ feet to the ;torth~.-est~r-ly isht-of- ~•~y lnc- o.` said State Road; t},, r~cc alcnc3 ~._id ~iSht-ci-u,:y ]_r.-r by . the tol ln~iny tYo c=cur lies 11_ 22.0.34" T. , L95. ~S feet to a fc_nt ' cu.-ve; thence alo~,y a curve to the right, rc !us 2914.79 feet, - e 57.85 feet, chord N. 23':8'?]' E., 97.85 feet to the Foint of =ginning; thence t:_ G7' ] ?' 17' u_ , 30 8~3~~et to a mint or, the °an high mater 1 inC of the Gulf of `:exico as of Scpt~--,ter .9, 1972, yid point hrrei naf car refer red to ~9 paint 'B" for ccr,vEnicnce;- eturn thence to the Point of ~ecinning; thence n]ong said right- `-~a~ line along a curve to t}-.e right, r~diut 291 f_79 tent, _ •- 340- 33 feet, chord N, 2S'06'-{S" E, , 3:0.1 feet; C}:ence -lea~inj 1 ti~;hi-of-`•ay' line N. 67']2'17' N.', 323.31 feet to a point~on rnc:n high ~•ocor ]ine of the Gult of 3:cxico oa of SeFtt-:,brr 9, 7 ?; 't l~,•ncr ~c.t: ! :,~~-~ t c•r ] y ~ ~ c.nq ~:, ~ d mc~r, high ~-•e t cr ] i nt J„d - ,r)inS thrrc..•itr~ to tt,c• otc.~'~-,r.rr~tionrd F-oint 'D", ~,ct /'.-4 above includes a~srr~l l parcel _f~o _th~~•,~ t o.~t e~~~~1~~ad 1 i ne Frith -~pect to irhich a third pa,-ty i s di sputa ng t~,e ti e. loo construction is c.~,tr.~,~lated on ihr- c;isputed parcel under the "aPpro~-ed plans". ~_Y;;iRiT n ': ` •, ~- EXNIBIT-II 'A survQy of PARCEL 'D' a13o known zi Sitt V Sand Koy being a portion of Sections 17 and 20, Township 29 South, RanQt 15 Eaat, Pinolla~ County, Florida, oor• pnrticvlarly dcacribud as follows For : point of reference cor~ence at tht Section corner cor~^on to Sections 17, 18, 19 zrsd 20 of said Township hand Range, as now established as having the coordinates ~{bzse:d on the Pinellas County Grid Systcz) of I:orth '16500_ 72, Ez9t 31452. g8; thonce run B 64°10' 3i' E, zlon the Section Zing dividing said Section: 17 ana 20, a distance of 3.47 feQt to an intersection Kith the centerline of Gulf Boulevard tState Road No. 208) as now cstr~lishcd as a 100-fo•ot right-of-~;ay; thence run S 42°I3' 31' ~i zlonq said centerline a distance of 263.9 feet t.o a r.~int; thence run !T 47°G6' 29' K, a distanco 0 50.00 feet to the point of Be~inninq; thence run N 42°13.31' E, along the borthwesterly right-of-may lin of aforesaid Gulf Fioulevard, a distance of 650.O,p feet; thence rnn Di 47°46' 29' W, a distance of (776.5 feet cor or less deed) (1169.69• cnro or Iess fi~Id) -t0 the Wean high mater Line (elevation 1.29 feet '-~i.G_V.D. of the Gulf of ~exico;-thence. run southerly along said nean~ high seater Line, a "distance of {690 f©et Care or Iess deed) .(724_7• c-orc3 or Iess field) to a point that Iica N 47°46' 24• K, and (540 feot -~r.e or less dee3l {849.21 Wore oz' le;a fieldf distant frog the Point of B~-ginning thence run S 47°46'29'. E, a distance of {540 feat oor• or ? csa deed) (849. 2I• rx~re or leers field) to the Point of Bz~inninq. * . *The legal description set forth above includes the accreted portion of the -beach to the newly established mean high ~•~ater line. Developer does not ~rarrant title with respect to the accreted portion, and no construction is contemplated on same under the "approved plans". - EY,HI6IT A - - Page 4 of 4 - ~ C~i .. .. • ~ EXHIBIT B ~' ~ ~ ~ i .• TRACT A-4 LEGAL DESCRIPTIOW A portion of Section 19, Township 29 South, Range 15 East, being further described as folloti+s: - From the Southeast corner of Section 19, Township 29 South, Range 15 East, the same being the northeast corner of Section 30, Township 29 South, Range 15 East, Run N. 89'04'07" N., 2819.60 feet, along the . Jlorth" boundary of said Section 30; thence South 1012.67 feet to a point on the centerline of State Roed 1694 (County Road #208)-; thence along the centerline of said State Road, by a curve to the right„ radius 1909.86 feet, arc 572.13 feet, chord N. 23.23'25" F., 569.99 feet; thence along said centerline N. 31°58.20" E., 1393.67 feet; thence along said centerline by a curve t~ the left, radius 1909.86 - feet, -arc 304.27 feet, chord N. 27 •26' 30" E. , 303.94 feet to a;.point of tangency on said centerline of State Road 1694; thence along said centerline, N. 22'50'39' E., 1843.70 feet; thence N. 67.12'17" Y..; 50.00 feet to tl:e Northwesterly right-of-..ny line of said 6tate Road; thence K. 22.50'39' E., along said right-of-way line, 615.50 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence N. 67'12' 17' W. , ?65.10 feet to an "X" cut on n concrete seawall; thence S. 27.39'43' H., along skid wall, 201.22-feet to an 'X" cut; thonce leaving said wall H. 67.12'17" tl., 49.70 feet to a point on the mean high Nater line of the Gulf of - Mexico as of September 9, 1 972 said point being hereinafter referred to as point 'A'~. for convenience; return thence to the Point of Begin- ning; thence along the aforementioned rioht-of-4+ay line by the follo~:- inq two courses; N. 22.50'39" E., 80.05 feet to a point of curve; thence along the .arc of n curve to the right, radius 2914.79 feet, arc 97.85 feet, chord N. 23.48'21" E_, 97.85 feet; thence leaving said dine N. 67•;2"17" ti;., 303.83 feet to the. menu high .,+ater line of ~ the Gulf of Mexico as of September 9, 1472; thence Southwesterly along said mean high ~:nter line and binding there.:i th to the aforementioned point "Aw- ~ ~ - .. - ~ - TRACT A-5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ;- A portion of Section 19, Tour ship 29 South, Range 15 East, being , ~ further described as folloti+s: From the Southeast corner of Section 19, Township 29 South, Ranye 15 East, the same being .the -Northeast corner of Section 30, Town- - ship 29 South, R~nye 1S East, run Zr. 89'04'07" H., 2819.60 feet, along the North boundary of said Section 30; thence South 1012.67 feet to a point on the centerline of State Road 1694 (County Roed 1208); thence alony the centerline o' said State Road, by a curve to the right, -radius ]909.86 feet, arc 572.13 feet, chard t;.23.°23'?5" E. ,- 569.99 feet; thence along said centerline N, 31•Se'20" F_, - 13~3.67 feet; tt,ence a]ong said centerline by a curve to the left; _ radius -1409.Sb feet, arc 304.27 feet, chord N. 27.26'30" ~., ~~ - ~03.94 feet to a Joint of tangency on said centrrlir~~;o1~S ,,.tte Road 1 b94; tl,unce alcnq said centerline N_ 22 • 50' 39" 1843.70 (feet; ~ - thence N: 67'12'17" ti., 50.0:, fzct to the t?orth~est~-rl-y tight-of- ~ay line o.` Said State Road; tJ,~ ncc alonc3 said right-of-uey line b}• the fol]n~iny tti.+o cuurbcs N. 22.50'39" £.,.695.55 feet to a Point of curve; thence alo-,y a curve to the riyht, radius 2914.79 feet, arc 97.85 feet, chord N. 23•a8'21' E., 97.6.5 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence t:. 67'12'17' H., .303.83 feet to a point or, the- - :~ean high mater -line of thv Culf of ycxico as ot =5eptcs-,tier 9, 1972, said point hrreinaft~r referred to ns point "B" for convenience; - - zeturn thence to the Point of Beginning; thence along said ric3ht- of-vaj• line along a curve to the right, radius 2914.79 fact, - ,- arc 340.33 feet, chard -N.. 28.06.45" £. , 340.13 feet; thence leaving said right-of-~:ay-line N. 67'12'17' N., 323.31" feet to a point on the mein hiyh ~'atrr line of the Gulf of }~exico as of SeFte-,ber-9, 1972; i1„•nce °c,ut:,•.•~-~tcrly n)c,ng s:,ld mean high ~.•ater ]inC and L-inding tt,crc~itn to tho afc.r'~,nuntioned yoint 'D". *Tract- A-4 above i ncl udes ~ma 1 l_ parcel to,~ ~ e egad 1 i ne with respect. to which a third party is disputing the tit e. o construction is coniemplated on the disputed parcel under the "approved plans". .. EXHIBIT G A survey o! PARCEL 'D' also known as Site V Sand K®y being a portion of Sections 17 and 20, ?ovnship 29 South, Range 15 East, Pinellas County, Florida, caors particularly dsscribed as tollovss For a point of reference commence at the Section corned common to Sections 17, 18, 19 and 20 of acid Township hand Range, ss now established as having the coordinates (based on the Pinellas County Grid Syatea) of North 16500.72, East 31452.98; thence run H 89°10.31° E, along the Section line dividing said Sections 17 and 20, a distance o! 843.47 test to sn intersection rith the centerline of Gulf Boulevard IStats Road Ho. 208) as now established as a 100-foot right-of-way; thence run 5 42°13'31' K along said centerline a distance of 263.9: feet to a point; thence run N' 47°46' 29' 11, a distance o! 50.00 feet to the point of Beginning; thence run N 42°13' 31" E, along the biorthxesterly right-of-wny line of aforesaid Gulf Boulevard, a distance of 650.00 feet; thence run li 47°46' 29' M, a distance of (776.5 feet more or less domed) (1169.69• pore or less field) to the wean high wateZ line (elevation 1.29 feet 1i. G.Y.D. of the Gulf of Mexico; thanes run southerly along said seen high water line, a distance of 1690 feet core or leas deed) (724.7• eaors or lass field) to a point that lies. M 47°46.29' M, and (540 feet ~aors or leas deed) 1849.21' more oz leas field) distant from the Point of Beginning thence run 3 47°46'29• E, a distance of 1540 feet more or less deed.) (849.21• Bore or leas field) to the Point of Beginning. *The 1 egal description set forth, above ~ i nc.l udes the a.cc.rete.d portion of the beach to the newly established. mean high. water line. Developer does not warrant title with respect to the accreted portion, and no construction is contemplated on same under the "approved plans". - , l__~_.___ ._ ,_ ~` CIT~F CLEARWt~T_.ER lnterdepartment Correspondence Sheet TO: t'rar~~1: i:o~-:aiski, c'tlit:i ~7ssistant City 1!ttorney FROM: C;l,ri s ):-'t.j~~.nc,rc_,~:~ , ljcti n~; 1~1 a.nni n~ L'i rector COPIES: Arrthorry L. Shoer,,aker City L:ana.~er, lian l~ie~nan, );finance Director Ream U7ilson, Parks & Recreation Director SUBJECT: ui to Plan , Sand l;.ey l~ssoci ates DATE: t.iay 31 , lit=sit t. 1've received your r~er=;o renarding Sand h:ey Associates a:;sertion of dev~:lol~r-rent ril;hts. Your r:~emo to r~c~r,:l,,ers of tt;e Rl<C re~,re- s•er~ts the 2.roPerty as "vacant". In frtct, it is occupied by the tf~.rnis courts, a fence, and t~~hat I lnterl~x•et tc Le kart of tl~e Navec: harking are~~ useG Uy' tl:e Gallery lest3.r,rar_t. Tt~c; i,roNerty xtu.s Lien tiS6~Ci i n tl;i s r,runner for at 1 oast tet, years. It irac: alV.~ti.y~i Y;.en t''sjT Llr!C1erJt2r,dlnz, that. tr;% ~irU~~C'rty tiJaS citveiol;ed i,; conjut;ctior, ~~•it}:, the clu ~l,c:is~ and condo:~~iniu;ns ir:~,;:ec,iately to t;r~; south, and that a single ::fife i;lan ~°.'as ayNlic;u.ialc:. ~:irt r.,~~rit,s ci fire uratt Site ~jlun you circulated °~,oula coLre into issue only i f i t i s deter•r:i r,~d that there are unu•FCi dc-veloi,r~.errt ri~,lrts at ti,c site. r~!i:;i1nL; that dctert:,ination, it ~:ouici ul.i.ear tlrxt tl,e Graft site flan fur rc:-use of the tennis COllI't 1;rol,erty is not entirely cor;sistcnt viith tt,e Lonin~; Code. Tire follon~ing revisions/clar•ifi- cations are neede~: 1. the side yard setbacks t:tust k;e 34.75 i~t. 2. 1'lie front fence cannot e~cecd 3G inches in heigYrt <<~ithin the setback area. 3. A sidewalk r:;ust be sJto~~rn on Gulf lrilvd. 