The URL can be used to link to this page

SAND KEY 1-81 TO 10-81 SAND KEY LAND USE PLAN AMENDMEN, ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS, NOTICE HEARING, MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND FOR ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTSc~d~9 1-81 to 10-81 Sand Key Land Use Plan Amendment, Zoning Atlas Amendments, Notice Hearing, Motion for Contempt and for enforcement of Judgment Agenda No. ~ Meeting Date: 1-22-8T M~ M a ~~ ~ D U M T~ Tie City Com mission of~ the City of Clearwater Land Use Plan Amendment and Zoning Atlas Amendments for Portions SUBJECT: of Sand Key Identified on Attached Maps, E z of Sec. 19-29S-15E Multiple Apnlic n`-.~ vl RECOMMENDATION: Cite Commission receive this request and refer it to the proper departments. ^ And that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. BACKGROUND: The properties are located east and west of Gulf Boulevard, on Sand Key o The total acreage of the subject parcels .is 43.16 acres M.O.L. They are referenced separately as follows 1. Zoning Atlas amendment from CG to RM-28 - north of tennis courts, tiaest side of Gulf Blvd. (U.S. Steil) 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 Hig'r, Density Residential - south of Gallery Restaurant. (Clearwater Sand Key Ci ub No . 1 Condo ) 4. Zoning Atlas amendment from CG to RM-28 - west side of Gulf Blvd. adjacent to and south of Sand Kew Condo. South Beach Ii. (U.S. Steel) S. Zoning Atlas amendment from .CG to Rhi-28 - west side of Gulf Blvd. immediately west of the Harbour Condo. (Bellview Biltmore Cabanna Clubl~ 6. Zoning Atlas Amendment from CG to RM-16 - east of Gulf Blvd. adjacent. to and south of Sand Key Conde. , Bayside Gardens IL. (U.S. Steel) This application is the fifth of approximately- twent)r-four areas in the Cit~- to be considered. for review to insure cons istencv betweer_ zoning districts, the Land Use Plan, and existing or desired development characteristics. On January- 11, 1979, a Court Order was issued for Case No. 78-X765-7, 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 Kev owned by U. S. Steel Corporation. This decision was upheld upon appeal by 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. Recogni=ing that the Court found Ordinance \~o. 1749 in~~alid, the request :eel:s t +^ ,-°,-,^~~;>" ,.~,° ~,.~,;°,.+ rr^„°,.,-i°~ ~or.sistent with the Comprehensive Land ~ V ~ J ~ Use Plar. and existing development, subject to a determination bti- the Court that the City- is, within its legal prerogative to maize the proposed chan,es. I i Commission Disposition: ~oliow-up Action: Submitted by: Advertised: ^Affected Costs: '~'?, L~Attochments: Dote: Parties .Funding Source: Notified ^ Capital Improve- Drai:in~s'6 b l ) City Monoger Doper: of Meeting merit i3udget -applications `6 i Not Required QNot Required ^ Operating Budget ~ Other Originating Deportment: Date & Sequential Appropriation Code ~^=y,r-,.o : ~ -,;-.,;.- r _ .. .r , APPLICATION FOR C~~NGE IN ~ONI~G DATE 12/24/80 112 South Osceola Clearwater, FL ~~ \_~~ , R~c~sv~o ~; t ~, 19 81 LEG.'~T, DESCRIPTION OF PROPER'T'Y See Attached CITY Ci~~S' GLNR.aL LOCATION - hest side of Gulf Boulevard and i.~est of Sand hey Condominium Bayside Gardens III PRSEtiT TONING - CG ACR~aG~. x.73 DLSIR.ED BONING - Rr4-28 RE.~SON FOR R/i~UEST: ?'o reclassify- the .property to a coning district consisten ;vith the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and adioining existing and proposed development. / _ / ~~ ~' ~ i ~,~ , , - igr.a~ure) i is .. ... t ~ ?c x t ., tr. 3: .. +: !: * ~i t :k ~ t i * t :t t t _ t .. .. .. .. .. pi ;nom ~~°oar-,ent onl~• ;` J.~T~ R~C~l~~D P`= Case \d. .`~ ]f 1G t :F * :f ~ * ~: ~ ~ * * * ! ~ ~ t i• i; t * t * ~ :t :k t It t ~ .. T .. .. .. .. :~ .. C1~Lk'~ V__ZCC olai•~ , rrom the. Southeast corner of SECTION. 19, TOl9NSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST, the same being the north- east corner of SECTION 30, TOIVNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 .East, run North 89°04'07" tiV, 2819.b0 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 1909.80 feet, arc 57'_.13 feet, chord Ivorth 23°23'25" E, 569.9 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 2,'026'30" E, 303.94 feet to a. point of tangency on said centerline of State Road x694 ; thence along said centerline North 22°50'39" E, 2459.20 feet; Thence North 67°12' 17" tid, 50 feet to a point of Beginning on the northwesterly right of way line of State Road n694. Thence continue Ivorth 67°12' 17" h, 309.4 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 run North 22°50'39" E, 80.05 feet, along the northwesterly boundar- of said State Road ~69~; thence along said Northwesterly boundary of said StateyRoad X694 b~- a curve to the rig}l t, radius 2914.79 feet, arc 438.18 feet, chord North 27009'03"E, 437.77 feet ; thence run North 6 7 °12' i 7" 1~' , 29 3.70 feet , more or less to the mean high water line of the Gulf of Mexico; thence run southwesterl~~ along said :mean high water line to Point 'B"; thence. run South 67°12'17" E, 309.4 feet, more or less, to a Point of Beginning. ,_._ ; i 74 9 ~Cl _Q ~ ~ ~'i ~' / ~ m T ~, cJ M~8 a ,_8 °o . x~~Cx l:Mt N~! t ~ R~v~>zrL~) BAC YO ~ G PE;~ Cau ORDE2. 0 b J oRD 1904 / ORD .4_79 174 9 ~\ ~~ 4 70,/ rr ~, ~ ~w:-i - ~ ~ I ~ N ~-~ _ r ~ ,-. ,., . I I 1 I :-~ ' ` • O ~ v' 1 T G..~ne~;.app_icant Pr ooert~' '~"~o. ~;.c~ior. ) 9 -c;;~s;._, 2~ S ~an~~ ~~j - .ate?as i`a~c I- ~ ~-- -.J ~ l ~ .-_..~ ° rn:T:__~' ~ D'..:DS°?" ~ =i L'! __-, ciu~l, E ~L`Sir.°SS ~ `-.i~.3Jl~ u 8 8 ~ j I -s ~ -. ~ Z - ~ ~D Z ~~ O O 4 .. = 4. U ~ ~ - . _ ~ ~ G~ - - - ~ -1 W ~ Y ~ C7 C] - o' Q 7.74 r n~ - - -~ ~ R 16 - ~' - . ~ 1_.', .r : I I ~ i I o w ~ I z `?' I 3/ ~ M8 3 ,~ a I-I 0 -r I r z M ~ 9 ~ O_ /Oh'D. I ~~ I '~ ~ - ~65~ I F I U 1~ Ii ~ 4 ! ~_. I ~...`t - _ 5 •~ ~_ ................ 1... Ci==~ c~itr: r~~rt.e I APPLICATION rOP. C:-L~`iGE Iiv ZONING 112 S. Osceola Ave Clearwater; FL .33516 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERT: See attached • GENERAL LOCATION West of Gulf Boulevard and West of City Owned Property PRESENT ZONING CG ACREAGE . 1. s P~1.0 . L . iCITY CLr ~ DESIRD ZONING CTF-28 1Z.ASON FOR REQUEST: To. rezlect 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. ~~~ ~~ `i %- i~~r (Si mature) x * t ~ * t * * ~ * * * * ~ x x * * ~ x•* * * * x * ~ * * :~ * * ~ * x't P' annin~ Dena,-t~ezt only Dnl '~.`.l.~.T`l.:D tP~Z C25e i~0. lt°r; DAl:. ACIION RACG;1. Late 1''riC. * * * * * * 7! ~ * * * * * * * * * 7t * ~ JC 7t * * JC 7[ * * * x 7C * * 7C * 7t CIe':c' s 0=rice only Re~'c. Copy tc PAL G Date Advt. PvZ D to Corgi. Date DATL January 15, 1981 REC~fYE3 JAfV 1S t°81 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" West 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 North 31058'20" 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 - 30x.94 feet, chord bearing - North 27°26'30" East) to a point of tangency of said centerline; run thepce North 220.50'39" East along said centerline a distance of 1843.70 feet; run thence North 67012'17" West 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 SAi\jD KEY CONDOMINIUI~1 - SOUTH BEACH I, as recorded in Condominium Plat Book 14, Pages 83 through 89, public records of Pinellas County, Florida; run thence North 22050'39" East along said Northwesterl}- 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" jde.st a distance of 301. ^-. feet to a cross mark cut in the cap of a concrete seawall as a line marker; continue thence North 67009'15" West to~the mean high water Line of the Gulf of Tlexico to a point hereby designated for reference as point "a"; beginning again at the point of beginning, run ~iorth 22050'39" East along said Porthwesterly right-of-way line of State Road 694 a distance of 198.5 feet, run thence North 66°59'03" West 275.72 feet to a cross mark cut in the cap of said concrete seawall as a line marker; continue thence Nort:~ 66°59'03" jtiest to the mean high water line of the Gulf of Mexico; Run thence Southwesterly along said mean high water line to previously 'designated point."A". r~7Cr UMC IORD\ t904 0 ~4~ 17 ~~4- ~ ~~; 0 v .~ b t `( o°I ~' SAND KAY CONDC. WAYSIDE GAr~DFNS III !9- IG' . 'RM I~ ~.o 1 '- ~ ~" t W Z ~ I-9 :' ~~ Mb8' ~~ ~ o ~~-~~ U f 2.7 ~ .. ' w - ~ . . ~ ~ i ~ Y H ~ ~ I ~ c I Q c~ T~ am G~ 1 I I W Z~ L J' ' ~ 1(~'~ - J ~ ~} c1~ U ~ ~ z W i ~ , ~ cv O p V ~ I I ~- . ~ w O Q ~ . ( L ; Y p ltJ Fem ~' I Z CD r7 m I . _~~ Y ~ O ,.. - z U ~ ~ I p' .i p I ~ cn ~ Q ~ - Z C } c!3 O ~ ~ u, ~ ~ ~ UndivideG gal! - i i , in;eres! _ • ~ ~ U^tl~vitleL iiGlf .S ~ Ir,;eres: Owner;Appiicant City Initiated Pro~ert~~ ~~ ~ x°cue~ ~ _ralr: CG M B E 1, Portion r9 4 B -~ ~ `o CTF ~ g r ~ - _. -, - j 1G_. ~. i__~ Gl.l_ ~ ~- _ ... .J _ ~. _ - ~ i ~ ~o~_i~~ .7vGrc L17 ~:J i~ C_ l ~T SJ".~ ..~ yr l ~ Q'•rY"15f11 T 7_ ICGTl` 0 11 .1.~IGS "`~ _ J J ~ ' o I 1 I I a r. i _.._~ n -- -- U . u, . d fit,' 1~ ~ortl~sl~l~ ilr, c~ s. rl. seu ~-] ~ 0 i1. ~~ ao ~.. `- SI \L. J ~ 1.,~_ ~ 1._ `~,1 ...r ------- -~ /~ ~ ,, ~ -~--- , u~ ----- - - ~ C.II. 102 E ---- - -- Ei n t e r p r i s z I! d. _.- --- -----~-___ __ - _---1---- I 1 , ' ~/ I > O ; -- I 1 u. I I •i i g '- ~ ` ,r, ~f ~ I I Union St. a 1~ O O vi --1~., 1 a, ~~... :~ I ,y. ~ .u } -- --- - M.~In SI. ~' S.iE.588 I - ~a. ~ ~ Sunset I't--~-- -Nd.- _.-~-- --.~.___-- --- - , u _ _ - ~J ti -- - __ ° M r ~~r~ ~: - , ~, -- o ~, m y~ ! Ia ' - o rr~ wr eer wee wr 1 ~. ©p ~ ~ ' u -- _ u '' ~. _ _ _ __ _ -_~ - C~ Drew St. -- - x: -- --- Cleveland S t . - --- --- _t~Court St. -~ ---- GuIF-to-B~y Illvd: - - S.Ii.b11 ~~ :=~=.~_r -~ - - E IIru1J Ild. /-~ I r I r c~ .,1 ` 1 r I ~ i o n: ~ ,I i- .a a .: ~, tl l v,l. ~ ..~ -- ~~ } Q. ~ ------- ----- .~ G:a ~ - 1 "~ ~--- --.. - ------ ----_ ----- --- --- ---- ~ r~ ~~ M 1Mq.wr.r . fly ~~. ~ ~~r /I~11 //~ A~ )J ullr h111.F_ ~_ y /j T-- ---\ i i O ~ \ --- --I-- ~~ --- --'-- ~ ~,1) ~----f 1 / 1 \\\\ ~--- 1 - -- ----- - -- r. ~ V APB LIGATION TO Ai~~1END THE LAND USE PLAN DATE 12/24/80 NAi'~ OF PROPERTY OWNER(S) Clearwater Sand Key Club I Condo ADDRESS 1390 Gulf Boulevard PHONE REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY) City of Clearwater ADDRESS .112 South Osceola ~ PRONE 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 Zl~ through 32 of the public records of Pinellas County, Florida GENERAL LOCATION 1390 Gulf Boulevard ACREAGE PRESENT ZONING DISTRICT RM-28 REQUESTED ZONING DISTRICfi No Change Note: A separate application is required if the zoning district is proposed to be chanted. PRESENT CLEARWATER COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN CLASSIFICATION Commercial/Tourist Facilities REQUESTED CLEARWATER COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN 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 CO~~REHENSIVE LAiVD USE PLAN CLASSIFICATION IS THE REQUESTED LAND USE C.~TEGORY IN CONFORMANCE idiTH THE PI`dELLAS COUNTY LAND USE PLAiV CLASSIFICATION? YES VO X 41UST ~~' AbIEND~tENT TO THE PINELLAS COUNTY CO~fPREHE\'SIVE LA1VD USE PLa;i 3E APPROVED BY THE PINELLAS COUNTY PLAiVNING COUNCIL'. YES X VO Vote: 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 to or exceeds the acreage threshold for the intended use as established in Section I~% of the "Pinellas County Planning Council Rules Concernin; the Administration of t:~e Count.~-~aide Comprehe-~si~.e Land Use Plan" unless of;ler.~ise exCeoted Under SeCtl^!1 I1T ~~) . . _ `~~ Si;nature) Re~-iewed o;~: ~hi~i 'o i~?i CITY C'..r`'..°'~ ,~ . ~}~Q~OSEfl LAND ~S~ PLAN A1~TEN~IVI~NT Owner; aapllCant PTODer~`% iteCLi°s ~ ~T0111~pMME.2Cl4L/IOUR1sT FAClCITIES ~0 F71GH Dz~rs~TY ,~c5(DENrtAL Public rearing I~en tiumoer Planning and Bonin; 3oard C . ~.. romr,.issc -~:; o. ~, "~ec~ion ~ G~ Towrsnip 29s Range ~,jE .aria= Pace ,T- e - - --~ i ~ Jingle =3mil~' S DL''Ol°x Q ,'•iulti-gamily _Q 3usiness ~ Vaca;~~ • ivq .. ~~~ \+~ ~~-~ Curlew Rd. __-- ~ b S ~- ~' ~ ~~ _ NVrthsldc itr. ~: a - - ~'~. ~~, ' '" A . ~ o ~ ~ l ~_ ~ 1 S.R. S80 1.~ _ ~ 1 / ~ tl~ /tl • 1 ( Enterprise Rd, C.R_ 102 1 ~ O ' --- 1 ~ 1 (Vl -~ 1 IIIOf 1 O ~ 1 > t ~ o, ~ 1 ~ ~~ .11M t~lr ~ III/ Iwr ~Ar -~ IIA w ~ ~;.: ~~ p p 1j(_V\t\ ~^ 1 t' / ~ ~ t~_~:_y~ ~ .~ 1 a~" 1 Maln Se. b S.~t.SB9 1 ~. Sunset PtU _ Rd. _ f--- -- - N u ~ y ~ "~ 7 ~ en "` ' ~li ~ x --.~ -o ~ on > / u ~ +n ~ r.n ~ ~ II+M ~ 1 -. _ ~ r: d +r b ,fit -~ 0 ~ u . rl + u ~' ~~ ~ 0 . .-+ ------- +b 1~ ~ + Drew St. ~'' _ $' Cleveland Sl. - 1 -~ ~ Cnvrt 5t. _ GnlE-to_Day-Blvd:- __ S. R. 60 -_--~-- l I)r~d Itd. - -~ - - - SIY~. ~ ~ - ,~ ( T a t G 1 u V O N '; it ~ -s"_ u '~ fllvJ. '^ IIUr SC i-1' R.1. rn t '^ -~ -- -- D c l i c ~ l r R d. ----- ~--+ „~ t ' s r .1,.. a an.~.r- wa- twn +~.f ~i w~ .1 wl w~ 1 °--...-......._......~ t ~j. ~ uelr_ MIt_E 1111 Ilw Iw 1~ tl.r Irl i _ t ._-~--" ----~ - - C~ ; It ~ + 1 APPLICATION POR CIi.~vGE IN ZONING 112 South Osceola Clearwater, FL LEG.aI. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Begin at the SE Corner of Section 19, Township 29 South, Range 15 East, run N 89°04-07" ~V, 2,2,93.45 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" tiV, 328.36 feet to the mean high water Iine; 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" W, 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" tiV, 328.36 feet. Less right of way of Gulf Blvd.. ~. :,-: REC~IVL~ ,3~~ l0 1981 CITY CLERK GENERAL LOC.~TION - tiVest side of Gulf Boulevard adjacent to and South of Sand Key Condo South Beach II PRESctiT ZONI~iG - CG DESIRED ZONING - R'~1-28 ACRE aGE : 18.2 Z ? :ASON OR 'cP.i~UEST: T.o .reclassify the property to a zoning district consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and adjoining existing and proposed development. `v1 . i gnature) .. ~: ~ t t - - t x * t * z t .. * t * t. * * * .. t - * .. .. ~ - .. s - - - - ~ t C1 _-n i n C ]ems--"~e;7- °~ l v n.-l 1 .. ,`~.~Ci f`v ~.~ P 4 Case ~I 0 .. ~ l e ~ ' v.~T:. .-`tCl I0~ !ZeGOJT.i. vale -.vim.. t ., t t < < * e t ~ ~: * * t X t - * .. a ., t e * ~ * .. * * .. - * z - r. - - t .. Cle r:c' s Cc=_ce or.l~: Rec'c. Cop}~ to P~= DATE 12/24/80 ~.. ~ ... Al~~ r7 V ® ® ~ 1. r~rCw l~wt • NorL RE' VERTE To ~ G P E QRncf~. 0 ~ - BACK COC.12T I ti°r F--1 O I N ~° 2 WI ~ O Q ~ O W d Cn >- Q II m f ORO 1749 - 4.78 '...~. . ;1AC\ . 17 v^^ ~ 1 4.75 / ~_ r~ M28 ME9 2.2 - f'~OP~S>~D R~Z0~11~1G )~~Ze-!.1op~ican~ -_ -- ~-~~~--. :eauesc ~-om C G . ~o R i'`~- 2 8 - ?~a:l it ii:j GIiQ -o-~;,~~ ~o-_,~ V ~_~~ ;~ r+ L ~ r 1 ~. O J G ~. f CC~J l...l.~ r~~ ~i ~. `~ ,. Y Q =~ O I= i ~ 0 F- N Z Z ~ N O O . :1" O ~L _ORO- 1749;• ~ M88 4.7@~ .~ . 1 `,~ : ~ " ~ ~.~ ... .. .. ~. s ~_ .r .. ~ .~ _ r !~ s ~ ~ O J.. ~ ~ O ~~f.. _ . :' .~. ,~:~ ~ ._ ~_ '~ -' .. x '~ r . "~-- -.~'.,a ,~. - - ~ ~ wr J B ~ ~ ~ 7 .; ~~ 0 i ~ ~! ^ ~w e - .~ w - ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ _ ~ A ~ r ~~ ~ w"r u -~ wwr ~ _ w~ ry~ ~ ;r. s ~. ..mow r .~ E" r ~ ~ ~ ` .~ ~ ~ . ~~_r.. --+.i ~ ^s ORD 1749 ~ x.78 C ~ _~ ~ MEB ... s I s E w.r e Fw .. ~ o C ti _ o _ wn G ~ 1 IIw ~ww ~ ~ ~- -. -- e . .~ __ .,.; ~ ~ 3 s ~ ~ _ .~ _.~~~ I ~,~L11Lu'i' ( ~ - ~ > 4 (_ J I i ~~ l 7 ~1~~ ~ ~~~~~ APPLICATION FOR CHA:vGE IN .ZONING 112 South Osceola Ave. Clearwater, FL 33516 _~ RECEIY~~ ~~N 15 1981 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY CITY CLERi~: From the SE corner of•Section 19;~Township 29 • Sgo h ~a e 15 East $un N 89°04 07 4J, 2,pL~3:4 ~t~et, to a point on the Centerline of Gulf Boulevard; said point being the point of beginning; thence1N 31°58 20 E, 553.24 feet; thence N 89°04 07 W, 328.3b feet i~1.0.L., to the mean high water line; thence Southwesterly along said mean high water line to a point on the South line of said Section 19; thence S 89004'07" E along said South line to the P.O.B less the right of-way of Gulf Blvd. GENERAL LOCATION ~6Vest Side pf Gulf Boulevard Immediately jVest of the Harbour Condominium PRESENT ZONING CG ACREAGE: 4.39 DESIRED ZONING RD•I-28 REASON FOR REQUEST: To. reclassify the property to. a~zoning district consistent with the COmDrehensive Land Use Plan and adjoining existing and proposed development. ~., (Signature) * x * t t * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * t * * * ~ * * * * t * t * * * * t Planning Department only DATE RECEIVED P$Z Case No. Item ~ ~ DATE ACTION Recom. Date Fwd. * * * * * x * ~ * * * * * * * * ~ * ~ * * * * * * * * * * x ~ Clerk's Office only Recd. Copy to P6Z Date Advt. PAZ Date Corun. Date ~, . ~' DATE 12/24/80 •:i ~ M68 2-I ~C 41 / ~S L i 17•' ~~.0 P OS~~ #2 EZO NI1~1 G Owner/applicant ~ - Property Request from to RM- 2 ~ . uvxll. ~7CGr.Lnp It ic.•iaasilo 411 C1 _ Clt~. em ~umoer Zoning Board ' Commission o- ~'° _- Section ~ 9 Township 295 Range I SE- atia~ Paec ~_~ _! * Syngle .amil~~ A Duplex Q Aiulti-Lamily 6 Business ~ Vacant t~ _ Curlew RJ. _____~, .Y `~ b t ` ~- ~~ • j i --~ -- ~orthsf Jc ih . Zti ', ~. '^~ ~ _, 1 N 1 Q ~ 1 ,) ~^ 1 S.R. 580 tom. 1 I - - / tttttr ~ w , 1 1 __ Fnterprlse Rd. C.It_ 102 1 ~1J _ I _- ~ /1 -~ ~ l O 1 ... i ~~JJ 1 1 ) ~Q o. 1 I Union St. N 1 t~l/ t~ tt~.tttt~t t>• ~ ~ tt~ ~ ~. 1~ ~ O ~ u, ~ „ 1 :.~~' 1 Flaln St. b S. R.SBB ( ~. /_ Sunset ht'.1 - RJ. __~i--- 1 c, ~. - , ~ > 0 r ~ .p °° ~ ~~/ ~ , ~ ~ O ._~ ~ _ V O N, 'i ~ ~ ~ t~1 ' A~ MA p~f rIA~ ~A • 1 r: J1 to b ryl -~ Q / ~. / ~ ~ 1 tt ` / - fS -_/'~ _ ~ ~ / ~/ :~ H a ~ ~ .~: 4 - o J ., ------ t~. ... :. drew St. '~ __ __ _ _ _ ~ __ _~ _ ClevelanJ St. -1 Court St. _ Gulf=to_Day Dlvd.- _ _-~` 1 _.. rd Itd . ~J) 1 ~ ` 1 c 1 o a d I ~ 1 ~ a ~ •-` .r. w t a ., l____~ t ~ tlursery RJ. __ _ n _____ ~_ ~ t ~ -- -- - -- ~_ ,,, t Bcllenir Rd. wr ttt~ s. t~ ww.tttr~.tea- liar ~~~ ~ ttt.r tt~ t'°--.•°-.. •_.._._ _.-1 t ~"' y u/1E MIl_F -i C-~~ ( tt ~ s ^~ ~ ~ _. _ APPLICATION FOR CHANCE IN ZONING 112 South Osceola Ave. DATE . 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" 4V, 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 89004 07 E, 293.05 feet to the ..mean hi~h ~rat~r line; return to P.O.B.; thence N 31 58 20 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 Se67a09~21~eE,~ 2505003feet~to4the8meanthighence 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. 12/24/80 RECEIYE~ J~~t 16 1981 ~i'I'Y CI.ERlC GENERAL LOCATION East of Gulf Boulevard Adjacent to and South of Sand Key Condo, Bayside Gardens II PRESENT ZONING CG DESIRED ZONING Rini-16 ACREAGE: 11.94 R°:A50N FOR REQUEST: To reclassify the property to a zoning district consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and adjoining existing and proposed development. ignature) * ~ * t * * * * * * * * ~ * t ~ * * * * * ~ * * * ~ * * * * t * t * * *'* x Planning Department only DATE RECLINED PAZ Case No. Item ~ ~~ DATE ACTION Recom. Date Fwd. ~ * * * * * * * * * ~ :e * * * ~ * * * ~ * * * * * * * * ~ * ~ * * * * * * t Clerk's Office only Recd. Copy to PAZ Date Advt. P1Z Date Conm. Date ~; w Q O O ~~ O cn U cn o cn ~ Z Z ~ O W ~ V p • ~ oRO r Q 1749 W ~ M88 4.78 , Y I W Z Q N ~ Q o ~ ~ m " ~'~ ~ 1~ ~' ~o a '111111 i 1 1111 :_ - ~.: r",. 1749 478 '` C ~.~:. ~ ,z' . ' • ~ • '~ m .~ _ .~ _ ~ ~. J ~.'.. C7 ~ ` • _ ~ ^~; - - NOTE - ,I ~ -~ . IZCVER X17 ~ACI< o .. '~O C C~ E!Z C O U 2 T° _ 'r u . ~ DtZD~IZ.. ~ _~ c ~. r~ftr llrt Tr _ ORD C r R'1 Ci\ 1749 ~ ` X749 } 4.78 _~ '~ g.~ _~ ~' ~ s MEB ~~ a 1 0 ` " ` ~ ~ ~, I ~. ..n~ /_ 0 v a~ / p '_ J Q CU ~ H M>r9 2-2 • P~OPOScD Owner/Applicant Request from G G t~ R1~t- !6 Public Hearing Item Number REZONING Planning and Zoning Board Cite Commission °®~ Section. ~ 9 To•wnship'~9 S Range (~~ A.tlas Paco ,T- > ~ - i • ''° _ 1 M>':E 2-: / L7 . ; D ~ r ;: a o ~ / 1 ~ r 1 1 S.R. SBV w __ _ / t~ f / w ~ ~ , t F,nterprise Rd, C.R. IOZ 1 ~ J I ' 1 - O 1 1 1 ~ I 1 ~ o, 1 . 1 1r •'' 1 Union St. N I -- 111?-~Jt ~, I N j.. 1~._.1 / •/ 1 rn / Flaln St. b S.R.SBB ~ ~. / Sunset Pt'.~ - RJ. _ ~- -- ~ c~ ' ~ a ~ ~ ~ / r pie ~f L i'-`_____ . Cut_le~+ Rd • .-' ~t+... ^ is ~_~' ~, ~ .Y ro a ~~ L' i) _._ Vorthstrlc itr. ti~ 'b , _- - ~. SIY~. tr r1 1~1 ~ °e .r, / ~ ---- yr v ~~, / '- ~r o~~ pr, y / J rn ,p ti b tl -~. 0 ~ V .~ .-1 N ~ ~ r.p. 1 v Ij Drees St. ~~ _ ~' ClevelanJ St. -- -1 ~ - I S.n.6Q 1 Covrt St. ~ Grllf-to-nay 01vd. _ -1 - --~ -- ---- ----- ._-- 1 Ihul:I Rd. ( u 1 u O N. 1° / -!_- _.c___ _ r. yes N ,. rl ~ ~ s ~, AIvJ. , ._r t. i Q -1 V l~J ru o , ~ ,-, - :r: ~ ~ Iles r s e r V Rd .