4. Dur;;Pster locations r;~ust be shc~~rn. 5. The locatior. of tile. prei,osed addi t.ional buc:st barking should Le integrated c,ith the site. This al;~,ears to be a rri vcwuy ane i,arY>i nt; fcr the Gallery . Any rGrki n~ to be included as curt of this site ,Ian should cor.forr., to Y;arking Iot lar:;ciscaping, etc. st~:nc,r~r s. Calculations re~arditrg ir~l;ervious surface, and c'tra.ina~e retet,tior, r.;ust include tt,e f:t:tire situ. At rinirr;urr, the striping Pattern and r,ur.~ber of sp&ces need to be indicated. 6. There is a sc:,all structure located in the "additional guest t.;arkin6 area". `'ibis structure sYrould be sho:vn on the site clan. 7. The turn radius to i;errnit ebress from the under-building parking si~aces api~ears too tight. ~. The southeastern most parking space should probably be deleted, for reasons of safety. M • F'rt.nk Koti~a.l sk:i Sand l:ey E:ssoci a tes l+iay 31, 1L'84 pale Tiro Un the whole, this plan is similar to many of the pr elin:inary plans we receive. It needs some modification, but not rr:ajor revisions. I would, however, recorr,c;end that we look to use of impact fees for land acquisition. The fee ordinances specify exuenditure v~ithin a given radius of the point of collection. tfe should snow an affirmative effort to do so. 4.4'e have had quite a few units authorized under the Cheezum, settlement so I feel tt;at ve can anticipate receipt of those funds. l~l.ease note that the bulk of the funds collected under Urdinances 3123 and 312 are reciuired to be exl~encied for land acquisition, not improvements to existing pul.~lic lands. Only a limited portion of the funds collected on Sand Key could be used to enhance the City park site at the northeast tip of the island. C;P/~:m ._~ _ • c~~o~c~c~~~a~~R Interdepar-tment Correspondence Sheet TO: J Frank X. Ko~,ralski, Chief Assistant City Ado-~t~ey FROM: Paula Harvey, Planning Director COPIES: SUBJECT: Sand Key Properties DATE: November 13, 1984 The transaction you speak of in your memorandum of November 8, 1984 as I understand from the "papers" occurred between U. S. Steel and Powell and Associates. I iaould suggest you contact Roger Laursen, Tim Johnson or another representative of N1r. Fowell to ascertain the facts as we have none at this time. You might also consider contacting Mr. Cheezem's attorneys since initially the transaction was to have occurred between U. S. Steel and Cheezem. PH:bd ~~ ~~~~~_ ~~-- ~-c-~-t. . . ,. CITY ~F CLEARWATER Interdepartment Correspondence Sheet TO: Paula Harvey, Planning Department FROM: Frank Kowalski, Chief Assistant City Attorney _~_ ~~~11 COPIES: ~i.>`` ``~ L~ ~i'Gr `~t~ SUBJECT:Sand Key properties . i+ ~ ~, ~y `,~ DATE: November 8, 1984 -- -~ e Fi~t;d~!r;.,t; I understand from attorneys Wendy Larsen and Susan Connelly that U. S. Steel has been reported as having recently sold some or all of its Sand Key holdings. As we are presently in litigation with U. S. Steel over development rights on Sand Key, it would be desirable to ascertain the details of any such transaction. Would the Planning Department be able to assist in this? If not, could you advise who might be the proper person to contact? Thanks. • CITY OF CLEARWATER POST OFFICE BOX 4748 CLEARWATER,FLORIDA 33518-4748 November 26, 1984 Charlie Siemon, Esq. Siemon, Larsen & Purdy 200 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, Ill. 60606 Re: City of Clearwater vs U. S. Steel Appeal No. 84-391 Dear Charlie: I want to both thank .you and to commend you for the exceptional job you did on the oral argument and on the briefs in the above styled case. It was apparent at the oral argument that you had at least persuaded the court that there was a substantial issue which the court must address. I would go further and infer that the court recognized that an injustice had been done.- As I recall from our earlier conversation when you were first retained to represent the City in this matter you expressed ,the opinion that if you could persuade the court to have a look `at the serious issue they would agree that an injustice had been done. You suggested that if you could succeed in this regard, we could have a reasonable chance to prevail. Again, it has been a pleasure and a rewarding professional experience to have worked with you on this case. I appreciate all the help you have given us on other matters and trust that you will continue in that vein. Very truly yours, Frank Kowalski, Chief Assistant City Attorney FK:fs cc : Anthon Shoemaker ~ 1~ J° `~` . , ThomasyBustin ~ ~ •°-°~~~~I-~~ ~ i .~ ~iPaula Harvey jj John Richter f ~. ~v 2 7 !c"~~~ f ~~ ~[.J~a, ;~ ~' r "Equal Employment and Affirmative Action--Employer" i • Frank Kowalski, Cl3ief Assistant. City Attorney John i?ichter, C~iief Planner ~or~~ Btxstin, City Attorney - Anthony L. Shoe~~,Y>er, City P,R~ager - Paul a Harvey , P1 anni ng Director ,,~~.~. Steel, Case Pdo. 78-4765, A~ape~,l Ivo. 84-3~1 December 7, 13~3~ Yoi~. recently solicited my opinion re~;ardin~; the prospect of filing a renewed a~~plcation to rezone tb.e "T3" {Business District) property on Sand Key. I wholeheartedly endorse such a forward rove. JDR/cc ~~ ~ .~ ' _~ CITY OF CLEARWATER lnterdepartment Correspondence Sheet TO: Frank X. Kowalski, Chief Assistant City Attorney FROM: Paula Harvey, Planning Director COPIES: Thomas A. Bustin, City Attorney; City Manager Anthony L. Shoemaker SU8,IECT:U. S. Steel Case No. 78-4765, App- e- aI-No:~4-391 DATE: December 10, 1984 I concur with sending the letter you drafted to Thomas F. Icard, Esquire. As you may remember, in April of 1981, the Planning Department proceeded to resolve conflicts between Zoning Atlas designations and the Land Use Plan on Sand Key. Those conflicts have been resolved by the City Commission with the exception of those properties affected by the judicial decree. I have attached a copy of the pertinent information which was discussed at the City Commission work session of April 13, 1981. Please notify me of any assistance I can give you in this regard. PH:bd Attachment • \y t .'~~ ,., ~ Cf~!' OF C~E~4R~~~fAT~R Interdepartment Correspondence Sheet TO: Thomas Bustin, Anthony Shoemaker, Paula Harvey and John Richter FROM: Frank Kowalski, Chief Assistant City Attorney COPIES: SUBJECT: U. S. Steel, Case No. ~78-476.5,Appeal No. 84-391 DATE: November 30, 1984, Please review the attached draft and return with y-our comments. I would like the benefit of your comments _, prior to sending the letter. 1 ,. - _. _ ~ t 3 'o ,(I ; t ~ ~~ ~ DEC .~84 ~~ _ ~~ - T. GF= -_ --- _ i • ' DRAFT No~~ember 30 , 1 ° 84 Thomas F. Icard, Esq. Carlton, Fields, Ward, Errgnanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A. P. 0. Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601 Re: C~_ty of Clearwater vs U. S. Steel Corp. Circuit Civil Number: 78-4765 Appeal Number: 84-391, Dear Mr. Icard: At the recent oral argument before the Second District Court of Apt~eals in the above-styled cause, Justice Schoonover suggested that the City of Clearwater is empowered to adopt an ordinance rezoning U. S. Steel property on Sand Key which was included in the above-styled litigation. When Justice Schoonover asked you about this, you responded by acxnowledg- ing that indeed, under the appropriate circumstances, the City would have such power. In reviewir_g Judge Driver's order which granted final summary judgment, I note that there is no prohibition against the City taking legislative action at any future date to supersede the "B" (Business) zoning category. As you are probably aware, the City has been mandated by the State of Florida to adopt a comprehensive land use plan, and to zone all property within the city consistently with t}~~e Pian. The City has complied with this mandate, but in the particular instance relating to your client's property on Sand Key here is a divergence between existing zoning and the c~rehensive plan:-•-= -- - -- -~ In light of this, ~.he City of Clearwater staff will consider whether to_ recon~nend to the City Commission an ordinance placing your client's property in a zoning category consistent with the comprehensive plan. Very truly yours, ~- _: _ - ~ - - _ -z ~- - - _~ _ t. y _ .. • ~ ~I~~Q~ ~~~~RATER • I nterdepartment Correspondence Sheet TO: Frank Kowalski, Chief Assistant City Attorney FROM: John Richter, Chief Planne~uR COPIES: ~ Tom Bustin,/City Attorney i Anthony L. Shoemaker, City Manager aula Harvey, Planning Director SUBJECT: U.S. Steel, Case No. 78-4765, Appeal No. 84-391 DATE: December 7, 1984 You recently solicited my opinion regarding the prospect of filing a renewed application to rezone the "B" (Business District) property on Sand Key. I wholeheartedly endorse such a forward move. JDRJcc ~ ~ ~ ,~` .o.~„~,~~ ~~ t ~ oEC a ~9s~ ~~E ~ Ft.~ ^Rr,i~: W. " ~ I~~~~~~>ui~n~~ll~l~ ic,il iti to ~~~t ~r,..,datc~c~r 1'uhli~~ }lcarirl~; • ~,° ~r.~n~~~~rnin~; thc'~rrtrlr'r tiro of thc~ City property. At the l'l.~hl is • ~ Il~~arin~~, the (:ity i~lr.rnabcr will prepare a list f-or the (:on~mission of all the.' options and proposals. Discussion ensued on land- ~cal~ing of a road at the easterly end of the property. ;1s~nmrnt of 1'rio_rities for Areativide Rczon~in~s and Land Use I'1c111 ;~111Cn( ]1_T1CIlt ..__ l`'11cn the Comprehensive Land Use flan was adopted in ~c~v~~ml~cr 1979, 111any areas throughout the City were classified in cate~;ori.es under the LUP which conflicted with zoning designations. The (:.ity had been divided into 2S areas of considcrat.ion. four of the areas have been reconciled, and Staff has revie~ved the prioritized schedule and suggested changes whi ~-h wi 11 reduce the total number of areas to 19..~,' Approxi.mately every six weeks a different area will be brought to the Commission for consider-~tion. Discussion ensued on notification of residents heforc the areas are considered. The Code only requires that citizens be notified when rezoning is scheduled. Sand Kc Land Usc Plan and Zoning Atlas Amendments ~ recently issued order by the Circuit Court invalidates Ordinance 1749 as it applied to properties held by U.S.,Steel and ruled that the provisions of "B" (Business) Zoning, that werei.n existence at the time of the annexation of Sand Key would govern the development of U.S. Steel properties. These properties are located cast and west of Gulf Boulevard on Sand hey. The total. acreage is 51.06 acres M.O.h. The recommendation is that the Commission approve the request and direct Staff to proceed with the previously authorized plan and zoning anlcndments to the appropriate respective categories, modified as necessary to reflect the judicial decree. I n /' J ' 2. V'~~~Iv 4/13/81 .. • Agenda No. 4-16-81 • ~ ~ M Q RA N ~ U M ; ~ ~ eeting Date: -The Cifi. Commission of the City of Clea~r~rater - .~ . ~~ - ;Land Use Plan and Zoning Atlas Amendments for Portions of Sande.. - SUBJECT- Key: Identified on Attached Applications. _ .. RECOMMENDATION: City-~ommission-approve this request amending the two corresponding ac`tio,ns taken~on January 22,"1981, to receive and refer these applications to -:the proper departments and direct staff to proceed with the request-for declaratory judgement for -the applicable items below. O And that the appropriote officials be authorized to execute same. BACKGROUND: _~..~. ~ ~ ~ - ~ . . The properties are located east and west of~_Gulf Boulevard on Sand Key. The total acreage of the subject parcels .is "acres M.O.L. .They are referenced separately as follows : ~ ~ ~~' °~° ~ - _ 1.