--- ---- -`rn ---- ----- ~ .~ 1 Y~ ... ' , wr w w.r•. wry ~ w~:~. ~. >r. w) ~i w.n w.~ wr. r~ f ..-... ~.......... -.:1 t ~}j, J u11F MIL-F r ~/ ~ - - ' - -1 -- -''-. V 1 t, a 1 , `~ ~. .~ ~/ - ) - t._. v'. Irk ^w'1 A rr liw Jar_uary 23, 1981 Bennie F. Thompson, Esq. Richards, Iodine, Gilkey, Bite, Meyer & Thompson, P. A. Riche rd a Building 1253 Park Street Clearwater, I~'lorida 33516 Re: United States Steel Corporation -Application for Building F'erazit Sand Ivey Dear Dennis: `t'his is in respcnse to your letter of 3anuary 12 by vahich you requested t?~st the City process the application for a building permit sub~ritted by U. S. Steel far a canaamir_ium on Sand! l:ey identified as Soutrr Beach 148E3. ~'ou vain reca.il that upon receipt of this application on or about li~lay 27. lgc~f}, ttie City notified you and ~f r. Frank Felix of certain rs.on-conforming as-gecta of t.'. S. Steers proposal. wince that time, officials of L7. S. Steel and of the City, including ourselves, have met on numerous occasions to attc;ript to resolve our differences not only as to South Beach 148Q, but as to your client's proposed developmerst of much of ite holdings on Sand Key. As your letter states, it naEV appear. s l:Y~tat these atteanpts at settling our differences reg~-riling the allov~able developrs-~ent of Sand Key have not proven successful. 1 our request for processing the application mist be denied because the application is deficient .in the following respects: 1. Fps to the Community Impact Statement: '1"he following information is required tc be subrzitted under. Section 34.01 of the Zoning Qrdinance and is not included in t'~e CIS. a. Section 34.01(3}(a} -Legal lvescriptian -Current land assessment and existing and proposed covenants are not identified. b. Section 34.01{3}(g} - T`ranaportation - I~3o information is provided pertaining to the number of required parking spaces, the number to be provided, the parking surface. parking lot landscaping, or pedestrian and vehicular circulation with. and adjacent to the developrx;ent. ~'~% ~~! Dennis P. Thompson, Re: U. S. Steel - Appl. January 23, 1981 Page 2 E eq. Bldg. Permit-Sand Key c. Section 34. Ol (3)(k) - ~'~rchitectu:re -Building height i s not identified. d. Section ?~4.O1(3}(0) -Financial - Poat-construction economic impact is not included. 2. The following information is required to appear on the Site Plan and does not: (a) Legal description; (b} I3imensioas of tract; (c} building height; (d) Floor area; (e) Ncxm`cer of dwelling units; and (f} Existing zoning district. Until thie information. is provided the application cannot be processed, U. S. Steel twill be permitted to e~xpplement its application to provide the necessary data and will not be rer~szired to file a new application, if that is your client's deeire. I must point out, ho~~vever, that there are certain non-conformities which appear orx the fact of the application even in its preeent, incorripiete state. It too uld appear tra.t the application conflicts with current zoning as to building height; net denaity;.and r~raterfront 8et`oack requirements. Any departure from Code for v.+i?ich a variance is appropriate must be identified and an application for variance must be filed prior to consideration of the project. Cif course, an}- departure from Code for which a variance cannot be obtained would neee ssitate denial of the application. fn commenting upon the obvious departures frown Code, I wish to emphasize that I am merely trying to assist your client in assessing his applicztion. `t'his is not to say there may not he ether non-conformities is the application, but the above are the only r_on-conformities of which tie City is aware at this time. However, City officials respaasible for reviewing the application in terms of code compliance (except for t4~e Planning D'irector's exaanination of compliance with the zoning code} have not undertaken their review, pending submission byr your client of a completed application. I?ennis P. Thompson, Esq. Re: U. S. Steel-Appl. Bldg, Permit-Sand Key 3anuary 23, 1881 Page 3 Throughout the negotiations, the City has acted in good faith to attempt to resolve our differences, w'r,iie at the same time putting you and your client on notice that the City does not believe your client's holdings on Sand Key are appropriately zoned. You have been notified on several occasions that the City has been contemplating rezoning the property. Accordingly, the City Manager notified Mr. Felix of his intention to present to the City Com- zxiission aspecific proposal to rezone portions of Sand Key. At last night's Commission xx:eeting, the City Commission accepted th.e proposed changes for receipt and referral and directed this office to seek a declaratory judgment to determine whether the City has the power to enact the proposed changes to its zoning code. I am hopeful that a declaratory judgment action will clarify the issues we presently disagree about and enable the City and U. S. Steel to proceed v~~ith a clearer understanding of our respective rights, powers and duties. I hope you share my view that an action for declaratory judgment may be the best vehicle for resolving our differences. Before closing, ? rr~ust take issue with a couple of statements in your letter of 3anuary I2th. The City most certainly does not agree that the decision in t3. S. Steel Corp. v. the City of Clearwater, Circuit Court Dumber 7&-4765-7, authorizes U. S. Steel to proceed witt-, development not in conformity wifiz E'G zoning. Secondly, we cannot accept your assertion that U. S. Steel will be unable to proceed with developPr,ent or to market condo units if the application fer a permit for South Beach 1480 is rejected. Surely, U. S. Steel has the resources to design and build structures conforming to City Codes. In sum., the City is prepared to process your client's application for a building permit as soon as a complete application is submitted. I look forward to presenting our respective positions to the court a:sd suggest that the judicial and legi.siative processES may be the best forums in which to resolve our differences. Sincerely yours, Frank X: Kowalski Chief Assistant City Attorney FXK:f s IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CIRCUIT CIVIL N0. 78-4765-7 UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF CLEARWATER, Defendant. ~ntirr of ~~ipttrin~ JaN ~,~ 1y81 ~CI~1! ,A4TO1td~l~~ TO: Frank X. Kowalski, Esquire City Attorney . City of Clearwater ~" 112 S. Osceola Clearwater, Florida Please take notice that on the 3rd day of February , A.D. 19 81 , at 8 : 0 0 A gl.~ or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, the undersigned .will. bring on to be heard the Plaintiff ' s Motion for Contempt and for Enforcement of Judgment before the Honorable Harry W. Fogle ,one of the Judges of the above Court, at Izis Chambers in the Court House in Clearwater Pinellas County, Florida. Please govern yourself accordingly. ~3tttriz ttli~ 23rd ~tt~ January _13$1.__ Law Offices of RICHARDS, NODINE, GILKEI', FITE, MEYER & THOMPSON, P.A. ~~--- Dennis P. Thompson Attorney for Plaintiff 1253 Park Street Clearwater, Florida 33516 813/443-3281 ha I HEREBY' CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing ~pt~CQ Df ~~Pttrut3 was ~~r~~ /delivered to the above-named addressee on the aforementioned date. -~ c . B1' -J~- Dennis P. Thompson Attorney for Plaintiff 1 ~~R~1 Il~u _ \1)I I( 1: (l}~ 111~.4H1\(: rurri_r.Nx .- ." ,,, ~ .~ . -.. ~. .. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CIRCUIT CIVIL NO. 78-4765-7 + ~' ~' UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) CITY OF CLEARWATER, ) Defendant. ) _. MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND FOR ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT ~~~,~~ ~.) ~~r,i Plaintiff, UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, moves for an order finding Defendant, CITY OF CLEARWATER, in contempt of this court for failing to comply with this court's order of summary judgment dated January 11, 1979,f`ar enforcement of said order and for such other relief as shall be necessary to compen- sate Plaintiff for Defendant's failure to comply with said order; and for grounds Plaintiff shows: 1. The order of January 11, 1979, was affirmed by the Second District Court of Appeal and has become final. 2. The order of summary judgment states in part as follows in the part entitled "Conclusions and Rulings": A. "ON CONTRACT ISSUES ... In consideration of the fore- going it is the finding of the Court thaf. the City of Clearwater is bound to permit development of the lands owned by plaintiff on Sand Key in accordance with the requirements of that zoning classified as "B" business as it was provided for at the time of the annexation contract in 1961." B. "EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL ... It is the finding of the LAW OPPICEG OP '~ RICMARDS. NODIME. II GILKEY. FITE. II EYER ~ THOMPSON. P. A. it I CL6ARWAT6R. /l.O RIDA Court under the authority of [citations omitted] that the City of Clearwater is estopped to enforce the 1977 rezoning ordinance as against plaintiff and that plaintiff is entitled to develop the property in accordance with the "B" buS1nFSS zoning as it existed in 1961 under the ordinances of the City of Clearwater." -1- 3. The order of summary judgment directed as follows: "(a) That the City of Clearwater is permanently enjoined from enforcing the zoning provision of Ordinance No. 1749 adopted Apri1~6, 1978, as the same applies to plaintiff's land situated on Sand Key, City of Clearwater, Florida. (b) That the City of Clearwater shall permit plaintiff and its successors in title to develop the land now owned by plaintiff on Sand Key in accordance with the zoning ordinances of the City of Clearwater as they existed prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 17.49, supra. (c) The City shall in compliance herewith issue all necessary permits for construction on and development of :plain- tiff's land on Sand Key upon plaintiff complying with the appropriate zoning, building, and development requirements as required by the ordinances of the City of Clearwater prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 1749 supra." 4. The Defendant, City of Clearwater, has failed to comply with the order of this court as follows: A. On May 27, 1980, Plaintiff submitted an application for a building permit for South Beach 1480, a proposed condominium structure on its land on Sand Key, which consisted, among other things, of plans for a 13-story (12 living levels), 143 unit building. B. Subsequent to the filing of the application for building permit, Defendant informally advised Plaintiff that it could not issue such permit because the application (i) violated the height limitations under Defendant's R-M28 zoning, (ii) violated the density limitations under Defendant's R-M28 zoning, and (iii) violated the density limitations under the Pinellas County Land Use Plan. C. Subsequently, between approximately July, 1980, ~ww orrlces or RICHARDS. NODINE. GILKEY. FIT E. ER Q TNOMPSOH. P. A. AwWATt w, ra.owlow and late December, 1980, representatives of Plaintiff and Defendant intermittently met to discuss and negotiate their differences with a view toward determining a development plan for most of Plaintiff's land on Sand Key and obtaining approval of Plaintiff°s pending application. - 2- D. Such negotiations for settlement broke down and Defendant was requested by Plaintiff to process its pending application. E. As of the date hereof Plaintiff has received no response to its request. 5. Since filing its application Plaintiff has been advised on more than one occasion by Defendant`s Chief Assistant City Attorney that Defendant intends to rezone Sand Key. 6. Defendant, through its City Commission on January 22, 1981, authorized its City Attorney to institute a suit against Plaintiff concerning the zoning on Sand Key. 7. Any refusal to process Plaintiff's building permit because of proposed rezoning action or litigation over zoning on Sand Key will create additional delays and cause damages for Plaintiff. 8. "B" business zoning as it existed in the code of ordinances of the City of Clearwater in 1961 authorized residentia structures of the height of Plaintiff's proposed building; and said zoning classification contained no limitations on density. 9. Plaintiff previously has developed, constructed and marketed three high-rise condominiums on the Gulf side of Sand Key and its intention has been to continue its development, construction and marketing business on its remaining Sand Key lands. 10. The failure of the City to act on its building permit has effectively prohibited and frustrated Plaintiff from continuing its busz~.es.s activities on Sand Key, other than closing out sales on its previously constructed buildings; specifically, Plaintiff has been prohibited from entering into construction contracts, thus determining and holding down its costs and expenses, and from marketing condominium units. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this court enter its Lww ov/lce• oI. RICHARDS. NODINE. GILKEY. FIT E. YER $ THOMPSON. -. A. 'LGARWATQR, ILO RIDA order finding Defendant in contempt, ordering Defendant to process Plaintiff's building permit in accordance with "B" business zoning as required by this court's order of January 11, -3- 1979, restraining defendant from entering any lawsuits against P1aiaztiff concerning the zoning on Sand Key and for such other relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled under said order, including damages and costs. ~~ ~ ~ / DENNI S P . THO~iPSON for RICHARDS, NODINE, GILICEY, FITE, MEYER & THOriPSON, P . A . 1253 Park Street Clearwater, Florida 33516 813/443-3281 Attorneys for Plaintiff STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PINELLAS BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared F. E. FELIX,~JR., General Manager - Florida Operations, USS Realty Development Division, United States Steel Corporation, who, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he has read the foregoing Motion for Contempt and Enforcement of Judgment and the statements of fact set forth therein are true to the best of his knowledge and belief. / "J' ~~ f . F. E. Felix, Jr.-' ~ Subscribed and sworn to before me. iS 23rd day of January, 1981. .~ } f1 ' ' . f ,~n-~.Zj l ,Y Not ry P - is . ,~ M~-Commission Expires: •. ~datary Pnbhc, St+te of Sorida al large hiy Cgrnmission Expires lady 2, 1483 eo°~ b Ams+~caa Fln 6 ~+r compal, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Contempt and Enforcement of Judgment has been hand delivered this 23rd day of January, 1981, to Frank X. Kowalski, City Attorney, City of Clearwater, 112 S. Osceola, Clearwater, Florida. r--, Dennis P. Thcmpson Lww orrlc~>. or RICHAROS. NODINE. GILKEY. FITE. AEYER & THOMPSON. P. A- CLCARWAT6R, rLORIDA -4- ~~ .~ i IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS BOUNTY, FLORIDA CASE 7 8- 4 7 6 5- 7 CIVIL UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION P ainti ~ vs. CITY OF CLEARWATER De en t SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO: Mr. David Healey, Planning Director City of Clearwater, 112 S. Osceola YOU ARE CON1c'1ANDED to appear before the Honorable Harry W. Fogle one of the Judges of our said Court, at Pinellas County Courthouse, Clearwater Florida, on February 3, 1981 at 8:00 A.M. to testify in the above styled cause and to have with you at said time and place the following: NONE If you fail to appear, you may be in contempt of Court. You are subpoenaed to appear by the following attorneys and unless excused from this subpoena. by th es e attorneys or the Comet, you shall respond to this subpoena as directed. WITNESS, KAR1~1 F. De BLAKEP., as Clerk of the Circuit Comet, and the seal of said Court, at the Cot~thouse at Clearwater, Florida. February 2, .1981 Date (SEAL) ~ F. De BEAKER, of the Circuit, Court Attorney or P ainti I~ RICHARDS, f~ODIfdE, GlLKEY, F'ITE, l~'53 R~~2i~ STREET CLEA~WATER, FLORIDA 33516 M. , CT CIV 24 (Revised O1-06-81) ^ IB ~/ . ~~~ ~o~~s ~'~ 8~~ ~C?~ r ~ /,L,~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ -~ - ,~~t',o w. T',,~~ uf:~~~y~F1 APR =~ I98I 'y' 8' ~1 ~'I~TVNIN~ '~~PA;R'~MEN~x; ~ y' ~ J. ~E~~. T fJ ~,S !",CAP/''!/T ,~'~~. ~~`~ ®~t/ ~.®/~i~/~"~ .,~i/ .~"FF,~"~'T ~T ~.~-~,~" ©~' s9ii~~/,~',t'~9TlD/1/ GAF ~;g.v,o ~~`~ . ©~,U/iY/9 iY~~" ~ ~ ? C'.C,E.q ,rPGV/ITF~P ~o ti~tiG ~FD/r~//L??~'~!`~lcDsv ~s,E'D ~ ~%/E'~'~ ~E /9~3 vc~ /~,~'~,E~C°,C-"/~/C,~ 1, ~ /QT`S ~ie ~D~'f'//f~i/C,E° G~Tr~! ~~iG~T YF~~P/~P,ET . ~©a,~ l/~i T s l`~I~~~'/~t:'G, ~~-~~~~c~-~ ~2d~ SC,D 1D / ~ b ~r ~~'RN1/7T'~•~ /sa Io,~, d ISd ~ ~~,,~ aoz ~i y >~~3 ~ / ~/~9~N f ,~oN 1 ~ ~ 9~ ~ ~~~~ ~ s 1 or~~ 20 x G ~` 7 C O P Y IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA Circuit Civil No.. CITY OF CLEARWATER, a ) municipal corporation, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, ) Defendant. ) CnMPI AINT Plaintiff, CITY OF CLEAR.WATER,. a municipal corporation, by and through its undersigned attorney, sues the Defendant, UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORA- TION, and complains as follows: COUNT I I. This is a suit in equity for declaratory judgment and relief pursuant to Chapter 86, Florida Statutes. 2. Plaintiff, City of Clearwater, is a municipal corporation located in Pinellas County, Florida, and is duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. 3. Defendant, United States Steel Corporation, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and qualified to do business in the State of Florida. 4. Defendant is the owner in fee simple of certain parcels of real property located on Sand Key, within the incorporated limits of the City of Clearwater, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. 5. Mr. Ed C. Wright, from whom Defendant acquired title to the properties which are the subject of this litigation was in need of obtaining municipal services such as sewer, water, and roads as a necessary condition precedent to the develop- ment of Sand Key. 6. Prior to development, Sand Key was inaccessible from Clearwater Beach, being separated by that body of water commonly known as Clearwater Pass. -- , L. , C O P 'Y 7. To acquire municipal services, and to provide for construction. of. a bridge . .~ to provide access to Sand Key, Mr. Wright entered into a series of negotiations with representatives of the City of Clearwater. These negotiations culminated in the annexation of Sand Key into the corporate limits of the City of Clearwater in 1963. 8. Among the correspondence between Mr. Ed C. Wright and representatives of the City of Clearwater was a bond for annexation dated December 4, 1961 by which the City promised to zone Mr. Wright's property on Sand Key as "B" (Business) at the time of annexation. A copy of this bond is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and made a part hereof. 9. On or about October 8,.1969, United States Steel Corporation purchased large portions of undeveloped land on Sand Key from the Ed C. ~Iright Estate, including the parcels which are_the subject of .this action as described in Exhibit ~~A~~. 10. On or about February 21, 1972, the City Commission of the City of Clearwwater amended the zoning code of the City of Clearwater by adopting Ordinance No. 1350, attached hereto as Exhibit "C", which abolished the classifica- tion of "B" (Business) from the City Code, and rezoned the property throughout the City which had been zoned "B" (Business) to CG, which permitted commercial development and residential development to a maximum of 34 units per acre. At that time, this was the least restrictive zoning category. I I. On or about February 21, 1972 the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 1350, attached hereto as Exhibit "C". This ordinance applied to all waterfront property in the City, including but not limited to Defendant's on Sand Key, and was designed to assure a waterfront vista (view) for-all citizens of Clearwater. 