* Zoning atlas amendment from B(Business) to RM-28 and AL-north of tennis courts, west side of Gulf .Blvd. ~(U.S..Steel) - 2. Zoning atlas amendment from CG to CTF-28 west of Gulf Blvd. and west of City owned property: (Gallery Rest.) 3. Land Use Plan amendment from Commercial/Tourist Facilities to High . Density Residential-south of Gallery Restaurant. (Clearwater Sand Key. Club No. 1 Condo.) 4.* Zoning atlas amendment from B(Business)to RM-28 and AL-west side of Gulf Blvd. adjacent to and south of Sand Key Condo: South Beach II (U.S.Steel) S._ Zoning atlas amendment from CG to RM-28-west-.side of Gulf Blvd. immedi- ately west o~f the Harbor Condo. (Bellview Biltmore Cabana Club). '• 6.* Zoning atlas amendment from B(Business) to RM-16 and AL-east of Gulf Blvd. . .adjacent to and south. of Sand Key Condo., Bayside Gardens II_(U.S.Steel) •--7~.* Land Use Plan amendment•from Medium Density Residential to Commercial/ • Tourist~Facilities-east of Gulf.Blvd. adjacent to and. north of Sand Key Condo., Bayside Gardens IV.(U.S.Steel) 8.~ Zoning atlas amendment from B(Business) to CG and AL-east of Gulf Blvd. adjacent to and north of Sand Key Condo., Bayside Gardens IV.(U.S.Steel) On January 11, 1979, .the Circuit Court i$sued an order invalidating Ord. 1749, as applied to properties held by U. S. Steel. On February 24, 1981 the Court clarified its. Order by ruling-that the provisions of "B" (Business) Zoning, as that zoning existed .at the time 'of the.annexation of Sand Key, would govern . development of the.~U. S_ Steel properties: ~ - On January 22, 1981., the City Commission received a request•f~xom.staff..to . re zone. the~properti~s~which are the subject of this action, and directed staff to proceed with, the proposed rezoning. At that time the Commission considered the proposed rezoning with the understanding that the existing zoning on the subject properties was CG o,R°,,.The purpose o.f this request. is to notify~~the Commission t}iat•existing zoning has been judicially decreed to be B (Business) and to receive direction from the Commission to proceed with the .previously authorized plan and zoning amendments+,to the appropriate respective categories, modified as necessary to reflect the judicial decree. *Note: Th~sse items which will be the subject of the request for declaratory judgement. ~ - Commission Disposition: Follow-up Action: - Submitted by: City Manager Advertised: Date: Paper: I,Q Not Required u Attectea Parties Notified of Meeting ®Not Required Originating Department: Date & Sequential ~ Lega3--: ' Reference = ' ~oszs: - Funding Source: O Capital Improve- ment Budget O Operating Budget ~ Other Applications (8) Drawings (8) Appropriation Code -~-_ - - D None y a. ICAT_l.1 : ~,h C ~-,.\Gi I\ ZO`I\~ • SATE 12/24/80 112 South Osceola Clearwater, FL ~FCElYED ~~ 16 1S61 LEG..aI. DLSCRIPTIGti Or PROPER'i`!~ See Attached CITY C Ly~~ ` GL'~r~.•~L LOCATIC\ -- jVest side of Gulf Boulevard and west of Sand Key Condominium Bayside Gardens III PR=.S~\: ZO~I\G - 3 DLSIRD ~ONI:tiG - .SCR-aGF: ~. is Parcel.~A --_._ Parcel A - RNI-28 Parcel B -- Parcel B - AL P..__~SO\ =~R ~~_~i. To reclassify the property to a ~or~ing district consisten, titiiith the Co_~prehensive Land Use Plan ar.d adjoining existing and proposed development. The 'B' Business designation determined applicable as a result of Court action no longer exists under the current Zoning Ordinance and its application to the area in question is grossly J inconsistent with the ity's Comprehensive Plan. _ it ~ ~ ~~/-~~= ~~. ~ ~ignature) ~ is - - i :: r. .. :E z .. - .. ~ t is .. is is ~c ~ i ., * - i z i .. r. .. .. ~ - :. D:;..'L ~:-C~I~-~D P~;- Case \o. I ~e S .: is :i i t :: ~ t t ~c is t 7F - - ~t - - t * t •. - + s :t t ; t _ _ t - _ - :~: Clerk's Cf=ice or.l cec' c. D2~e .~~i:'V~. Cops.tc Pte= _ , ' ~ <.- ~ • Parcel A From the Southeast corner of SECTION 19, TO~~'1\'SHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST; the same being the north- east corner of SECTION ~0, TOtiti?~SHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 East, run North 89°04'07" ~~, 2819.60 feet, along the ;worth boundary' of said Section 30; thence South 1012.67 feet to a point on the centerline of State Road x694, (Count~° road "208) ; thence along the centerline of said State Road, b~• a cur~Te to the right radius 1909.86 feet, arc 57'.13 fee;., chord worth 2s°23'25" E, 565.99 feet thence along saic centerline, North 31°58'27" E, 1393.67 feet; thence along said centerline, b~~ a curve to the left, radius 1909.86 feet, arc 304.27 feet,-chord North 27026' 3C" E, 303.94 feet to a point of tangency- or. said centerline of State Road X694; thence along said centerline North 2~°50's9" E, 2459.20 feet; Thence North 67.°12'17" j'd, 50 feet to a point of Beginning on the northwesterl}' right of wav line of State Road x694. Thence continue North 67°12' 17" titi~, 309.43 feet, more or less, to the mean high water line of the Gulf of Mexico and a Point "B" for a Point of Convenience. Return to the Point of Beginning. Thence rw-~ North 22°50' 3°" E, 80.0 feet, along the north~tiesterl~~ boundar~~ of said State Road X694; .thence along said Northi.~esterl~' bo"undar>' of saic State Roac ~ 65., b,- a curl~e to the right, radius ?9i4.79 feet, arc 435.18 feet, chord ?worth 27°09'03"E, 4~i.7; feet; .thence run North 67°12'17" t.', 29.70 feet, more or less to the mean high titiater line of the Gulf of ~9exico; thence rur_ southti:esterl~• along said mean. hlgn 1:ater line to POlnt "B" • thence run South 67°12'17" E, 309.45 feet, more or less, to a Point of Beginning. Parcel B All lands and water_seaward of the mean high water line and all land and water in the area between the line of mean high water and a line parallel to the line of mean high water, to a_d_istance of 30 ft. landward where mangroves exist, -- _ ~.~ o - 1 A 0 o ~ M8B ~ 8 M 8 8 ~ ~ ~ - -6 - ~ .. - • _ _ J ~ _ - 2oQ ~ b O ~ - ~ + ~ V ~ . ~ 01 ~ LL/ ' ~ Y c~ ~ ~ 2 V ~ ° Q 7-74 (~ ° • Y• CM LJMC ~ m +~ ~ ~ "~ ~ Q tJ ~ - u }~EVERTEl~ t3AC ,-' E~RD~'Q. p w Z ~ - M8 B ~ - I-9 ~ d MEB ~ 1-t ORD ~ - 1904 MfiB. '' ~ ORD 4 79 ~ I ~ F- d. t6J1 174 9 }--~- ~478, U ,.. t2•~ Cr ~ _ _ W _ _ v ~ ~WH Applicant ~iT:Y Q~ CLEAIZWQTEIZ Property u .- - --- ! Request' from B - ~- Sty ~~ TT~4Ckc1~ L c6~L to ~~/_ 1 2g ~PAQCEI..I ~( /_1 ~ ~pAPCEL f r ' tf. ' ? ) / 1 J 3. I j 73 AC2eS ;~,3,t?• L Public Hearing Item Number Planning and - Zoning Board City Commission - _ o, moo. Section ~ 9 - Township 2~ 5 .Range ~SE Atlas Page T- 3 ~''3 © Single Family ~ Duplex ~] Aiulti-Family B Business ~ Vacant , .'. O y ' - ~ APPLICATION FOP. C.~4NG~ Iiv %ON"ING 112 S. Osceola Ave DATL Januar}• 15, 1981 Clearwater; FL 33516 JAN l0 1981 L~G.4L DESCRIPTION 0 = PROPERTY ~ CITY CLF~ See attached GENrRAL LOCI~.TION - 1;~est of Gulf Boulevard and 14~est of City Owned Property PR :SENT ZON'+_NG cG DESIR~D ~OivIN-G CTF-28 - ACR=_4GE: 1.3 P~.O_L. P,=ASON FvR P-=Qt1LST: To. reelect the specific nature of the existing use cf the uropert}' and the .limitations of the - site and relationship to adjoining uses as-they -- relate to any alternative commercial use. ~ /~i at~u ~ e ~ 1 ~ r b ~ x * * x * t * is is x x * * * * x * * # is * x yt * * x * * x * * *~ ~ * x - x is ~ Plannizr Denaltment only DI.TF ~C IV.D PF,% Case ivo. Ite1 ~ DATE ACTION Recom. Dame Fwd. * ~ * * * x * x * ~ * ~ x * * * ~ ~ * ~ * ~ * * * * * x * * x * * * x * x Cler~:'s OTice only Date rout. P~:. Date Coen. Date . A ~ ~ ~ ~' .. T Parcel A A tract described as follows: From the Southeast corner of Section 19, Toianship 29 South, Range 15 East (said corner being also the Northeast corner of Section s0, Township 29 South, Range 15 East), Pinellas Count~~, Florida, run North 89004'07" 1Vest along the North boundary of said Section 30 a distance of 2819.60 feet; run thence South a distance of 1012.67 feet to a point on the centerline of State Road No. 694 (County Road No. 208); run thence Northeasterly along the centerline of said State Road No. 694 along a curve to the right (radius 1909.86 feet) an arc distance of 572.13 feet (chord - 569. 99 feet, chord bearing .- North 23023' 25" East) ; run thence Nerth ___ 31°58'20" East along said centerline a distance. of 1393.67 feet; run thence Northeasterly along `said centerline along a curve to the left (radius - 1909.56 feet) an arc distance of 304.27 feet (chord - 303.94 feet, chord bearing - North 27°2b'30" East) to a point of tangency of said centerline; run thence Nortli 22°50'39" East along said centerline a distance of 1843.70 feet; run thence North 67°12'17" titi~est a distance of 50.0 feet to a point on the Northwesterly right-of-way line of said State Road No. 694;, said point being the Easternmost corner of S.4I~`D I;EY CONDOi~•1INIUi~1 - SOUTH BEACH I, as recorded in Condominium Plat Book 14, Pages 83 through 89, public records of Pinellas County, Florida; run thence North 22°50'39" East along said lVOrtl11J°Sterly right-of-way line of State Read No. 694 a distance of 290.05 feet to a point of beginning; from said point of beginning, run N 67°09'15" ~~e.st a distance of 301: 5 feet to a cross mark cut in the cap of a.concrete seawall as a line marker; continue thence ~vorth 67°09' 15" hest to~ the mean high mater line of the Gulf of ;`3exico to a point hereby- designated .for reference as point "A"; beginning again at t:~e point of beginning, run Nortlz 22°50' 39" East along said. ;vortizwesterly right-of-ti~~ay line of State Road 694 a distance of 198.5 feet, run thence North 66°59'03" l~'est 275.72 feet to a cross mark cut in the cau of said concrete seati:~all as a line marker; continue thence North 66°59'03" 14est to the mean high water line of the Gulf of ~~fezico; Run thence Southwesterly- along said mean high,tit~ater line to previously designated point "A". ~, , ,. 't. 13 ' ~ SANO KEY • CONDO. BAYSIDE o GaRDENSIII 0 19-IG w~TCn LIME RM I6 ~\ M 8 B '~ I -9 ! ~ `\ ~ ORD 1904 M ~ g; O 4 79 t ~ ,. ~^ -~ ,i,o 0 1 Cr 1i ,QWH - .~ ~ Y _N ~ Qom ~ Z ~ W U~U _ _ LJ.1 Q Q Y D. W Z [D ~ . ~ ~U = - ~ -- _ Z {- ~ Q ~ - c1~ O _ Undivided Half _ Irileres! 10 ~P ~~ J m w Z - ~ M - ~ ~~ a nnss 1-1 r ~ oRD, 1631 U 12.7 s.. / t-i O N q p Z co Z w ` o~ N ~ - U Q I,LJ Y W 0 ~ ~ Z ~ to m Und~ividec Half _ Inleres! . _I _ . _ _ _~ ~ _ _ Owner/Applicant City--initiated- - .: - Property - _ ~ Request from CC - M F B 1, Portion i~i ~ B 1-9 - ~ to CTF 2S " - • - I - 3 A cat ~~S t - Public Hearing Item ;lumber Section 19 Planning and City. ~ .toning Board Commission Township 29 Range 15 Atlas Page J 3 ~ Single Family ?.~ Dup lex []-~~Iulti-Fa:~ ily 8 Business ~ Vacant - - i - ~, . 1 ' ,,. r \L Curlew RJ. ~~~~.~~~ ~~. ~, ,. m Q i a' ;i hlorthside Dr. 2ti~ ro ,1 m i p ~o D ~ ,a ~ N 1 O I I 4~ ~,_ ~~ r I Gl I ~ ~u 1 I S.R. SBO ~ __ 1 r I slrlr~ ~ 1 I C.K. l02 0 Enterprise Pd' t ~ I I I O I I I °~ I ' I o, I I '~ I Onion St. v ~ p .rn ~ I Ae~ s s ~u ~ -~ -es o ea r 1; ~ ~ I ~~b~ ~ a~ ~ i ~ ~ +~ ~ti ' 1 plain St.b S.Z.S88 I_ ti' 1 Sunset Pt's Rd. _ _~ o t ~? + ~ ~ r ~ ' 'b'~ •' L ,~ _ _ l: ~ ~ x _ - H u _, i' ~ a. a r i 't I 1. ~0 ~r :: b °1 ' ~ m Jl _ ~ a. ,~ ~ r1 -.r. a df rN U 4 ^I •ri I. +, a: Drew S[. _ ' s Cleveland St. I ~ S. R. 60 ~ Court St. Culf•to•Day Blvd. ---~~ ~. _~ I Uruld Rd. --~ - I .