12. On or about November 13, 1973, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 1481, attached hereto as Exhibit "D". This ordinance created an Aquatic Lands (AL) zone which substantially reduced development rights in wetlands. Prompted by environmental concerns, the City Commission adopted ordinances of City-wide application to preserve the estuary system, beaches, and water quality through the zoning power. Ordinance No. 1561, attached hereto as Exhibit "E", zoned portions of Defendant's property "AL". 13. On or about March 17, 1975, the City Commission of the- City of Clearwater amended the zoning code of the City of Clearwater by adopting -2- C O P Y Ordinance. No. ISS6, attached hereto as Exhibit."F", which reduced the maximum number of residential units in the most permissive residential category, and also in ~ the CG classification, from 34 to 28 units per acre. This likewise applied City- wide- to al I property which had been zoned CG or RM-34. 14. Defendant was properly and duly notified of each of the aforementioned re-zonings. Defendant never objected to the adoption of any of these ordinances, and has never challenged their validity or applicability. 15. Defendant acknow I edged the app I i cab i I i ty of each of these zoning amendments to its holdings on Sand Key. Specifically, on numerous occasions Defendant submited applications for building permits, a Community Impact State- ment, and other formal documents. On each occasion, without exception, Defendant stated the zoning classifications applicable to its property as consistent with the most recent zoning amendment adopted by the City Commission. 16. Since "B" (Business) was abolished from the City Code, neither Mr. Ed C. Wright, the- Defendant, or any other person claimed that the provisions of "B" (Bus- iness) still applied to any property within the City of Clearwater, until January I I, 1979. 17. On or about April 6, 1978, the City adopted Ordinance No. 1749 which purported to rezone certain property on Sand Key owned by Defendant. 18. Defendant filed suit to enjoin the application of Ordinance No. 1749 to its property on Sand Key, alleging among other things, that the City was equitably estopped from rezoning Defendant's property, and also that the bond for annexation between the City and Mr. Wright, attached hereto as Exhibit "B" constitutes a contract which prohibits the City from rezoning the property. 19. On January II, 1979, the Circuit Court issued a Final Judgment, attached hereto as Exhibit "G", which enjoined the City from applying Ordinance No. (749 to the property held by United States Steel on Sand Key. There were two stated bases for the entry of the final judgment. The first basis was the court's determination that the City was equitably estaopped from applying Ordinance No. 1749 to U. S. Steel's property, as a result of certain conversations and correspondence that transpired between City staff persons and employees of Defendant. According to the record upon which the final judgment was rendered these conversations and correspondences occurred between March, 1970 and June, 1976. The second stated basis for the court's decision was the finding of the court -3- C O P Y that the City is prohibited from rezoning Defendant's property as a consequence of a contract for annexation resulting from the bond attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 20. As a consequence of the final judgment referred to above, all the Defendant's property on Sand Key became subject to the zoning restrictions which were imposed by the old "B" (Business) zoning category as it existed in (961.. That category, long since abolished, permitted almost any type of industrial or commer- cial use, as well as residential development virtually withou# restrictions on density, height, or .setback. 21. Sand Key is a narrow, environmentally fragile body of land lying between Clearwater Bay and the Gulf. of Mexico. 22. The only road on Sand Key is Gulf Boulevard, a heavily trafficked two- lane, North-South thoroughfare.. Bounded on the North by a toll bridge, Sand Key is often congested by traffic far too heavy for the road to bear. 23. Sand Key is an area designated by the federal government as a flood hazard area.. Due to severely limited access to the mainland, Sand Key residents will not be able to evacuate safely in the event of a hurricane or other natural disaster unless the City Commission is authorized to enact zoning ordinances to restrict growth on Sand Key. In 1961, the extremely dense development was as unforseeable as is a hurricane today destroying the island; and these changing circumstances must be considered in determining what land use restrictions should be imposed as part of the police power.. 24. Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes, specifically Section 163.3194(1), Florida Statutes, requires that zoning be used as a means of implementing a comprehensive plan; that both the plan and zoning on the land be consistent with each other; and that such zoning is required in furtherance of the implementation of such plan and in order that the plan and zoning are consistent. 25. On April 16, 1981, the City Commission directed City staff to prepare the appropriate documents, including an ordinance, to rezone certain properties on Sand Key owned by Defendant. The City proposes to rezone two tracts to RM-28 (which is the most permissive residential zoning classification); one tract to RM-16 (medium-density); one tract to CG (the most permissive category in the City's zoning code); and all land lying seaward of the mean high water mark to AL (Aquatic Lands). All these parcels are presently governed by the old "B" (Business) classification. The legal descriptions of the tracts involved are attached hereto as -4- o . ~. C O P Y Exhibit "A". The permitted uses, and restrictions, in the City's zoning categories of CG, RM-28, RM-16, and AL are attached hereto as a composit Exhibit "H". 26. The classifications to which the properties would be rezoned are consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan adopted by the City of Clearwater City Commission on November I, 1979, as mandated by F.S. Chapter 163, and with the existing Comprehensive Land Use Plan adopted by the Pinellas Planning Council. 27. Defendant purchased the subject properties from The Wright Estate, along with certain other parcels on Sand Key, claiming reliance upon existing zoning and the bond for annexation. 28. (n 1972 and 1973 Defendant sold certain tracts of land on Sand Key to the City of Clearwater and the County of Pinellas for public recreational use. Defendant claims that as an inducement to the sale, representatives of the City of Clearwater indicated that Defendant would be permitted some flexibility in developing residential and commercial property on Sand Key; but Defendant never sought approval for any particular plan. 29. Subsequent to 1973, Defendant has communicated to the Plaintiff a desire to maintain maximum flexibility in its development options. 30. The only specific development proposal not yet built was for a shopping center. Proposed in 1975 on a certain 7-acre site on Sand Key, the project was never undertaken by Defendant. 31. By adoption of Ord. No. 1749, the City of Clearwater re-zoned Defendant's shopping center site to a residential classification. As a result, Defendant filed suit to enjoin application of Ordinance No. 1749. 32. The ordinances currently proposed by the City of Clearwater, and upon which a declaratory judgment is sought, would zone the shopping center site as CG, a classification which would permit the shopping center. 33. There is a bona fide controversy existing between the parties, Plaintiff is in doubt of its right to proceed with this proposed rezoning, and there is an actual, practical and present need for a declaration. 34. Plaintiff is without an adequate remedy at law. 35. All conditions precedent to the relief demanded herein have occurred. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays as follows: (a) That the court enter its order declaring .that the City of Clearwater is not equitably estopped from proceeding with the rezoning as proposed; and, -S- r~ n p v (b) That the court enter its order that the requirement in the bond for annexation. between the -City and Mr. Ed Wright that the lands be °zoned "B"(Business) at the time of annexation, no longer prohibits the City of Clearwater from proceeding with the rezoning as proposed. COUNT 11 36. Plaintiff reavers each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs one through twenty-six of this Complaint. 37. The parties herein were parties to a suit (Circuit Civil No. 78-4765-7), which resulted in a final summary judgment decree, attached hereto as Exhibit "G". 38. That final. summary judgment, dated January I I, 1979, prohibited the Ci#y from rezoning U. S. Steel's property.. 39. Subsequent to the entry of that final summary judgment, Defendant U. S. Steel has not filed any application for a building permit to proceed with construction on any property which is proposed to be rezoned or which is the subject of this action for declaratory relief. 40. Plaintiff, City of Clearwater, does not attack the validity of the final summary judgment referred to above. 41. The court in its final summary judgment stated that U. S. Steel's rights to "B" (Business) zoning under the bond for annexation are not perpetual, but would expire at an unspecified time. 42. In declaring that the City of Clearwater was equitably estopped from applying Ordinance No. 1749 to property held by U. S. Steel, the circuit court necessarily granted relief based on a finding that U. S. Steel relied on certain representations of the City of Clearwater regarding a proposed development, and that U. S. Steel was prepared to proceed with that development. 42. Any rights obtained pursuant to the application of equitable estoppel must be exercised with due diligence and do not create vested rights in perpetuity, forever prohibiting the governmental authority from zoning the affected property. 