( d ,~ I I ~ Q po a , SIY~. p r~ ~ ,~ N e u r~ Blvd. ~~ Z S I' ~ ~ li J (:~ i0 1 ~,,,) ~ .1 Y AA _;r ~ " tlurserv Rd. rn r" ~ Belleau Rd. 9' 1 ` .. o ~.~ .IMI. .~S ~~.OA .14iR~.. m ~ ~ ~ F`~'~-t-.Th-.~1 oM[ MILE ~~~ ~~~ I ~ _ I 1 Q ~ I II 'L I ~~ q ~ ' 'r; ., ry ~' ' n ~r - . • ' ; ~ ~, ~~ . ~~ ~ , ~° ., Irk i I . .. r i- ~, . !e~ ~ ~~' ~ Rt. ~, ?r !d! ~ ,. ~ . r~, _ `'~ .. ~~~ ~ . ~ . y~ / . ~ ` ~ : s, ,, r. S. 1,. p ~i . 4{, . ' j` 1, ~',. ii E 4 , • ~ \. ' APPLI~iON TO A,~'tEVD THE L.~,yD USE~AN ~ DATE 12/24/80 NAME OF PROPERTY OFVNER(S) Clearwater Sand Key Club I Condo ADDRESS 1390 Gulf Boulevard PHONE REPRESENTATIVE (IF AYY) City of Clearwater ADDRESS 112 South Osceola PHONE 460-6500 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (SUBJECT OF REQUEST) Clearwater Sand Ke Club Number 1 Condominium as recorded in con dominium-as- recorded in Condominium Plat Book 19 Pages 21 through 32 of the public records of Pinellas County, Florida GENERAL LOCATION 1390 Gulf Boulevard ACREAGE PRESENT ZONING DISTRICT RM-28 REQUESTED ZONING DISTRICT_ No Chan Note: A separate application is required if the zoning district is proposed to be chanted. PRESENT CLEARjVATER COMPREHENSIVE LA.`ID USE PLAN CLASSIFICATION Com,-nercial/Tourist Facilities REQUESTED CLEARWATER COMPREHENSIVE Lr1ND USE PLAN CLASSIFICATIOiv High Density Residential REASON FOR REQUEST To correct.a scribner's error and so as to reflect existing use and zoning classification. PIVELLAS COUNTY CO~pREHENSIVE LAND USE-PLAN CLASSIFICATION IS THE REQUESTED LA:`ID USE C.aTEGORY IV CONFOR'~LaNCE jVITH THE FINELLAS COLTNTY LAND USE PLAN CLASSIFICATION? - ~ YES NO X MUST .~v A:~iEVD~iEVT TO THE PINELLAS COUNTY COtiIPRE.-IE\'SIV~ L:~,vD USE PLa:~ BE aPPR04"ED 3Y T:-~E PINELL.aS COUNTY. PLANNIVG COUNCIL? YES X NO Note: County Land Use Plan amendments require the approval of the Pinellas County P1_anning Council if the proposed land use for the property in question is r_ot consistent ~~ith the Cour_t;• Land Use Plan and the land area i s eq~~al .o or exceeds the acreage threshold for the intended use as establi_hed in Section IV of the "Pinnellas County Planning Council Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countr-~~ide Comnrehensi~~e Lard Use Plan" unless other:~ise excepted under Section III f~) . /. / / ~~/ %~ ~(Si~ila~ure) ;e~: iewed °~v: ., y,,j ~ ~ 5 ~ 1 5 ' ~I"I'1' Cyz.° M9 B O V .~ ~e m O .~ 1904 MbB OR 4 79 I ~ 17 9 \ ~ 4 8 two. ., QWH ~~ ~ .~ ~ - ~~ ~CV - Q~m ~ ~ W Z ~ ~ s . :. ~:Q..--~: ~' ~ j: 2 2v Y o w ~ Z C!7 ~ ~ ~ _ ~ Z F- ~ (11 _.n,,. ~2 .. ~ ~ 6 J sm 0 T ® ~ Undivided Half J Interest ~ ~ T . U - Q y.. ' W ~ W 'm ~ ~ Y 0 = N H O o D }= ~i~E`~~f Ev loo ~yonsrmw~em~:+m, w r z ~ ~• ~ ~ ~~ d M5B O I' I r ~ ~ oRO. 1631 U ~~ 12• H I .~ ~ Z ~ W i ~ N ~ Q . ~ ~ w. Y w ~ ~ Z }- ~, a m ~~~ Undivided Hal! Interest . - ~Z ~ N ° ~_ QO O -_ ~~ p~ -. - -= Cn U ~ _ p (n ~ Z Z _ ~ O W - i~ V O - - ORD ~ } Q -- -. ` C~/Applica-n-t [IrY OF C'~r=A~w,4`rc1Z - ~` Property Request fromCoMM~;euac/ C~c/aiZ~,~/aT>=~lZ -S/aul~ kEY ~URI S i FAC «~ rrE s - - tO ~'IGH. r~eNSrTY ~'tsrDExrr,a~ 3. t9 r~c2es ~ M1 Public Hearing Item Numt.r Planning and City .Zoning Board Commiss-ion o•~ ~ ,- ^Section Townshi Ran e Atlas Pa e - 1 9 p ~95 g tS~' g f- .3 -da Single Family ®Duplex [] Aiulti-Family _~ Business ~1 Vacant :_ . - _ ~ ` _ . .. _. _... r---- _ \• ~"'''~ ~- ~L~.,__furleia lid. „yi,~" Ca.~r., I. ,-„l.. ~ r `-' r ...mod ~~, ~~Ir„cr~ ~~ ~~~ ~,w.~ - -~, - , '~ i rrl ,,. 3 , ;ly N ~,R 1 ~~ b• . ,!7 16 ~ 1 ' ~ r_ Nurthsidr Jr. ti ~ a {'7 ,~,~ ~, ~ I ~ ~~ ~ .I ' • N 3 ya. - 1 DI Q ~~ . I •v 17 ~ ~E. I i i (~ ~ m M w' f U F~ d 7 Z it i ~'~ , Q i~ ~ 1 ',''~~ i I ~' u ~_ ! S.R. SBU I ~c~-- ~ ~ ~ ~;r. csa ~ ® I ~~ ~ +'' ~ ~ ~ . I ~'~ ~ I ~~ Cntarpnsa Rd; ~~ L, R. lU2 i, I n n I '~ d ~ y ~ ~~1 _ I ~ it I er~vuse e~ .osn:'..~ ~~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~~ i Ci I o. ~~ I f ~ I Uniun St. r`,.g ~L9 @~A S:A ~C7 S•~ ~Gl. .~~d-FdSi L?4-F3G -~-CL7 SJ ~~ ~G~l~ C7 ~ v~ r: w ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ I~ ~b ~~~~ ~ _ ro I 1T Sunset. Pt'J , !id. ~ plain St. b ~ S. R.S88 I _ ~e, ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~y ~, .r ~ d ~ , n, ' ~ W~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ u~ t IU! .f ~_Ii1 r~ OI ~ ~ _., - I~ Drew St', x _ >, t~ ; '. ~ Clevctand St. ' ~, S.R,60 ~-•-~~ I Cnurt 5t. ~ Culf-to-lloy Iilvd. ~_.-=='-""" I ..~ -L. ~-- --1- - ---- S , ~ I _ Drui;l Rd, _! _ ~ ~~~YYY ~ ~ S' -. c d ~ ,. n o Y., F~ ! ~ ~ •N o .y fl ~ _ _ 1 _. i .N +1 ~I AI h Bll'd, ~ Ej N f 1 1: 1, A, VR:~ 4~ 1 (L`[~ {~ J IIIIII ~'- t U -:~ ~~~ ° PluiserY Rd. r~ ~ -7 a ~ _ u, ~ ~~ ~ Bcllcai~ Rd. ~ ~,- 9 N -~ ~. ~~a~~ca ~a sa~-a: ~-e= i.ev-sue ~..~sc.r:~-rsa.:.:: w~ •.¢r::~.s.:~ u~~cta: ~ caa rr.~ r=-t~ . ,-.T.,:-,1 ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ 1,f7 ~ ~ ON6 MILL ~. ~ &~ Ri7 ~ +s~; ~'! ~ C'99 I ~~// i,' I" t . ''.k ` l ~ i ~ ~~ `~ I ~ q r - ~ ~ APPLICATION F OF C.'-~-vGE Iti ZONING ~ DATE 12/24/80 112 South Osceola Clear~~~ater, FL ~tECE!`~4I .3~N is i9a1 LEG_aI. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Parcel A Begin at the SE Corner of Section 19, Township 29 South, Range 15 East,'run N 89°04-07" W, 2,293.45 feet to a point on the centerline of Gulf Boulevard; thence N 31°58'20" E, 553.24 feet for a P.O.B.; thence N 89°04' 07" jV, 328.36 feet to the mean high water line; return to P.O.B.; thence N 31°58'20" E, 273.71 feet; then by a curve to the left, radius 1,909.86 feet, arc 304.28 feet, chord N 27°24'29" E, 303:95 feet; thence N 22°50'39" E, 1,168.46 feet; thence N 67°12'17" jV, 416.19 feet to the mean high water line; thence Southerly along said mean high water line to a point that intersects a line running from the P.O.B. N 89°04'07" 1V, 328.36 feet. Less right ~f way of Gulf Blvd. GITX CLERK Parcel B All lands and water seaward of the mean high water line and all land and water in the area between the line of mean high water and a line parallel to the line of mean high water, to_ a distance of 30 ft. land- ward where mangroves exist„-; ~ -... _ . ~ ~ ~ -_ GENt3.iL LOCATIC\ - tidest side of Gulf Boulevard adjacent to and South of Sand Ivey Condo South Beach II PR=SEIT ZONI\G - ~ .. DESIR D ZONING - ,_ zCRBAGE: 18.2? - Parcel A _ -. Parcel A - P.~~1=2.8~ - - . Parcel B Parcel B - AL _ - R~ASGN' rOR ~.~UBST: - .'. To-.reclassify the. property to a zoning district consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and adjoining existing and proposed development. . The 'B' Business designation determined applicable as a result of Court action no longer exists under the current Zor.in Ordinance and its application to the area in stion is Bros y inconsistent with the City's Co ehen~~v Pl i o afore) ~' _-,~i_ c 'lob`- ~~~- °P1 n_yi= R.l.~..L~=~ P~_ Case VO. _%°_.1 D.~TE CTIOti Reco,:,. .. t t at ~ t x ': ~ ~ ~t is t 7t .. ~ is - .. ~ t ~ ~ ~ Z .. t i i - :~ - ~ - - t :• C1erIC's 0~-icy or_ly Rec'c. Cou~~ to ?~_ Date ~c._. PAZ Gate Cc,~. Lute ~. } ~ r r ~. 0 o ORD 1749 4.78 J J 1~ v ~~ r~ f t N L I M t REVERIE 6ACK___ Td "8~~ PE Cove i URI~ER. 0 v ~t - - c __ w _ _--_.__ 0 . ..: _.~~ s • 0 ~_ Z w M ~ Q W cn r a m r._~ . ~RC~ i74~ a-7s/ ,__ I I. I!1 M >; 1 2-t ~_ -' M28 a - ~~ MES 2-2 PR~~'~~ (fir/Applicant ~?Y Cdr CLEA12~,~/AT~}Z Property Request from ~ C.S~~ ATTACHED LEGAL g ~ ~ ~, to }~nacF~ A ~ (~aecr~ , '"~ Planning and City Public Hearing Item Number Zoning Board Commission o, moo, Section';. ~ 9 Township 2 9 S Range (,SE Atlas Page ~- 3 K-3 __ ~ ~ Single Family f~,Duplex Q i~iulti-Family B Business ~ Vacant _ ; • ,,~• ~ •~ ~ APPLICATION FOR C:-iA:VGE iN ZONI;lG 112 South Osceola Ave. ~ DATE 12/24/80 Clearwater, FL 33516 _ - RECElVE'? ~~ • ~ JAN 16 1981 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY CITY QI:z.RI~. ~_• From the SE corner of•Section 19;~Township 29 ~outh, Ra e 15 East, Run N 89°04 07 4Y,. ,293.45 ~'~et, to a point on the Centerline of Gulf Boulevard; said point being the point of beginning; thence~N 31°58 20 E, 553,24 - feet; thence N 89°04 07 W, 328.36 feet `~I.O.L., to the mean high water line; thence Southwesterly along said mean high water line to a point on the South line of said~Section 19; thence r ~~ S 89004 07 E along said South line to the P.O.B less the right of way of Gulf Blvd. GENERAL LOCATION •~Gest.Side of Gulf Boulevard Immediately 1Vest . of the Harbour Condominium PRESENT ZGNING ~_ _ ,--CG"_---_: DESIRED ZONING R'~~1--28 ACRtAGE : _ - -- 4 . 3 9 - -- REASON FOR REQUEST: To. reclassify the property to, a~ zoning district_ consistent tiaith the Comn_ rehensive Land Use Plan and adjoining existing and proposed development". -" --. _ ,, ( ignature) • t * * t * :t * * :~ * * * * * * * * * * * * T * * * j[ * * * * :~ t t * * * • * t Planning Devartment only • DATE RECEIVED P~,Z Case No. Item ~ ~~ DATE ACTION Reccm. Date Fwd- * * ~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * t * * * * * * * * * * * * ~ * * * * * * t ~I Clerk's OTiice only Recd. Copy to P6Z Date Advt., P~;Z Date Co~zm. Date ~~ 0 v -~ - ti O 939 c_~n . '/Applicant C~7Y Cpl= CLrAtZ\~JtiTCJZ~ Property Request from C ~ srC /~TT"/~Gl-fE)~ LtG1aL C to RM-2S - . Public Hearing Item Number Planning^and City I ~ ~{''. . I- ~Vortluidc Dr, ~ ,~ ors; ~ ~~ ~. f;--~-~ 1 <`; - 0 h ~, r~:~ '~~~ ~. I a ~i I,l ~ S.R. 590 ~ ~ . I f~ ~ , ~ ~ ~~ ti (:ntcrprise Rd, C.R. l02 ~~. ~ 1 tL;B E:II, iWi~O-LIG~i ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~; . I o. I y,: f I I J' "' _ I ~~~ ~ I fr .. i,. ~II1011 $t. ~ ` ~ C3 6S 0!S Ftf -ah'r8- 8~6: -~ -GlA-6T'S~q m ~1~ d Q vi i' I ~, it+i . I n. ~ .. ~~/.. z. ~. ti~ ~. . . W ~ b f - Main St.~ I S. 8.596 I ~a~ a ~ Sunset Pt'.l 9d. ~-_~-- 1 .~ ~ °. ~-/- >. - -- - e ~ ,~ _ ''• ~ .. ~ lip II`' ~ tN ~ . .C / ,r, r ' - ' ~ ~ a o u' .r ~, ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ Sz d u r,~; :~,v u:1 a~ ~ .~ u ~ - v ~ U 9 . U~ . J.. ~~ .y ~ a f~ ' 1 ,~ >n b ~~ E 5 N .,1 X ~ t!. ' I. Drew St. ~~ ~' . _I ~ _ Cleveland 5t. I 5. R. 60 ~~ Court St. ~ Gull-tu•Ilav 01vd. -~ '~`"-- --1- - Drui.lr Itd- ------- ~,~ ' -a.., I / '-- I - ni ----- - - ~ " lfj s Cml !E ~ a 'h a . 5~~~ Ml~ I . - 0 fY r m ~,. ® o~ ~ ~' ~ h ~7. ~~ ,, /I ;a o ai ~~ Illvd. ., i, ,~ ..i - Nurseri Rel. _ _ ~.:, I~ I U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~~ I .~ - I~ b 1 ~ " ~ ~ ;. ~ 17ullc;air lid. "' 12L73~0:Y -haC-+P•C7-II:.3 ~ C't...tGW ' > ....3A.tAG1-i4"7-C~. .3151- ~3tl.i:.:-ii~.t. II' r'A.3 l':td 9~'".! 7~'! C'7 ~ I I ~~ ~ ( -1 oNG nnlGr ~. ® Lf ' spa ®eaa ~ em ~ sr~ I_ _h _ _._~- 1,, ~ (~~~ ~". f ~ I I c~~"` ~ '; i , b .. I. tl ~;i - '~ ~. ~ S~Ai ci-~ »~ i ~~-r~l~ APPLICATION FOR Ci~~vGE IN ZONING 112 South Osceola Ave. Clearwater, FL 33516 _~ ~~~ItS~ 0 3(301:, .~ DATE 12/24/80 • RECEIYEQ J~~ 16 1931 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ~iT'Y ~ERR~ • Parcel A ' Begin at the SE corner of Section 19. Township !_ 29 South, Range 15 East, Tun N 89°04`07" ~V, 2,293.45 feet to a point on the centerline o-f - Gulf Boulevard; thence Pd 31°58'0"„E; 553.24 feet to a P.O.B; thence S 89°04 07 E, 293.05 feet to the mean hi~h ~aat~r line; return to P.O.B.; thence N 31 58 ZO E, 273.71 feet; thence by a curve to the left, radius 1,909.86 feet, arc 304.28 feet, chord N 27°24'29"~ E, 303.95 feet• t en e N 22°50'39" E, 741.08 feet; thence ~ ~ S 67a09 21 E, 250.00 feet to the mean high water line; thence southerly along said mean high water line to a point that intersects a line running from the P.O.B.S 89004`07" E~ 293.05 feet, less and except right of way for Gulf Boulevard. Parcel B --- - All lands and water seaward of the mean high water line and all land and water in the area between the line of mean high water and a line parallel to the line of mean high water, to a distance of 30 -ft. landward where mangroves exist GENERAL LOCATION East of Gulf Boulevard Adjacent to and S-ouch oz Sand Key Condo, Bayside.Gardens II- - PRESENT ZONING -B = - DESI}tEi7 ZONING---FL~I-16 Parcel A AL Parcel B ACREAGE: Parcel A 11.94 - Parce 1 B - - r~ASON FOR REQUEST: To. reclassify the property to a zoning district consistent with the_Comprehensive Land Use Plan - and adjoining existing--and proposed development. The 'B' Business designa~i-on determined applicaLle as a result of Court action no longer exists under -- the current Zoning Ordinance and its application to the area in cluestio is grossly consistent with the City's Comprehe s' e P a I ignature) * * * * t * ~ * * * * ~ * * ~ * ~ x * * * t :r * * x ~ t * :~ t * t t * * ' Planning Department only DATE RECEIVED P~,Z Case No. Item ~ ~~ DATE ACTION Recam. Date Fwd. ~ * * :e ~ * ~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ~ * * * * * * * ~ * * t Clerk's Ofice only . ReC'd. CODy t0 P6Z Date advt. PAZ Date Ccnm. Date _ ~ ~ k J Q U ~ ~ U ~ N Z z Q O U7 U ORO 1749 M 8 B i 4.78 ~ tvor~ ,, IZcvEri 1=1~ 13ac~< -rtv _rg~, E12 CaU2T' O~ZD~)2. r~rGM lIM[ ORD 1749 4J8 MEB oAl~ g~f 4 ~.. ^' O ~ U7 ~ Z Z ~ O W ~ U p - ~ rQ W O 'Y W Z - Q ~ ~ ~- ~ Q 0 Cp ~U o '111111111111111 1111111 1749 Y 4 78 ~ .,. - .. ~_ ~= J U' = ^~: .,+- C' ~ ~J ~T ~ v -_ J ~,, _ ~ ~~ . V C ~ '~° ~ _ 6.~ - ~. r-- •ORG` 1749 4-7B _~ _ _~ ~ _ ~ - - .`~. - _ _ - ~: - - i +.. d~`~~. o __ _ _ _ - - / -- - - - - --- _ - / ~ /= _ _ O _` V _ -~ ~c _ - M >; B ~ - 2-! D ~~ -_ ,.. ~' 2H -~ MEB ' 2-2 /~ - - - - -- - _ - ! R~v~sE)7 3-30-~~ Cam'/Applicant C(T7 O ~ ~~~~IZ~,/a ~ E1Z Property Request from $ .' (SEt; ~-~7racNC~~ LrG~~,1 J ._ I !. 9 Y ~clzEs t (aa~. A Public Hearing Item Number Planning and City Zoning Board Commission s Single Family ~ Duplex [] Aiulti-Family B Business V Vacant Section ~ 9 Township ~9 S Range (S'E Atlas Page f- 3 ~ K_3 ~t~_. ~ --~ 7t'I''t~Li'~CLI L.~- -~~.i Gii".'i ~_.~.~.1 /t I~ 6. ' i ~ U fG a' •ij 2_ ~urthside Jr. : r. U, t }1~ ~' I ' a ~r1a C;: ' ~ ~ / o ~ _,..~. ~ Q P a ,~ ~r ~ S.It. SflU ~ _ ~ 1 x d~a"R~ 'S%°' - I ~ ~ EID7 urst ~ r~ I ~ ~ l I' ~Q I Cnterpri;z R~l• ~ C•R• lU2 I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~! I I O I 1 I I 61 t~ ~^ ~aa.crm?9 1 . I I ,~~~ ~ 919 I ~~ I n: h f I '~ I Union St. ' hh /"I 11 ~ ~ ^' ~ ~ I "l~~y~ r "' r` rlai» sc. ~ ~ s.a,sas ; °, ~- -' Sunset Pt'~"~ Rd. _^ l1 ~' h L~ t s ^~ ~ p n ~ ~~ Z~`~ .r. ;f i ~ N ~~ ~ 0 ,,, / _ ni ~ rt~~'., X11 Lat are ea [~ u, ~i7 a~ ..d Q / m U ~~ ~ ~ ;~ Drew St. ~' _ ~ _ Cleveland St. -~-.~ routt St• `'' Gull'-to•Buy Blvd: ~"~~-%'' .r_ I Unliil I.d, 0 1 _,~ Y__ , y~ Q ,",I it ~-a ~i ° N i~ Blvd, ~ t. 4,r ~1 y ® IQ - _. ~ "'~'`1 t ° Nursery Ild, ro G^`-~ ,~, 0(1 „t~t,, -- ~ i~~ I ~i J . ~ ,~ ,,,~~ 1 ;~, ~ ~BclJcair lid. ~~ [-' 1, ~SL7aTf."1~ :~ T~tiS M,' ~Cl' ' •. •~~, ~ ." .1~flS:Lt-^~~:t-lLCS03L.~• ". LC.~ 8 P~~ ffi'Jl £u'! !22'9 I 1 G(j ~ ON& Mll.Cc ~ ' o ;I 1 I I /I , .~ ~, ~ ;. APPLICA~N TO .4'~;ND THL LA'~D USE ~.a~l ~__~. . ... DATE 1.larcli s1,19~1 NAl~ OF PROPERTY Oft~NER(S") U. S. Steel Cor ADDRESS 200 St. A.-~drews Dr., Clearwa~er, FL s3515PHONE Applicant R~PR€SENI'AI'iVE-{IF-A3r'Yj City of Clearwater --- ADDRESS 112 S. Osceola, Clearwater , FL PHONE 4,-,~ _ ~,?~ ~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (SUB3ECT OF REQUEST)_ See attached GENERAL LOCATION East side of Gulf Blvd adi acent to arc' r+i ~-~r~i•~ north of Bayside Gardens IV ACREAGE ~, PRESENT ZONING DISTRICT REQUESTED ZONING DISTRICT 'CG Note: A separate application is requir.ed-if the zoning district is proposed to be .changed. PRESENT CLEARf~'ATER CO?r1PREHENSIVE LAID USE PLAN CLASSIFICATION i~~edium Density RQCI(1pTi gal REQUESTED CLEARWATER CO3~iPREHENSIVE LAND USE -PLA_N CLASSIFICATION Gorlmercial/Tourist Facilities- .- REASON FOR REQllEST~ To recognize proposed cornr:ercial use consistent with Court. action: PINELLAS COUNTY CO'~fPREHENSIVE L:4ND USE PLA1'rT CLASSIFICATION 1•lediur~ Density.. Residential IS THE REQUESTED LAND USE-CATEGORY IN CONFOR~L4NCE ~9ITH THE PINELLAS COUNTY LAND USE PLAN CLASSIFICATION? YES NO 1,fUST AN A,'~s~ND;fENT TO T'rIE PINELLAS COUNTY COi`fPREHENSIVL LA.N'D US;. PLAN BE APPROVED BY THE PINELLAS COUNTY PLANTIING COU-?~ICZL? YES ~ NO Note: County Land Use Plan _anen~~ents require the approti-al of the Pinellas County Planning Council if the proposed 1 and use for the propert}~ in question is not consistent with the County Land Use Plan and the land area is equal to or exceeds the acreage threshold for the intended use as established in Section IV of the "Pinellas County Planning Council Rules Concerning the Administration of the CowZty„'ide Co~~preher_sive Land Use Plan" unless otherwise excepted under Section III (5) _ --_- . (S gnature) reviewed by: • • Instructions: 1: -rile application in triplicate at the office of the City Clerk. Attach DrOOf Oi O'r+7lershlp alld, li the applicatlon area 1s _ unDlatted; three-copies o~ a certified survey. =ee to be paid at the time of filing of application. ~ _. -. 2. ,"-„~pllCcnt -mL~st di sC105e 1n fllll -ali persons- h~1"ing ow;,ershlp - interests in the property -so.ugil~ by application to be rezoned and whether any such o~~-nersiiip interests are contingent or - - -. absolute, - - -~. =Applicant must disclose in null whether or not there exists. at the time of application any options° or contracts for the - - - sale or purchase--of such property and,-if so, the names .of - - -- all parties -to -such contracts. _ 4. Applicant or representative- must be present -at-both the Planning and Zoning Board and City Co „fission public hearings. ' •\ .. ~, ~•, - ~~ ' ,~ ~ ' - ORD e 1749 • ~ 4-78 34D~ ~, M b 8 5:1 ~F 2~ ' ORD 1749 _ ' _ 4.78. - • ~ a ~o h . 4 - J ~. o ` ~~ - - e . ,x~: „,, ~; f".. //0~ o ~~ o ~~ w ~I.~ _ - _~ -lam cv -_ . - - ~ - ~ - - ~~ ~~ o _.-_- _ MOB h _ o I -- _ -.~ - - - p ..a M b 8 -f- I- 3 ORD ~- fV U I ~ ~ ~ _ 1749 Q - ~ ~ '+78 ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ R ~v~ RTEi~ 13n,~K ~ .f _ .Q ~ ~ _ - 4 ~~ - 02 D C S~ o P~IZ COu2r o `' ° - ~ - O ~ ~ ~ J Z~~ N 'e _o~. 2 l7 ~,J ~ ~ ~~I~J b. !"i ! Y ~ ~.J ~~ ~.6.~ ~-i J ti i`'i 1 ~ 1 ~! Y ~ f b/ /-~ Owner/applicant (~• S, ~'f"E~.L CO1ZP.~ CITY Proper:.; Request from Mr=Dtcl~ - D~hlSIT Y !\CSIv,. ~cr= /~.rr~c~~E~~ LEG1lL to Con-.M Eecr~L/ fo~>zrsr ~n~r~~ i ~~ s ~ - Planning and City Public Nearing Item dumber Zoning Board Co,~.mission o. 2oa~ Section17~ z pTownship ~ 9S Range f ~"E atlas Page ~ _ 3 - - ® jingle gamily ~4! Duolet (~ `Multi-i=am; 1}• g 3usi::ess ~ Vacant __ \I, . N4; r ~ ,~ r: ; `' ` ~rtn sr3 ca sra otii C: M I ~ t< ~ ~~ 1 . ` ~ • LEGAL DESCRIPTION A portion of land in Section 17 and 20, Township 29 South Range 15 East, Pinellas County, Florida and being further described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Easterly right-of-way line of Gulf Boulevard, State Road No. 699 a 100 foot Right of Way said point being at the intersection of said Right of Way line - with the Dine between Sections 19 & 20 and being North 1°'44'32" West, 4,182.26 feet from the Southeast corner of said Section 19, which point is also the Southwest corner of Section 20; thence North 42° 13' 31" East, 426 , 71 feet a I ong sa i d R i ght of 4ti'ay I i ne to 1/2 inch iron rod for a point of beginning from said point of beginning continue North 42°13'31" East 1,309.39 feet along said Right of'Way to a 1/2 inch iron pipe; thence run South 47°46'29" East 195.18 feet to an 'X' cu't on the concrete sea wall; thence continuing South 47°46'29" East to the waters•of Clearwater Harbor to a point hereinafter I;nown as point 'A'for convenience: thence returning to the point of beginning run South 47°46'29" East 195.10 feet to an 'X' cut~on the sea wall: thence continuing South 47°46'29" East to the waters of Clearwater Harbor; thence along said waters and winding therewith in a Northerly direction to the aforementioned point A containing 6.0 acres more or less-Phase Two ~µ~ •~./ y ~.:~~:..-...~.,,..,~.]~: •"%: :w _"C t.. .'-~. tt. 'Y T xtr 1.*( .P. K-' _ - _ - ;1a ^ a t~. ~. APPLICATION FOR CHANGE IN ZONING DATE 3/30/81 112-South Osceola Clearwater, FL - ~ ti . LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY See Attached V ~,/ GENERAL LOCATION East-side of-.Gulf Blvd. adjacent to and directly north . of Bays ide Gardens =I V_ :Condo - "_ _ - PRESENT ZONING ~ B" - _---- - - DESIRED ZONIN-G - CG Parcel A AL Parcel B ACREAGE: 7,. g- Parcel A ~ _ Parcel B - -- --- - REASON FOR .REQUEST : ~;~EN~~~~X~'~~~~GY~~?0..'~~~~~~~?~~C~~`IX - __ - T'o reclassify the property to a zoning district consistent with the Land 'u'se Plan. The 'B'-3usiness designation determined a,~plicahle as a result of Court action no longer exists under t:ze current Zoning Ordinance. ~~ (Signature) * * * t * ~ * * * * * * ~ * ~ * * * ~ ~ t t * * * x * * * x ~ * * ~ * * * ~ Planning Department only DATE RECEIVED P~,Z Case No. Item ~ ~~ DATE ACTION Recom. ~ Date Fwd. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ~ * * * -* * * * * * ~ * * * * x * ~ Clerk's Office only Recd. Copy to P~,Z Date Advt. ~ P~,Z Date Com.*n. Date - ~- ~ i Parcel A LEGAL DESCRIPTION A portion of land in Section 17 and 20, Township 29 South Range 15 East, Pinellas County, Florida and being further described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Easterly right-of-way line of Gulf Boulevard, State Road No. 699 a 100 foot Right of Way said point being at the intersection of said Right of Way Dine with the line between Sections 19 & 20 and being North 1 44'32" West, 4,182.26 feet from the Southeast corner of said Section 19, which point is also the Southwest corner of Section 20; thence North 42°13'31" East, 426.71 feet along said Right of ~~Jay line to 1/2 inch iron -rod for a point of beginning;from said point. of _ beginning continue North 42°1'3'31" East 1,309.39 feet along said Right of Way to a 1/2 inch iron pipe; thence run South 47°46'29" East 195.18 feet to an 'X' cut on the concrete sea wa_II; thence continuing South 47°46'29" East to the waters•of Clearwater Harbor to a point hereinafter known as point 'A'for convenience: thence returning to the point of beginning run South 47`46'29" East 195.10 feet to an 'X' cut on the sea wall: thence continuing South 47°46'29" East to the waters of Clearwater Harbor; thence along said waters and winding therewith in a Northerly direction to the ~aferementioned point A containing 6.0 acres more or less-Phase Two Together with: A portioo of land in Section 17, Township 29 South, Range 15 East, Pinellas County, Florida and being further described as follows: beginning at a point on the Easterly Right of Way line of Gulf Boulevard, State Road No. 699 a 100 foot Right of bVay said point being at the intersection of said Right of Nlay line with the line between Sections 19 and-20 and being North 1°44'_32" West 4,182.26 feet from the Southeast corner of said Section 19 which point is also the Southwest cor-ner of Sect ion 20: thence North 42° 13'31" East 1,736.10 feet a I ong sa i d R i ght of Way _.I i_ne to a 1/ 2 i nch . iron .pipe for a point of beginning; f roms a i. d -point of beginning coat. i nue North_ -4''O 13' 31" - East 416.67 feet to a 1/2-inch iron rod; thence run South 4^O 46'29" East 195.07 feet to an 'X' cut in the sea wall; thence continuing =_ South 47° 46' 29" -East; to the waters -o f- C I earwater_ Harb-o-r to a point hereinafter known- as -point _' B' ~f-o r_ conven i enc~; thence -returning to the point of beginning run South 4-0 46' 29". East 195.18 f eet tc..