43. Subsequent to obtaining the final judgment referred to above, U. S. Steel has taken no action with respect to the parcels of land which the City proposes to rezone. 44. There is a bona fide controversy existing between the parties as regards Defendant's rights at this time under the final judgment; Plaintiff is in doubt of its right to proceed with this proposed rezoning, and there is an actual, practical and present need for a declaration. -6- C O P Y 45. Plaintiff is without an adequate remedy at law. 46. All conditions precedent to the relief demanded have occurred. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays as follows: A. That the court enter its order that any rights to continuation of "8" (Business) zoning as a result of the bond for annexation as enunciated by the final summary judgment (Exhibit "G") have expired; and B. That the court enter its order that: i) any rights to a continuation of "B" (Business) zoning based on the application of equitable estoppel by the court in its order of final summary judgment, no longer apply; or ii) that the court in its final summary judgment enjoined the application of~ Ordinance No. 1749 based on the principle of equitable estoppel, but ordered the application of "B" (Business) zoning only as a result of its .application of the bond for annexation; or, iii) that based upon the remoteness in time from the acts alleged which gave rise to the application of equitable estoopel, and the failure of Defendant to apply for any building permits to develop any property which is the subject of this suit for declaratory relief, that the Defendant, U. S. Steel is estopped from deriving further benefits from the final judgment (Cir. Ct. 78-4765-7). C. For such other relief as is proper: ~~f Frank X. Kowalski Frank X. Kowalski, Chief Assistant City Attorney City of Clearwater P. 0. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33518 Attorney for Plaintiff 6/5/81 -7- ~ ~C~~ ~ i ~ ~ ~``IS~ . ~H ~,,,_ ~Jroc ~ ~G ~ ,xV9 ~ ~'` G , ~ o !r! ~_ ,~ _ . „e r._..~ - .. JJ • ~_$ 12_ ~. ~ ~~' i ~ ` '13..a c~, ~c`G ~,_a; t a ~ ;~ _ 1 ~11, _ _ i (o l .---- ~- - -~ s ~ ?.[ bra 4•~ 'l l,o: 1W iii _~- -;- ~' ~ , ~i-` (_o-_ _ ~ -~s i ' ~r ,~r --- _ ------ _ .. ~ i, { • I~ ~ ~ Gtlw,~Jcc ~n~ -•t ~ a-era-- ~MR~ti__U.~ P~~~Ta~ _..~. d'~MF~ - .- '7'10+ _' .__ • - I `Y ~i _~ _ cc.~+~r-y_- -fall i~t~,,..r~ _- ~n'rc~ a-ups.----- =~-~~ oTt A ` D ~ c; a , c t .. - -- ~ 1! l ~ 3 ~-~ 3 - x _ -- --1~-`~'a ~s~r_ ~ ~ ~~ Iis~~~ ~ 1 ___ - ------ --._r. __ - _ .-_ .~. -----.. ._ __ - - --- '~ ~SSC. RJE ta-J C.T~ "'~ ~- '~`~ - ~; 4 b2 S .-- 3f~i 1~Z ~ s ~' V -S ` S T- ti 1. ~ V P F, c. W~~° h/C' J 1l_D 6 c` ~. ~ ~~ ~_ _ _ .... _ ~ (~ (~ 7 5 - _ --------- -- ._ -_'~9 ~?-~'- - ~3 rwt`+~+~~0 11~-~------ --~ ---- ~-O'tin.~ ci_._.t-e 6 ~~----~'Zcn. ~P• _ _ __.. ~ ~ t °1 ~'1 ~. - - J Lo T' C _ ~ ~ ~ . ~J ~, L ~ G t -~ ~V . S h i ~ - ' .i s.~ I _~ ~ .~- f FRANK E. FELIX, JR. GENERAL MANAGER-FLORIDA OPERATIONS Resource Development Committee Building Department City of Clearwater P. 0. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33518 Attn: Mr. Roy J. Ayres Director Re: South Bay Project Sand Key, Clearwater Gentlemen: 200 ST. ANDREWS DRIVE ~~ _ BELLEAIR, FLORIDA 33516 813/443-0631 June 4, 1981 -{ ~= ~ ~~~L ~ .. ~~,~ ~ + '.1 ', a •'' :. ~t,,. ~.,~ We are forwarding herewith, for your review and approval, 13 prints each of the following Site Plan drawings: A-1 (6-2-81) South Bay Site Plan - Architectural Layout A-2 (6-2-81) South Bay Site Plan - Architectural Layout C-1 (6-4-81) South Bay Site Plan - Civil Layout C-2 (6-4-81) South Bay Site Plan - Civil Layout Elongated geometry of the site necessitates matching the prints longitu- dinally to determine the overall conception. Pertinent details and description of the proposed project are: 1. The structures are similar in architectural design to the Belleview Oaks building now under construction at Belleair. 2. Occupancy - Residential Class A. 3. 128 Residential units having one level of parking and 8 levels of living area. 4. Typical construction - Reinforced concrete, masonry block, fire resistant - Type II. 5. Foundation - Concrete, piling. u s USS Realty ~'~ ~ ~~81. s Development P~~1~~~~- D~~?;A~`~~~~" Division of United States Steel Corporation 6. Roof - Built up roofing. uss USS Realty Development Division of UnlteC States Steel Corporation Resource Development Committee Building Department - City of Clearwater June 4, 1981 Page Two 7. Elevators - 2 per building. 8. Heating and air conditioning - Electrical. 9. Miscellaneous - Drives, planters, terraces, parking areas, pool and recreation facilities. 10. Utility requirements are as indicated on the civil drawings. 11. Design will meet the requirements of the 1973 Federal Flood Control Act, the 1979 Florida State Energy Code and 1979 Southern Building Code as adopted by Pinellas County and the City of Clearwater. 12. Zoning - Refer to Circuit Civil #78-4765-7, ("B" - Business zoning classification of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Clearwater as it existed at the time Sand Key was annexed into the City of Clearwater). Building heights, setbacks and density conform in all respects to this applicable zoning. We understand that the next meeting of the Resource Development Committee will be Thursday, June 18th and ask that this application be scheduled for con- sideration at that time. We extend our appreciation for your cooperation and assistance and are hopeful that the data submitted will enable you to issue the approval requested. Please contact us if, as you review this application, you have any questions or if additional information is required. inc el , J - P. Blair Project Superintendent JPB/kah cc: A. Shoemaker D. Thompson DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE/COhih1UNITY .IMPACT STATEMENTS SUBJECT : 1. - ~~,.s~ IC~~ _ a,,,c,a ~,.,-N -~ Ay V• S• • STC-Z=~ . ~ ~~ J~F ~,o+J~ J'R ~ S~/i'u • DI` ~p`•iSWc` GAM.z`~-sG Data received by Planning Dept. ~~~ S I9 S- Date of Distribution ~yrr~ ~1 19 gi METHOD OF DELIVERY: A. City Courier B. Mail C. Hand Carried (Principal Recipients) • DELIVERY COPY N0. COMMITTEE ~iEP-iBER MAPS DOCUt1ENTS BY 1. Asst City Manager, Chairperson for Operations (Haeseker) / Z . Public Works Director (Battle) ~ A 3. Traffic Engineering Director (Crawford) R 4. Building Inspection Director ~ (Ayres) A S. Parks F, Recreation Director (Wilson) / A 6. Utilities Director (Rettig) 7. Planning Director (Healey) ~ _ C 8. Fire Department (Buhmeyer) / ./ 9. Asst. Public Works Director E nvironmental Division (Kenton) 10. Energy Officer (Peddy) ~/ _~- Additional copies to Scheduled Meetinfg ~D/a R.D.C, b,1~ZS 19 gt Remarks: Extra copies on file in Current Planning Division /~ r ~ `v~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~J ~ \`~J ,~ r ~~ ~~ i ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~3 ~ ~~3. ~tiP i Best Cody Avai~iable DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE/CObiN1UNITY .IMPACT STATEMENTS -~ SUBJECT: 1._ ~g~ 1C~`f ~a~o ~r,~trN BAy u. S. ' STC'c; i... ~. fo ~- nJ ~. F ~i o+J~.c J'An~ s,,,,ru ' ~K ~p`-+SWc' GA Mss tiK ~''~received by Planning Dept. Svc 5 19 8- e of Distribution w~~ 11 19 gi METHOD OF DELIVERY: A. City Courier B. Mail C. Hand Carried (Principal Recipients) DELIVERY COPY N0. COMMITTEE ~fET-iBER MAPS DOCUT4ENTS BY 1. Asst City Manager, Chairperson for Operations (Haeseker) -/ 2. Public Works Director (Battle) ~ A 3. Traffic Engineering Director / (Crawford) R 4. Building Inspection Director ~ (Ayres) Qy 5. Parks F, Recreation Director (Wilson) / A 6. Utilities Director (Rettig) 7. Planning Director (Healey) J~ C 8. Fire Department (Buhmeyer) / ,/ 9. Asst. Public Works Director E i nv ronmental Division (Kenton) 10. Energy Officer (Peddy) ,/ ~ Additional copies to ., Scheduled Meeting Dates: R.D.C. b ~ 2S~ 19 g ~ •n Remarks: ~• Extra copies on file in Current Planning Division CITY OF CLEARWATER I~terdepartment Correspondence Sheet TO: 3`h0!lfis A. $°i1it~A, City Attorney FROM: Fsrsnk X. Kowalski, ~b#e#}~sslista>~t Cull Attoraissy copses: Anthony 9L. Shoemsstt~esr, ~!arri~ Healey, C~sra-ce Llayd sul3~ecT: t~~ted States Steel Oor~ratlea ,~•~ DATE: Jana ~, l ~6l ~~ "`~`~'`-- Eir~elored hescewith ~s ~ *vopy of the Ctnsnglai>sltt #or decla>Irss><tory ~adgsmeat ~s!!- the abcnte ca~oaeel matter whfch was tiled tlvith ~e COUrt tc>'day ~eeaase of the e~eessl~re bvllk of ttu exhfbit~r ~e haves aot attsched thexri"to yoor ctspy. All tst too sachlbits sure svahlable #a omr office tile. ,~~- ;;y~rl? 3UN 5 1981 nr.~ ~ ^r.~~I~i~~; Anthony L. Shoemaker, City Manager C I T Y O F C L E A R W A T E R Roy J. Ayres, Director, Building Dept. I~t~rdepartrnent Correspondence Sheet TO: John D. Richter, Planning Dept. Chris Papandreas, Planning Dept. FROM: Frank Kowalski, Chief Assistant City Attorney COPIES: SUB~ECT• U. S. Steel vs.. City of Clearwater DATE: June 12, 1981 ~~~ I understand that U. S. Steel has applied for a building permit on property which is the subject of our declaratory judgment action. I do .not feel that we could deny them a building permit on the basis of some proposed rezoning, but I do feel that it would be lawful to condition any such permit so as to put U. S. Steel on notice that we would. rezone the property if the court authorized us to do so, and putting them on notice. Please comment on the enclosed which might be attached to any building permit issued. ' FK:jmp Enclosure r.D ~~..~..~~I~O D~~~:r~~r~~ _ _._ T_ _~.._ -.~ ..._ .~. ~. ~ .~ ___ _~ __--t T _,_._~~ ~_ __ _ ... _ e_~. ____._~__... - _~_. -~-- _ ___~T .. .-~ ~_ T_- _ ~ . _ . _ - T -- --- - - - . -_ - _ :_. _ - - - - -~ ----_ -_ ~_ t --_----~_ _ _~ ~ ._ .~_. -- --~ - - _ ~ _T _. -- -- - --- ~ _ _ _T T _- _Y - - - --- r . __ ~ _ ~_ _-- _ _~.__ _~ TT _ _ . -- . _ ~ ~_r Y_~ ~ ~; ~ ~_ -. - T - _ - - - - _ -- ?- - r-_ -- _ __ ._. . .~ _ _ -- _T__..~~~_~ , __- __ ~__ _ __. __ _ _Y ___~ _~_ ___ _.__~ _ ~ . _-___. ~ ~_ -- _ . . _~ r~_ __.~_~__~____~ ~_ ~ ~~' _ _ ._ _ r ___ _ _ __ _ _. __ T_ _ __ _ __ ----- - T__~_~_. -~--~--~--~---r ,-_ _ , _ . ~ _ -- . _ _ _ _ _ - - ~ - -- .~ - - .- - - ~ - ~~~.-:.~ ~t _r__T___ _ _ ___ _ . W_._ ._ ._.._..e _ . _ -__-- - ._- _m.__ r.__ _________~ ____~ _~_ ~ ~__ _ ~_r_,_-~-- - - --..___ _._.. _ .__ -_ _____ _. __ ~__. _ -- -_ _ ___ __._.._-- __ _ ._.., _ ___ ~. .~ ___. / ~ -. ~- --__ - - __ - - - - -- - - _ - - - - ---- . __ , __ . - - -- - -- - - _ . -- ~ _ -. --- -- - -- _ _ . _ T _ _ _ - -. ~___~ ___ ~ ~ _ - _ . -- --.. - - -- - - .-- - _ ._---. ----__ - - e ~ _ --- --- _ -- -- ----r-- --- -~- ~ __-_ _~ r~ _~ 1~_-_ _ _ __ _-. ___ _e_ _ _. __ ..... Y _-_ _-_. _ _ -- _~~_ __ _. _~ __ . __ _ _ __ _ ____ _ ~ _____ __b_ _-- --__T__ ~_ .-_- ~__ .~_ ____ ____ T, ,____ ,__ r a__.~_ _~. _ _ . _ ______ . ~_. _~ __ ~ _ . TO: David P. Healey., Planning Director CITY OF CLEARWATER Interdepartment Correspondence Sheet ~~ FitOM: Frank X. Kowalski, Chief Assistant City Attorney ~~ _ 1 COPIES: / `~ SUBJECT: Development Rights on Sand Key (Tennis Courts and Dervish Restaurant) DATE: October 5, 1981 The purpose of this memo is to confirm our prior discussions relating to development rights on properties near the Sand Key Club Condominium and currently used for a restaurant and for tennis courts. As you recall, you explained that the properties used for the restaurant and tennis courts were used to satisfy the acreage required for the number of dwelling units constructed in the Sand Key Club Condominium. According to the case of Marathon Builders Inc, vs. Montgomery County Planning Board, 227 Atlantic 2nd 755 (Md. 1967) where p.laintiff's predecessor in title used p.laintiff's property to satisfy density requirements, p.laintiff's development rights were extinguished. Under the rule enunciated in this case, it appears that a successor in title to the tennis courts or restaurant would have no rights to construct any structure on those sites. ,. fs ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~.i? 8~~~ ~t~I-c,~~f~'s. `_~ S ~ _ l -~~~-~S. lam' ,~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ C~,~~--~ ;t ~: G .~ ~---~ Ss ..~.~ .~~~~ ~, _., . _{ _ _ IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY CIRCUIT CIVIL N0. CITY OF CLEARWATER, a municipal corporation chartered under the laws of the State of Florida, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, , a Delaware corporation, U.S.S. REALTY DEVELOPMENT, a , CHEEZEM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, and CHEEZEM INVESTMENT PROGRAM I, LTD., a Florida limited part- nership, • Defendants. Plaintiff, CITY OF CLEARWATER, sues Defendants, UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, U.S.S. REALTY DEVELOPMENT, CHEEZEM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, and CHEEZEM INVESTMENT PROGRAM I, LTD. and states as follows: ]. This is an action for declaratory relief under Chapter 86, Florida Statutes. There exists a present controversy between Plaintiff and Defendants as hereinafter stated. 2. Plaintiff, CITY OF CLEARWATER (hereinafter referred to as CITY), is a municipal corporation chartered under the laws of the State of Florida. 3. Defendant, UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION (herein- after referred to as U.S. STEEL), is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and registered to do business in the State of Florida. 4. Defendant, U.S.S. REALTY DEVELOPMENT (hereinafter referred to as U.S.S. REALTY), is a and a divi- sion of Defendant UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION. 5. Defendant, CHEEZEM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (herein- after referred to as CHEEZEM), is a corporation organized and operating under the laws of the State of Florida and is the general partner of Defendant, CHEEZEM DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM I, LTD. SGC57 ] 0/] ] # 2cac 1 ' 6. Defendant, CHEEZEM DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM I, LTD. (hereinafter referred toas CHEEZEM), is a limited partnership organized and operating under the laws of the State of Florida. 7. Defendants are the owners of certain parcels of real property located on Sand Key within the City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. ,See map marked Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof?? 8. Defendants each claim rights to develop their respective parcels on Sand Key based on a summary judgment rendered by the Honorable Judge B.J. Driver on January _, ]979 in United States _Steel Corporation v. City of Clearwater, Pinellas County Circuit Court, Circuit Civil No. 78-4765-7. (See Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof.) 9. That litigation stemmed from the CITY'S ]97-- rezoning of property owned by U.S. STEEL ON SAND KEY FROM TO R-28 (HIGH INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND CTF (COMMERCIAL TOURIST FACILITIES). ]0. In ]976, U.S. STEEL proposed to develop a shopping center on ].7 acres of a seven-acre tract on Sand Key in reliance upon the B-business zoning classification granted by the CITY when Sand Key was annexed into the CITY in ]96]. ll. U.S. STEEL also proposed to construct ]2. At the time of the annexation and original zoning designation in ]96], Sand Key was owned by Mr. Ed. C. Wright. ]3. In ]969, U.S. STEEL acquired title to the property owned by Ed. C. Wright on Sand Key. ]4. In UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION v. CITY OF CLEARWATER, Circuit Civil No. 78-4765-7, U. S. Steel claimed ]5. In the Summary Judgment, entered January _, ]979, Judge Driver ordered and adjudged that: (a) The CITY was permanently enjoined from enforc- ing the zoning provisions of Ordinance No. ]749, adopted April 6, ]978, as that zoning ordinance applied to U.S. STEEL'S land on Sand Key; - 2 - (b) The CITY shall permit U.S. STEEL and its suc- cessors in title to develop the land then owned by U.S. STEEL on Sand Key in accordance with the zoning ordinances of the CITY as they existed prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. ]749 on April 6, ]978; and (c) The CITY shall issue all necessary permits for construction on and development of U.S. STEEL's land on Sand Key upon U.S. STEEL complying with the appropriate zoning, building, and development requirements of the CITY's ordinances as they existed prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. ]749 on April 6, ]978. 9. That summary judgment order was clarified by Judge Driver in an order entered February 24, ]98], denying U.S. 5TEEL's motion for entity of a contempt order and stating that it was the purpose and intent of the Court in the summary judgment previously entered to grant to U.S. STEEL the right to develop its property on Sand Key, as described in the Complaint, in accordance with the B-business zoning classification of the CITY's zoning ordinance as it existed at the time Sand Key was annexed into the City of Clearwater in December ]96]. ]7. Judge Driver's orders left open the question of time and emphasized that U.S. STEEL should have a reasonable time to carry out its development expectations. ]0. In ]9 CHEEZEM acquired from U.S. STEEL acres of the property that U.S. STEEL had acquired from Ed C. Wright in ]969, which property was subject to the ]979 order by Judge Driver. ]]. CHEEZEM claims the right to develop the property formerly owned by U.S. STEEL in accordance with the CITY's zoning ordinance as it existed in ]96], pursuant to the ]979 summary judgment order, as successor in title to U.S. STEEL ]2. CHEEZEM acquired a second parcel of land on Sand Key in from ]3. CHEEZEM claims the right to develop that second parcel in accordance with - 3 - ]4. By letter of June ]6, ]983 from Ken Cheezem, Vice President, to Elizabeth S. Haesaker, Assistant City Manager of Operations for the City of Clearwater, CHEEZEM submitted pre- liminary design information for its properties located at ]330 and ]340 Gulf Boulevard on Sand Key in Clearwater, and notified the CITY that unless CHEEZEM was notified to the contrary in writing by the CITY prior to July ], ]983, CHEEZEM would assume that the CITY had no objections to the preliminary design as prepared in conformance with the CITY's zoning code and ordi- nances that were effective on December 3], ]96], and that the CITY would issue the appropriate building permits accordingly. (See Exhibit C attached hereto and made a part hereof.) ]5. CHEEZEM proposes to build ]6. By letter of June 29, ]983 from Elizabeth S. Haesaker, Assistant City Manager, to Ken Cheezem, Vice President of Cheezem Land Corporation, the CITY advised CHEEZEM that the CITY objects to the preliminary design submitted and does not agree to process building permit applications based solely on conformance with CITY of Clearwater ordinances in effect on December 3], ]96]. (See Exhibit D attached hereto and made a part hereof.) ]7. In a letter dated July 8, ]983, from C.F. Hegner, U.S.S. Realty Development Project Manager, to Anthony L. Shoemaker, City Manager, U.S. STEEL submitted to the CITY "informational copies" of site plans for development of U.S. STEEL's undeveloped Sand Key properties and requested the CITY's acknowledgement that the site plans fall within the parameters of "zoning requirements established by Circuit Civil No. 78-4765-7." (See Exhibit E attached hereto and made a part hereof.) ]8. U.S. STEEL proposes to build ]9. In a letter dated August 24, ]983 from Anthony L. Shoemaker, City Manager, to C.F. Hegner of U.S.S. Realty Develop- ment, the CITY informed U.S. STEEL that the CITY does not agree with U.S. STEEL's expectation that the development contemplated in the site plans submitted falls within the parameters of the - 4 - ,~ zoning requirements established by Circuit Civil No. 78-4765-7. (See Exhibit F attached hereto and made a part hereof.) 20. In both letters from the CITY to the Defendants, the CITY has stated that the proposed development involves a significant departure from the character and magnitude of nominal development on the island and represents a drastic change in conditions for the island. (See map of existing development on Sand Key marked as Exhibit G, attached hereto and made a part hereof.) 