-an ' X-' -cut on the sea walls=thence continuing South 47`46'29" East to the waters of Clearwater_ Harbor; thence along said -waters and winding therewith in a northeasterly direction to aforementioned point 'B'. containing 1.9 acres more or less-Phase One - - Infcrmation taken from survey by Greiner Engineering Sciences Inc. Tampa, Fla. June 24, 1977 - LEGAL DESCRIPTION (a) Parcel B All lands and water seaward of the mean high water line and all land and water in the area between the line of mean high water and a line parallel to the line of mean high water, to a distrance of 30 ft. landward tahere mangroves exist. 1 I ~.- i _- i f~ 9.y4 \` ~~ ~ ~' ` ~ 5~•~'` SEG tC ~~ SEC ~e N~ ~ I ~ E J ° E` ~9 ~ O ~ - %•~L9 _ _ _ ~ N _ - - -• -- - - : o~~ M b B . _ h ~_ ' b -- __- M b B / ~ I-3 =. ~ ORD 1749 O _ ,, 4-7a ~ - -J - Q ~ ~C/ ~ O , j ^/ . o ~- Ate- `~(/L - ! e `2~! - ..J :~ ti ~~ '~ ' O R n. 15~i 4.75 1 O - ~ __ a ~ ` - ~a^ ' ~' ~IO~E" ~EVc~ZT~u f3~cK ~ `~B" ~.ONI h!G PER C~~rT URD~R, Owner/Applicant (J, S', ST~~L C012p. C 17 Y P: operty ' Request prom ~ ~( ~~ CSL ~ H T~7-4C1/L 1~ L ~ GA L tp ~~Ar2cEt ~Pg2ttL • Planning and City :Public Hearing Item Number Zoning Board Commission a, ~~a, Section ~ 7~ 24 Township 29 S Range j SE atlas Pagef-~.~ ~ - 3 ~ Single , ~~i y ~~ a_ti-~ a,~~~ j `~ I ~ Duplex [~ ~f' ~ ~ ~l~ 8 3usiness V Vacant - CJ ,~, ' ~« ' 4 ~.. 4r y" J ~ra~mm~j SITS ~ ~ eaa a~ ~ sss acn ~; ~ ~~ 9 B ~~~ r'.. r..m ~~ ~ -Tt r&c • .- .~± • M E M O R A N D U M ~~~' TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission FROM: Frank Kowalski, Chief Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: tJ. S. STEEL CORPORATION DATE: January 9, 1.985 COPIES: City Manager, Planning Director As you know, the City has been engaged in litigation with U. S. Steel Corporation. regarding zoning and development rights on Sand Key. U. S. Steel advised the City administration of its intent to develop its remaining properties on Sand Key at a significantly higher intensity than its previous developments. Consequently, the City filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment in the original 1979 action and also filed a new suit for a declaratory judgment that the 1979 decree is of no further prospective force and effect. The decision of the Circuit Court denying declaratory relief is presently on appeal to the Second District. The . Second District Court of Appeals has issued a decision affirming. the decision of the Circuit Court denying the City's Motion for Relief from Judgment. At the direction of the City Attorney,- I have requested that Mr. Charles Siemon, Esq., of the law firm of Siemon, Larsen & Purdy address the City Commission to advise you of the current status of the litigation, in view of the fact that Mr. Siemon's firm has been retained to represent the City in the above- referenced cases. :; ti i .~ c. .t ~~~;, ~~ ~.~ ~~ NOT FINAL UNTZL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DET~:RMINED. CITY OF CLEARWATER, Appellant, -- v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Appellee. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOI3D DISTRICT CASE; NO. 84-391 Opinion filed December 28, 1984. Appeal from the Circuit - -- Court for Pinellas County; B._J. Driver, Judge. - Charles L. Siemon and Susan G. Connelly of Siemon, Larsen- -- _ & Purdy, Chicago-, Illinois ;- _ . -- - - - -, Frank X. F_owalski, Chief _ __ Assistant City Attorney, _ Clearwater, for.Appellant._ _ __ -.- Dennis P. Thompson of -Richards, ~ =- - _ __ .,_ Nodine, Gilkey; -Fite; -Meyer ~ __.____ __ Thompson, P.A.~;_-Clearwater; - =__=_ _.- - _ , Thomas F. Icar_d,__Jr_:-, anal -°_ ; - .-: ~_ . James 0 Davis=, -3II ~- of Carlton, --- - - - -- Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith- & Cutler, Tampa= for Appellee.---- _ . _. _____ PER CURIANI .- --- =_= -_ -- _ Appellant, City-of --Clearwater., Florida--- from an order .denying its motion for relief from s . .r ' ... - . ,- ~ ~~/ ,~y" ~ ~ ,, t.~ ti - l y Q ci '~; i - .~fir; ~;w,--i~r~;- _..__ F.XF-iIBIT °A" • `~ judgment. We affirm. - In 1979, the Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County, Florida, entered a summary judgment determining that the City of Clearwater was bound by a contract of annexation between it and appellee's predecessor in interest. The summary judgment enjoined-the city from enforcing an ordinance that would rezone property belonging to appellee, iJ.nited States Steel. This court affirmed that summary judgment on March S, 1980. On January 24, 1984, the appellant filed a motion for relief from summary judg~aent pursuant to Florida Kule. of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). The appellant soug:zt relief from the summary judgment on the grounds that the judgment was void, prospective application of the judgment was no longer equitable, and equity commanded relief from the final summary judgment. This motion was denied and a timely notice-of- appeal-was filed. We find that=the court did not ,err in .denying appel- __-__ lant's notion for relief from the summary judgment on the particular grounds set forth=in_appel-lant'=s motion and therefore affi-rm. _= _- --~-_____ SCHEB, A.C.J. ;-=and SCri00NOVER-, J_.=, and-B'r:NTL~EY, --E :- Rando-lph,- Associate Judge---_ Concur: _ _ _ - 2 - _ ,-z_~ 0 A\ f°..` ,~ -_~~~~ ~ ~-, .~~.r~iJ~fs Office of City Attorney C 2 1, 1 ® ~~ CL~A P 1 A ~ l.J Y. POST OFFICE POX 4748 Cl_EARVVATER, FLORIDA 33518 - 4748 (813) 4G2-6760 January 7_8, 1985 Charles Siemon, Esquire Siemon, Larsen & Purdy 200 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, Ill. 60606 Dear Charlie: This is to confirm our telephone conversation of this morning in which you agreed to meet with the City Commission to update them on recent developments relating to Sand Key litigation. I have notified the City Manager's office and have been informed that you will be scheduled at the beginning of the meeting ( 9 A.M.), February 4, 1985, in the Mayor's Conference Room, City Hall. I very much appreciate your arranging your schedule to accom- modate us. If there is anything that I can do to assist you, please let me knew. Sincer~ yours, 1 `~k.. _/ Frank owa.lski, Chief Assistant City Attorney FK:fs ~~L~~~~~ .JAN 2 91985 .: . "F-goal r,,,ployn,e„r a,td .Aff'nnatit~e. Action F_„tployer" ;~~~_ ::J.~ • ~' pity frustrated in ~% ,~ effort ~tocont By TIM NICKENS _ Cleaiwe4er Times!SteH Write'r' _ CLEARWATER =For the city of Clearwater, waging court battles,'to' limit building on Sand Key h9s been as futile as shadowy boxing.:The. city resolutely keeps punching away;`-but it can't score any points, much less a knockout; with;the.judges: ' In a, years=long fight .with U.S. Steel over building density, Clearwaterhaa`lost another.-round at the 2nd Diatrict,Cout of Appealin Lakeland. The judges rejected the city's arguinentahat Sand •Key hae changed so much in Tecentyears that its zoning must be tightened to limit construction. ' That means Clearwater is still saddled with Sand Key's original ,zoning,. which. allows virtually unlimited development 'on two., pieces of undeveloped property owned by [~.5. Steel ;'. • ~ . THURSDAY, THE firm agreed to'sell the property. 'about~l8 acres 'and! 130 condominiums already built .` i ~~. Circle Indicates location of la-tid U.S. ' Steel'sold bn Sand Key. , . rol Sand Key growth: on Sand Key to the Cheezem Development Corp., which already owns. extensive!prope>'ty'.there.'Thst deal may eventually help Clearwater limit development on the vacant parcels, because eitpofficials have been'successful at working out agreements with Cheezem on other prop- erty,the company owns.. , The latest appellate decision `on the zoning issue marked the second time Circuit Court rulings against the city's position have beerrupheld. Clearwater has one final appeal pending, and attorneys for the city and U.S. Steel were. reluctant to discuss the situation in detail until'that is resolved. , But City Manager Tony Shoemaker said'he.is disap- pointed and frustrated by the latest setback: "We've explored everything that we could do, quite frankly," he said. At issue is a 1979 ruling by Circuit Judge B. J. Driver. He refused to allow Clearwater to change the'permiasive coning set for Sand Key in 1961 when it was annexed into the city. His ruling said that the original Toning must remain in .effect for a seasonable length of time. Assistant city'' attorney Frank Kowalski said~Clearwater.beheveS•t period has passed and is hoping that the appea~§ Lourt will finally agree when it rules on the still-pending appeal. Please sate SAND KEY, Page 4~.; _ ~ ~4 /''~}~/ .. __ .. - ~--- ~ . L ~ ;Y5 i. ~ ,~ ~, ,; ~ ~ Clearwater Times COr,n ~/.IS SIO NERS ..~-- ~}~ F~ O A YID BRUCE TYNDAL L, CHAIR tdAN CHARLES E. RAINEY, VIC 6CHA1Rt/~AN JOHN CHESNUT, JR. GF_ORGEGREER BARBARA SHEEN TODD - - February 8, 1985 M r. James Sheeler Planning Department City of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33618 Re: Bikeways In Sand Key Park Dear Jim: DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES ENGINEERING - OPERATIONS - SOLID WASTE - WATER - SE VEER 315 COURT STREET CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33516 • Phone: (813) 462-3251 ode have located the proposed bikeways on the Sand Key master plan and the following is an estimate of costs. Some adjustments may have to be made due to poor soil conditions and the possibility of revising the sandwall fence which appears to be very expensive to match the existing facility and relocate the proposed parking pads adjacent to the bath houses and on the Gulf side of the existing fences. Preliminary Estimate .....2 k'ay Bikeway - 3500 ft @ $11.00 $ 38,500.00 .....Two Bike Parking Pads - 20' x 50' @ $10.00/ sq yd. $ 2,222.00 .....sandwall Fence to match existing - 200 l.f. @ $80.00 per lineal foot $ 16,000.00 .....Bike Racks - $525.00 each x four $ 2,100.00 $ 58,822.00 .....Contingencies - 10% $ 5,800.00 TOTAL $ 64,622.00 I have not included any amounts for engineering, survey and testing as I am sure we can work that into our existing program without additional charge to the project. PINELLAS COUNTY IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER • OF' COUNTY COMM~~SION~I~~ PENELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA -' .~- • • Mr. James Sheeler February 8, 1985 ' Page two Please review this proposal with your associates and if satisfactory let me know and we will prepare a formal proposal to your City Manager f rom the County Administrator. Sincerely"",; ~~ Ge~E". Director GEJ/pmc 7ordan, P.E. i- Public Works/Utilities _~ ~ ~ - ~' f~~ K~ ~ C~ a~ ~.~~l~C~~~~~~R interde~iment Correspondence Sheet _ P T0: Ream Wilson, Parks and Recreation Director FROM: J.D. Sheeler, Grants Development Specialist COPIES: SUBJECT: Sand Key Recreational Funds DATE: February 12, 1985 Per our earlier discussion, we have finally received an estimate from the County on the cost of bicycling facilities in Sand Key Park. There was some delay due to needed additional Parks Department design. The estimate as computed by the Pinellas Public Works Department is attached. The estimate is that X65,000 would provide roadway and parking facilities for this significant and logical bicycle destination within the city. As we also discussed earlier, the balance of the bicycling system for Sand Key (facilities along Gulf Boulevard) is being proposed as part of the 4 cent gasoline tax increase. If we can assist in making the park bicycle usable (it is being used regularly by bicyclists now, but not safely) and if the 4 cent gasoline tax adder is successful, we can have a very useful bicycling public beach in Clearwater, which would be national travel poster quality. JDS/dw Attachment 4 , ~ • ~~'a' ~,_ x .~ NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING i~OTION AND , IF FILr.D , D~:T~:RNiINED . Iiv THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT CITY OF CLEARWATER, Appellant, v. ~ ] UNITED STATES STEEL ] CORPORATION and U.S.S. ] REALTY DEVELOPMENT, ] Appellees. ] Opinion filed May 24, 1985. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Thomas E. Penick, Jr., Judge. Charles L. Siemon and Susan G. Connelly of Siemon, Larsen ~ Purdy, Chicago, Illinois, and Frank Kowalski, Chief Assistant City Attorney, Clear-water, for Appellant. Dennis P. Thompson of Richards, Nodine, Gilkey, Fite, Meyer ~ Thompson, P.A., Clearwater; Thomas F. Icard, Jr. and James 0. Davis, III, of Carlton, Fields, Ward, F,mmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee United States Steel Corporation. CASE N0. 84-1628 . • • PER CURIAM. The appellant, City of Clearwater, appeals from an order dismissing its complaint seeking a declaratory judgment. We affirm. In 1979, the Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County, Florida, entered a summary judgment determining that the City of Clearwater was bound by a contract of annexation between it and the predecessor-in-interest of the appellee, United States Steel. The summary judgment enjoined the city from enforcing an ordinance that would rezone property belonging to ~iJnited States Steel. This court affirmed that summary judgmer.L on Niarch S, 1980. Can January 24, 19234, the city filed a motion for relief from summary judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of- Civil Procedure 1.540(b). The city alleged in its motion that the summary judgment was void, that prospective appli- cation of the judgment was no longer equitable, and that equity commanded relief Pram the judgment. 'irie trial court denied the city motion and this court affirmed in City of Clearwater v. United States Steel Corp., 462 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). The city had also filed on January 24, 1984, a separate action seeking a declaratory judgment by the court that conditions had changed since the entry of the original - 2 - • summary judgment and that the city therefore had the power to rezone the property. United States Steel filed a motion to dismiss the city's complaint in this action on the grounds of res judicata. At the hearing on the motion to dismiss the complaint, the parties agreed that the court could take judicial notice of the record in all other proceedings between the parties. United States Steel's motion to dismiss was granted, and this appeal timely followed. The city contends that United States Steel did not properly raise the defense of res judicata in its motion to dismiss. ~,de disagree. The city is correct in arguing that the issue of res judicata is an affirmative defense, and affirmative defenses cannot be raised in a motion to dismiss unless the allegations of a prior pleading in the case demonstrate their existence. Ecological Science Corp.. v. Boca Ciega Sanitary District, 317 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Temples v. Florida Industrial Construction Co., Inc., 310 So. Zd 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). In considering a motion to dismiss, the court must confine itself solely to the allegations within the four corners of the complaint. Ecological Science. Since the denial of the city's relief from summary judgment in the earlier action was not mentioned in the complaint which is the subject of our review, we would normally hold that the defense of res judicata could not be raised by United States Steel in its motion to dismiss. The parties, however, stipulated that the court could consider and - 3 - take judicial notice of all other proceedings between them. The trial court therefore properly considered size issue of res judicata. See Mennella Plastering, Inc. v. Adobe Brick and Supply Co., Inc., 273 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1973); La~arde v. Outdoor Resorts of America, Inc., 428 So. 2d o69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); cf. Kostecos v. Johnson, 85 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1956). A review of the pleadings and evidence presented in the prior case, and a review of the complaint currently before us, indicates that the substance of the factual allegations in both actions, the theories upon which relief was sought, the type of relief sought, and the parties a-re identical. The trial court therefore properly dismissed the case on the basis of res judicata. See Hay v. Salisbury, 92 Fla. 44b, 109 So. 617 (1926); Lagarde; Huskey Industries, Irc. 6 v. Griffith, 422 So. 2d 996 (Fla. Sth DCA 1982). Although we find the trial court acted properly, we note that we have not been called upon to determine the propriety of United States Steel's argument had the case been presented in a different posture, e.~., if United States Steel had applied for a building permit and it had been denied, or if the city had attempted to rezone the property and United States Steel had contested the rezoning. AFF I Rr~D . OTT, A.C.J., and CA~PB~LL and SCHUUNOVLk, JJ., Concur. i - 4 e ~~~ • ~- ~ ~~ ~ • i+ ~_ l ~ - - - -- - -- - ~- - - a F_ _ -. ___ ~~_/_3~8~ ____ ________ _. ~~ lJ_ S ~S` _~ ~~ __ ____ ~ ~_ __ - ~-3- - - - ~- - .~ ~ __ -- - -F y---- - - --- ~--- f r' ~. - ~i ~° +~_.__ _ ___ -- -__ __ _~ _.__ T ~~ _ _ ----- - - ____. __._ _ - _ _ ,, ,~ !F ~~ ~~ ;, i~ it I - - - 1~r _ _ - - _~ ~~ t}~ _. G ~ ~r~ ~-~- pure 3 ,., ~..._ C n ~ . ~_" - APPLICATION FOR CuANGS I\ Z(,".TLNG AMERICAN DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. 7820 38th Avenue N. St. Petersburg, FL _ LBGAL DBSC$IP?ION OF PROPERTY: Begin at -the~SE corner of Section 19, Township 29 South, Range 15 East, run N 89°04`07"A`, 2,293.45 feet to a point on the centerline of Gulf Boulevard; thence N 31°58'20"E, 553.24 feet to a P.O.B.; thence S 89°04'07"E, 293.05 feet to a mean high water Line; return to P.O.B.; thence N 31058'20"E, 273.71 feet; thence by a curve to the left, radius 1.,909.86 feet, arc 304.28 feet, chord N 27°24'29"E, 303.95 feet; thence N 22°50'39"E, 741.08 feet; thence S 67009'21"E, 250.00 feet to the mean high water line; thence southerly along said mean high water line to a point that intersects a line running from the P.O.B. S 89°04'07"E, 293.05 feet, less and except right-of-way for Gulf Boulevard. DATB:June 13, 1985 GENERAL LOCATION: East side of Gulf Boulevard adjacent to and south of Sand Key Condo, Bayside Gardens II DESIRED ZONING: RM-16 PRESENT ZONING: B (Business per Court - Order ACREAGE: 9.18 DESIRED RuASON FO$ REQUEST.: CO'~n"E''NENSIVE PLAN CONFOR'~ANCE, REFLECT ~~~~~'~~ LAND USE ~ ' ° '.'TERISTICS. ~XX-'X%O~~v`~~~~iB~tl~~(~ (Signature) s ~ s s ~ ~ s * * s * * * s * ~ * * * ~ ~ * * * * * s s * * s ~ x * * = s P1 anni ng Departnent Onl y DATE RECEIVED - PgZ C^.s~ ''~ DATE ACTION ~ Hecom. Item r Date Fwd. s s * * s * * s * ~~ * * ~ # # # # * * # * * * # * * # s # * * # : s * # s Clerk's Office Only Recd. Copy to PAZ P&Z Date Comn. Date Date Advt. ~,y_', • • • DATE Jl~ne l s, 1.985 ' NAME OF PROPERTY OW`TER(S) ARiERI CAN DESIGN AND DEVELOP`•iEhT CO P _ ADDRESS 7820 38th Ave. N, St. Petersburg, FL PHONE REPRESENTATIVE (IF .ANY) PHONE ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (SUBJECT OF REQUEST) N 400 f ?~ ~w ~~ GENERAL LOCATION East side of Gulf Boulevard immediately south of toll booth and City-owned bayside property. ACREAGE 2 ~ . PRESENT ZONING DISTRICT B B RLQUESTED ZONING DISTRICT` RM-16 _ Vote: A separate application is required if the zoning district is ;proposed to be changed. _ pR~-SENT CLE.aRWATER CONiPREHEvSIVE L:~vD USE PLAti' CL_~SSIFIC.aTION Commercial/Tourist Facilities REQUESTED CL.LARIv7ATER CO~iPREi-iEvSIVE LAND USE PL~v CL aSSIFICATION ;pie d ~ um Pen ~ ' ~~ ~ ~ ~ t' ? _ -- REASON FOR REQUEST To kee ro ~ . 1 d IS . . tp cateaorv ir. _~ compliance - amore appropriate use for area: ~ PI'~TELLAS COUNTY CO~IPREHEvSIVE LAND USE PLAN CLASSIFIC4TION Hi h Density Reside t' IS THE REQUESTED L:LYD USE CA~EGORY~ Iv CY~ORMA~`CE h'I Q THE PI`.FLLAS COtTNiY L...~..ND USE PLfty CLASSIFICATIOV. hitJST ~` a~sFVDb~YT TO THE PIVELLAS COUNTY COAIPREN~VSI~ L_~YD USz PL~V BE APPROVED BY THE PIN"ELT aS COUN-TY PLANNIVG COtJPJCIL? Y =5 NO X Note: County Land Use Plan ~en~ents require the approval of the Pinellas Coun~y Planning' Council i~ the propose3 1=nd_use Er%y Zit 4uestlOn l~ s,Ot rnrsc_~r?_^_r :.~"a ~ii~ ~~: r1:P ~`~~.. Co;uzt~ Lana use Plan and the land area is equal to or exc°ecs the acreage threshold for 'the inte:~ded use as establi_hed in Section IV.__o-h~,the`"Pinellas County Planning Council Rules 1 r Concerning the administration o~ the Count`-~:ide Cct:,nreneTsi~e L~.d Use flan" unless otherwise erceptzd cancer Section III (3j _ G p~ 1 ~~a~-vp (Si;nature) • '~ ' .Y NGB IN ZO~NG APPL I CAT IO~i FOR CflA DATg: 3une 13 , 1985 AMERICAN DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. 7820 38th Avenue N. St. Petersburg, FL LEGAL DFsSCBIPTION OF PROPSBTY: M~B._33-03, Sk' I/4, Sec. 17-29S-15E MOB 22-01, NW 1/4, Sec. 20-Z9S-15E CEi~ERAL LOCATION: On the east side of Gulf Boulevard, immediately south of toll bridge and City property extending to the north side of Bayside Gardens IV PRBSfiNT ZONING: B (Business) iteverted DESIRED ZONING: RM-lfi back per Court order ~ACREAGB: 8 - 64 ~- DESIRED " REASON FOB RfiQDgST: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONFORMANCE, REFLECT ~j~`~I LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS AND CITY COAfMISSIUN DIRECTION 9 ~,~ G (Signature) : ~ * * t # s ~ # ~t * s # * * s * # ~ # * * : : * * * * s * * ~ * * * : Planning Department Only p~Z Case No. Item r DATE RECEIVED :iecor~.. Date Fwd. DATE ACTIUfi CI erk's Office Only Copy to PY~Z Recd. Date Advt. P&Z Date Comas. Date V 1 ~. .~ i ~ • ~ APPLICATION FOR CHANGfi IN ZO~NG la American Design F, Development Corp. DATg: June 13, 1985 7820 38th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida LBGAL DBSCgIPTION OF PBOPBETY: M F B 43-OZ, Sec. 19-29S-15E, apart of goverdment lot 2 lying in Sec. 19-29S-15E further described as follows: Begin at the S.E. corner of Sand Key Condo. South Beach 1460 such point being on the ~d. right-of-k ay line of Gulf Boulevard for a . P.O.B., thence Southwesterly along said west right-of-way line 1270 ft., thence ti4.along seawall 375 ft. , also being the North line of Cabana Club Condo as recorded in Pl. Bk_ 77 pg. 42, thence Northeasterly along seawall 1430 ft., thence Southeasterly 383 ft. also~beingthe South property line of Sand Key Condo 1460 as recorded in Pl. Bk. 54, pg. 63 to the P.O.B. less Sand Key 19nof PinellasBeach,. 1480 Gulf Boulevard as recorded in P1. Bk. 65 pg. County Records . GENERAL LOCATION• Z~'est side of Gulf Boulevard adjacent to and north of the Cabana Club Condominium. PRfiSENT ZONING: B(Business) per Court DESIRED ZONING: RT4-28 ' Order ACREAGB: 7.57 DESIRED RELSON FOS RfiQIIfiST: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONFORMANCE, REFLECTx~4R~ LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS ~~~~~~~~~~~`'~~~~'~~~ ~. ti c ~ ~~- ~- ~,u~,Z DATE RECEIDED DATE ACTIUN PAZ Case No. :-tecom. Date Fwd. s s * * * * ~ : * ~ * * s * ~ * * * * * ~ * * : : * ~ * s * ~ * ~ _ : Clerk`s Office Only Recd. Date Advt. PAZ Date (Signature) * ~ Z ~ * * * * * ~ * Z * * * ~ ~ Iten f Copy to PAZ Comas. Date ~~~ C -~~f ~ ~~ [I.,~.S ~; ~t~ ~ . JI )N i 41985 .~ , Eti Y~;. Cheezem Development Corporation PLEASE REPLY TO: LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL ro: ~d.2/E~ GENTLEMEN: ^ WE SEND YOU: DATE ~ ~ /~"'~y SUBJECT ~ ~ __. S, flay /.I''o/ ' 1J^~t°'i O ENCLOSED ^ WE NOW FOLLOW UP OUR LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL OF ^ SEPARATELY REGARDING QUANTITY DESCRIPTION PURPOSE S f3a ~ /~O/ / ~~(`/ 1~~~~ ve~~ .~vD ~ F L.~ '^ 1! .~iTL1 REMARKS: COPIES TO: ~~• ~' 7820 - 38th AVENUE NORTH ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA 33710 • TELEPHONE (813) 344-5481 • \ i \\\ ~, C ~~ - 1^ ~ / h ~-, `~ ,r Raymond F. Sabatella. Jr. ~; ~ l jj Chie(Operatrng Officer ' `> / LUf l:'l, • I yry~ ~ /L I ~ ~' 1; L ~'/ August 13, 1985 Mr. Rodney L. Propps Cheezem Development Corporation 7820 38th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33718 Dear Mr. Propps: We were recently advised that you and your interests had purchased a . majority interest in Cheezem Development Corporation and shas1al$511s One of the subsidiaries, American Design and Dezonedmfor~condominiums million mortgage with us on 4.3.acres of land, at Sand Rey. One of the important elements in our agreement was a re- quirement to maintain permits for the construction of 230 units as a basis for sustaining the land'TO ision inlour on final commitmentto our attention to that p g bring y our other mortgages, because it may not be a common requirement in y and because there is increasing talk about zoning changes in that area. In~the meantime, we wish you and your associates well in the assumption of the Cheezem projects in Pinellas County. I would also beopTePlans . to meet with you, or your local representative, to discuss y in the Tampa Bay area, your plans for the subiect parcel, and ho~o Centerbanc may be of assistance in those uhdertakings: I shall look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Ray nd F. abatella, Jr. Executive Vice President Ft' Chief Operating Ol~lcer RFS/pb 16 ~''~ 8' ~`'~ 47 CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS: 100 - 2nd Avenue S., P.O. Box 31000. St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Pinellas 813/896-6681 Hillsborough 813'251-0963 3 ~~ ~ 3~ ~~ 3y S~ a ~ ~~~ ~B°~p~ ~~ ~y~~o,~b ~~ /~~~ ~ ~~ 3 ~. ~ ~~ ,3 v , ~~o ~ ~-~ ~ o v f ~~.~ ~ 3.~ ~~ ~ ~~ (~ Z L ~" ~" ~~° o,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~° ~ti ~~ ~~ ~S~ gYz 3~ ~t~ ~ v ~s ~-~ ~ ,~ ~ X3.,5 /v~o, ~ `~ ~ `~ l ~`~ D ~ 7~~ ~3'S ~ ~~~° w~ ~W -:_ ~ ~ G~ ~c ~. ~~~ G~ ~~~~, ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~, `~ 3 z ~ c~ q 'E~~ J(DN ~ ~- (D /I ~k~ ~~ ~ ~ 3 • -~ ~~ ~ ~, o . ~~ ~v ~'i - ~ ~ k'.. ~. _ ~, ' ~ .. 1~' ~ i .,ti.'. r ~ ~~x, ~ ~ +. i - ~ ~ / r , • ~~ ~ ~ , ^. r 1 ,~ '.__/ Serv~n Metro ohtan Clearwater since 1914 , ~ p { NDAY Au ust 29 1982 Clearwater Florida Volume 69 Number 117 ¢ SU g ~ , 4 6 .. I h Too much ~: a ' ~ ,ry ' f . f E , Sand Key has turned , ~~~ ~: ~, ~ ~ from a barr~~r island g +"~ ~ '~ .~ ,~ ; ..»: ,.w~ boasting little more ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ , .,w ~ ~ , ~ , , ~ ~ ~ ~ than pines and sea oats v +l 0 ~ x r ' d ~~ ~~~~~ .. ~ . ~ ~ ~.,~ ~, ,w ~. ~ ~ into a burgeoning com• } $, ~, a ,. r.. mumty that ~s ex~ectod { ~; ;~ ~~~ ...tE ,'.~ ~:' ~., ~~ ;,ti~, ~ :'.~ ~~ j ,. ~~~ '.~~ M»xir,~ ~., . `s" rl ~ ,¢ {+'k.s ;,~;.: ,4R =h _ `-A ~ 3~' x ~ ~: sp` ~ ,may ~?w ~ S i , +' x " A . ~ e ~ a ~ ~ 9^- M,~ ~ ~, ,d ~ ~Ct~` ~t~~* b ,,. W-, ~ ~ to be home for 3,500 i ~i~ i R Fi' , Y fir?' s ` ~~.. ,~ ~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;; ~~~~~ ~ _ ,; ,,~, ~ ~ _e eo le b the end of „ r ~~ ~ , ..~ ~~~ p Y t ~~_ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i . , ,~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e dec de, he owth ~:, ~N~~ - ~ ~ g ~ '~~ ~ ~ ;. _ ~ ~ .. ~.: ~ ~ ~ ., _ ~ . ~ is creatong questions ~, ~ .. r w.a,w; ., .,,..~ . , . ; , ; ~. , r ,. ~ about overc!evelo ment ..~ ~: ~ _ , F , ~. ~. - ~ r ` ,:~ , .~~~ ~ - • - ; ~ ,~ . ~ and residents vulnera- ^r'~ ,, . ` b~ qty to hurricanes. See ~~ ,..: , Y~~,„, ,. - in r 1 story Met o, 0. - ~, r F - „ ~ ~ i ~ Sun Stitt photo by BRUCF HOSKlNO 6 ~. I , _ ; ~^r* _ _ ,, - ' 4 .. ` 1 j .. . / ,By SHANNON BRENNAN ' said, . Sun staff writer ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ' . ~ B the ea Y y r 2,000, planners expect 3,527 rescdents Unleashed too long, beach development has will call San Ke home, d y That means 4,004 to 5000 stacked o le 12' stories hi h, "Sto develo men " ~ ~ ' p g p p t, cars, not mcludm beach traffic Cot= s i g pe a d, In the the beac .dwellers cry, event: of a hur i r cane, all. Sand Ke residents would :~ But there is little left. t 1 ~ ? << a lave op, A few AuStrahan From Sun re orts - southwest Florida. althou it caused have to et to the mainland via t e B 1 ` gh a lot of g el eair beach ones .and a couple of sea oats are all that is left _~ ~ Causewa , CORAL G BLES--This hurricane season has fuss, ,Hebert said y - 'etween Sand Key and Indian Shores, een slow so far but f recasters warn t t the b o ha The second store of the 1982 season, B r 1 Almost 10000 eo le live on those slender sliv ~ ~ g ' p p ers heart of the season is ust ettm started.. fo mail Sat da EVaCUa fI J g ~ ur y m the Atlantic. Ucean off t e Old a pro Qm , , of land, ,"I reap don't think we can aw an conclu• Afri an oast Y Y c c "If ever body tries to get out of here at one time Belleau Beach Commissto er T m Cou sa'd de- ~_ << ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q l~ ~ sions yet, said Paul Hebert, ,.deputy director of laast week we ~hecked the records and found it ain t o~n to work ' ' " ,~ g g he said, 1 believe if we can velopment cannot be stoppe .and those. proposing it the National Hurr cane Center, The main ar o that one u of ewr three ears ~ p . ~ ~ R t r y y had not had a make our exit facilities ro er we canal ' f P p 1 get out ~n "are barkipg up the wrong tree, , the hurricane season be ins in the last ~~v k of m ~~ ~ << ~ _ ~, g ee a~or storm until ug, 18, Hebert said, So its . a reasonable amount f hm 1 Lust don t think that can be done, 1 don t think >> ' : „ , o e, , , Au ust and lasts through September, .not unusual to not ave had a ma or storm at this I m read to intr ~ y, oduce ~ a resolution for r anybody s going to be able to stop them, , T e season be an June 1 and ends Nov, 30, The int " econs g , ~ ~ ~ truction of certain its of count roads to kee So if develo meet cannot be sto ed Lou e said ~ ~ Y p ~ p pp p only hurricane recorded so far this season was .~.~arly hurrican 'and tro ical storms usuall from all ettin cau ht h " Y g , g g ere underwater, the problem to attack is traffic, Alberto on June 3, The storm. develo a in the develo , in the u an ,~ p p G d Carl bean and diebe~ore .Coupe said. Gulf Boulevard Belleai Bea ' We don t reap have a develo went bl ~ ~ r ch Cause- y ( ).pro em m Gulf of Mexico and s uttered out before eachm reachm shore, ~ t ma' r - .,, ~ „ , p ~,, g g to storms .the late-sea• wa and Belleau ~! y Beach Brid a must be Bellea~r Beach r se Cou a said, It s almost 95 ~ ~ ~ , ~ widened. ~ s Sure it will ~~' scent level d ~ ~ .cost money, he said, but if 50 families pe ape ,The prob em is Sand Key. , , ~ lose their hues in hurricanes,. its not worth 15 Coupe has done some research about Sand Key, ®A500-vehicle parking lot and,beach corn lax; + Two-stor townhouses with 170 uni ~ - ~_ ' , Y , , ~ cents, That 1.6-mile sari of land has an average width of • A shopping m~11 m planning stages b U., ,Steel ~ 14 coin late condom~n~ums 'a d> ee under Y, p ~ n Clearw to ~,~' a r City Mana er Anthan Shoem k 200. arils, Accor n to Cou a it also has; Cor ; ~ ~ x ,~ g Y a er said Y g , p ~ p ~ construction, ,.~ the city Is virtually powerless to sto evela meat on ~,-~r`A restaar~r~tand tennis courts ~ + A 390-room hotel coin Ieted d~ n~ ~ _ ~ >+ ~ p ~ p , p an ope , There s room fqr 12 more condominiums, Cau , ~ * Please see BEACH next e, i, ,, s \ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~'~ , ~ J~ \_ ~ ~~ ~~, ~1; r ~~ --' ~~ } ~, 4\ ~~ ~' . ~,' ~ ~, ~ . ~y~ .. s ,,: ~ . ~`. . ~F ~ C~ S {; A .~ ,z F ~ r ~ - x „ ,~ ~' ~~ ! ' t ~ m _ r ~'' ~€ t` l ~ ~ `l'! t/ rr~ i f 'a ~ '.. ~- j s. ~. ,: . ~ ~; ; :. ~ ~ a , ~, .., ~, & ~ ~ . y6 '~ ~1 t t . o. ~ , ; ~ ~. _ ~ ~ r. ., ~~ ~,. z : s t ~, . ~ ~ ~ ,- ,, e ,. x ..G, F,7 r ~ a q. y ~~~ ~ x ~- i Y ,. ,~ i y ~~ 't ~ r' ~ ~ jj t ~ ~~,yi , 1 ~ ' t _ ' t j` ~ ~ , a ~ ,: , j a' E/ f K ~ >. 9 . ~ ~ ~ ,, i ~ _ t E: ,t s ~ 1. ,~ ~ ~ , r ~ , . ~ ,., ~ ,, t ~`~' t ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~`PBGS d ~ s ~. s 1~, ~ ,~ 6 ~- ~. ., d ~ ;, m~ ~ ~ ~'~ si5~, .: ,~ ~ 4 y i ~' A r x ~ . 1 ~` , , ~ ~(I + d" J'~ ~ ~ ~ fir. ' , .: ~ k ~`'} e' y .:, ~. ~ ~~ ~ ~• ~~ t 3 ! Y . p ~, ~ ~ ~~ ," x _ r t ~ ~ ,, • !" ~ ~ ,~ f ,, t ~ ~ -~ a ~ i ~ l a T ~ I " ,, '~ w i -~ F y p'~. -' ~ * ~ ff ~ 4 =r ~' ~ :. ~ _ 4 # ~ ~ - G-5q ~~~'~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~~~ a ,, ti ~ , ~ ~ > ~ p ~ __~- ~ ,. ~ ~ ~ ! _ ' -_ ? a ~ - 4 i- 3 't_ - i ---- ~ ' + ~---- ,t ___ _ - ~, __.`. ~~ - ,,t ~-'~ r~ ; ,.~ .,f -' 5~~, is i ~: - ~ G.. ~,\ 1 t p ...: ~ ~ STATE OF ROROA aEPARTN~ENT 0~ NAT URAI RESOURCES ?~y~" t,, 1 '~~~t, PREPAAE~ BY _.};. ,.. ~ i~3„. .,l i ~~ e~ccK cAOH~ aNO e~oshess tic FI~~EIIAS CGII~dTI' '~` ~ ~~,~,:, R ~ ;.,~,~,' ~EGPRTrdCNT ov ' ~ ~~ ~+'~ ~+' t~ ~~ ~ ~ -' ~'~ COASTA~_ ANO OCEANOCgApIIIC EN,IN5ERiNO CGASTG,L CONSTRUCTIGN GONTRGL LINE uN~vEe~ilrov v~oA:~n s~A~_E ~~,z~~ f i~R 2.819BU p AUGUST i9'< 9NEET ~~f' OF ~'~ BUR:r~~U OF BE;P,~~r~cS ~, SHORES, SBIOS