2] . Changed conditions make the principle of res 'u~ di- cata inapplicable to bind the CITY to the ]979 summary judgment order. ALLEGATIONS RE: CHANGED CONDITIONS ]. More intense development proposed now 2. Traffic capacity/evacuation impacts 3. Water and sewer capacity 4. Financial integrity 5. Comprehensive plan 6. Other development regulations implementing the comprehensive plan 22. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment as to its rights and status under the ]979 judicial order in Circuit Civil No. 78-4765-7 in light of the new development proposals by defendants the passage of time, and changed conditions on Sand Key since the time of the summary judgment order. 23. The CITY has doubts, insecurity and uncertainty arising from the changed facts and circumstances as to its authority to issue or to deny building permits to the Defendants. 24. The Defendants' desire to proceed with development, as expressed in their letters to the CITY, indicates that there is an actual, present and practibal need for a declaratory judg- ment. 25. The Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of ]975, as amended, Section ]63.3]6], et sec., Florida Statutes, requires the establishment and implementation of a comprehensive - 5 - ~ ~ .~ planning program to guide and control future development. 26. After a comprehensive plan has been adopted in conformity with the Act, all development undertaken by, and all actions taken in regard to development orders by, governmental agencies in regard to land covered by such a plan must be con- sistent with the comprehensive plan as adopted, according to Section ] 63.3] 94 (]) . 27. The Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act, as amended, defines "development permit" in Section ]63.3]64(6) as any building permit, zoning permit, subdivision approval, rezon- ing, certification, special exception, variance, or any other official action of local government having the effect of permit- ting the development of land. 28. The CITY does not have the legal authority to ignore its officially adopted comprehensive plan and implementing regulations. 29. Section 380.06(]0), Florida Statutes, defines "development of regional impact" as any development which, because of its character, magnitude, or location, would have a substantial effect upon the health, safety or welfare of citizens of more than one county. 30. The Administration Commission has adopted guide- lines and standards to be used by the state land planning agency in determining whether particular developments shall be presumed to be of regional impact. „~fte F.A.C. 3]. The state land planning agency, the Florida Depart- ment of Community Affairs, Division of Local Resource Management, also has adopted a policy to monitor developments whose magnitude is less than the applicable numerical threshold if the Division of Local Resource Management obtains information that such devel- opment may be a Development of Regional Impact DRI because of its character, magnitude or location. Cite F.A.C. 32. In addition, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Coun- cil has adopted as 9B-20.]3, Florida Administrative Code, a list of regional issues, which the Division of Local Resource Manage- - 6 - ' ~ ~. ment is required to consider in determining whether or not a proposed development is a Development of Regional Impact. 33. The traffic impacts on a state road and the multi- county evacuation impacts of the Defendants' proposed develop- ments, plus the location of the proposed developments on a barrier island, suggest that the proposed developments, indivi- dually or cumulatively, may be Developments of Regional Impact. 34. The CITY would violate the provisions of section 380.06 and risks an enforcement action under Section ,380.0]], Florida Statutes, if it permits a development to move forward in violation of the provisions of Section 380.06, Florida Statutes. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief: (]) A determination by this Court that the ]979 judgment is no longer of force and effect due to the passage of time and changed conditions and circumstances, and for a declaratory judgment that the CITY OF CLEARWATER may apply all appropriate development regulations to the proposed development by Defendants in order to implement its comprehensive plan and safeguard the health, safety and welfare of its citizens and visitors. (2) Alternatively, for a determination that the ]979 judgment authorized the development only of the U.S. STEEL development as proposed at that time, and for a declaratory judgment that none of the Defendants has the right to rely on the ]979 summary judgment order as giving that Defendant an absolute right to develop any project different in character or magnitude from that proposed by U.S. STEEL which resulted in the ]979 judgment and contrary to the provisions of Sections ]63.3]6] et seg. and 360.06, Florida Statutes. One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff, CITY OF CLEARWATER Charles L. Siemon Susan G. Connelly SIEMON, LARSEN & PURDY ]48] Second Street Sarasota, FL 33577 (8]3) 955-9050 - 7 - J. .f Frank X. Kowalski Chief .Assistant City Attorney Clearwater, Florida 335]8. (8]3) 462-6760 - 8 - SAND KEY OVERVIEW Date Ord.#, Action Dec. 9, 1952 627 Zoning Code (Copy Attached) June 26, 1961 - Agreement Ed C. WrightlCity (Copy Attached) tdov. 21, 1961 912 Zoning Code-Major Revision April 15, 1963 966 Intent to Annex All of Sand Key May 20, 1963 971 Annexed All of Sand Key April 18, 1966 1086 Added Pdew Schedule of Lot & Building Regulations Feb. 21, 1972 1350 Whole New Zoning Code (Incl. Reduced Density & Waterfront Setback-Vista Requirement) July 10, 1972 1394 Change in # of Hotel/Motel Units Permitted Setbacks Revised April 16, 1973 1446 Clarify Setbacks in CG Zone-Amended Waterfront Setbacks June 4, 1973 1449 Subdivision Regulations Nov. 13, 1973 1481 Clarify Setbacks, Create Aquatic Land District June 17, 1974 1510 Revised Vista (Side Setback on Waterfront Property) Requirements PJov. 18, 1974 1540 Reduced Permissible Building Height iyiarch 17, 1975 1556 Density Reduction-Max. in City 28 DU/A April 21, 1975 1561 Applied Aquatic Land to Waters Adjacent to Sand Key Nov. 3, 1977 1725 Required Community Impact Statement on Projects Over 5500,000 April 6, 1978 1749 Rezoned All of Sand Key May 1 2, 1978 - Settlement & Final Judgement-Cheezem Dev. Corp. (Lighthouse Towers & Landmark Towers II) - 1 - ." Date Jan. 1, 1979 Ord.# Action U.S. Steel/City Summary Judgement - Judge Driver April 19, 1979 1904 Correct Legal Description in Ord. 1749 Feb. 21, 1980 2039 Amended Density Permitted Mixed Uses Amended Special Exception Uses Amended Process of Consideration of Marinas Sept. 18, 1980 2190 Amended CTF-28 Side of Rear Setbacks CIS Requirement Revised to $1,000,000 Feb. 5, 1981 2292 Amended Subdivision Plat Variance Requirements Feb. 5, 1981 2293 Lot Coverage-Set Permeable & Impermeable Coverage Requirements May 7, 1981 2360 Eliminated Double Height Bonus For Waterfront Property May 6, 1982 2720 Revised CIS Requirements on Land Not Environmentally Significant Aug. 19, 1982 2771 Set Up New Site Plan Review Procedures June 16, 1983 3075 Establish Coastal Construction Line as Point of f4easurement for Building Setbacks Ai ong Gul f of i1exi co - 2 - DEVELOPMENT IMPACT CHART/SAND ICEY IIEIGIiT .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 li.U. D.U. D.U. 15'-20' 15'-20' Per Per side: ~.de• Net Acre Gross 128'-192' 2~ -60' Acre Rear: Rear: 0' Function of llgt. Opposite Sheraton 88' 150' 1.5 Sp. N/A ~N/A for N/A 28 D.U. 38 D.U. wont: N/A on 1;. side Gulf Blvd. Per D.U. CG,Except Per Net hotel U-21' (U.S. Steel) + for Multi Acre Units 1 sp. per Family ~ ~er Gros + Side: ' lUU sc~.ft (which cre 351 - Retail F.A.R. is Retail 526' area + 15 .5 fi Uf ce R ar: e 1 sp. RM-16 25' ' Per 300 f I sq. t Office ~ ` Area 1 1.. of Tennis Courts 88' 150' 1.5 sp. 1.U4 sp. 1.5 2.73 28 D.U. 61.7 Front:2O' 20'+ (Cheezem) per D.U. per D.U. per net ll.U. per Side: acre rg oss Interior acre 103' S' ' Street & water- ~ "f rout ~ 155' S' C%CL: 42.5', 42.5'+ ~ 5' for 1 ! I i lieck 0' y N. of Cabana Club ! 88' 150' 1.5 sp. i1.5 sp. 1.5 2.8 28 D.U. 46 D.U. Front:20' 2U'+ (U.S. Steel) (15 per D.U. per D.U. per net per Side: ` Stories) acre rg oss Interior: . acre x197' x30' ~ Street & water- ~ front I i ~ 295' X60' , i CCCL: ~ " I ~ I` ` 42.5' Da rmi ttorl Dri n.. to 1 /1 S /'7 (1 Bldg. Hgt. Uate Bldg. uensity Project i~ame n of DU's Acres (Stories) Permit Issued (DU/A) ~ Sheraton Sand 398 10.71 9 8/20/73 37.2 Key (motel) hotel/ - motel - 2 -Landmark 144 4 20 8/13/73 36 lowers I 3 F{arbor 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 $ South Beach ?~o. - 1 (1400) 6 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 3.65 16 - 34 Key 9 Bayside Gardens I52 12.03 3 4/5/72 12.6 I, II, III & IV Permitted After 1/11/79 61 dg. Hgt. Date Bldg. Density Project Name r of DU's Acres (Stories) Permit Issued (DU/A) ~~ Landmark 72 3.3 10 12/1/80 21.8 ~~ Towers II Lighthouse 144 3.8 20 9/4/81 37.9 ~'~ 1 1 Towers (Sea Towers) Sand Key Condo 144 4.0 13 - 36 12 South Beach (1480) 13 Belleview 90 3.97 ~ 9 3/18/82* 25.4 (N) Cabana Club Condo. 1 4 Dan's Island 176 6.45 12 1/8/81* 27.3 (td) 15 Sand Key Yacht 248 9.7 9 5/15/$0'' 27 (~d) & Tennis Club ~ 6 HarboLrage V, 192 6.8 9 2/19/80 28 ( td) VI, VII 7 Mari na Del Pay 72 6.4 3 7 5 79 ; / / 11 . 1 t~ ( ) (Townhouses) 1 $ Harbour .Condo. b4 2.36 8 1/18/79 + _ 27 (t1) 19 South Bay I 128 10.25 9 - 12.5 & II Note: (t{) Je~ns ity is figured on net acres. *Site Plan „pp roval Date ** Approved as pert of p xevious Court settlement • i i ' J .~ ~ q 5-i /~ ORD o • 1749 0 4.78 °a'"~ 1 ~~ ~ B F ' S -3 `~~! , o 0 0 o ~ ~~ Q ~ ti ~,~ ~ ~ ~O ` e e+ 'I` SEC so ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ tD ~ ~9 Q O ,I.,E~ ,,\ I ,, /,~ C., p.. w a OR~~E ~ ~ ~ ~m ~~ ~~ ~~~ o m ago a ~~ Q' 3 ~' `~ ~ • • ORD ~ ~ (749 ~ 4~e C ~ ~ ~1 J Q ~ U ~ ` ~ I Q 4 •~ a a~~ a ~ ~, VO J ~ a ~ - ~' Q ~ ~ ~ ~ b O ~_ ~ 3 ~ ~ a X~~~ ~Q / ORD ~ ~ 1789 ~ ~ ~ 4 78 goo Y (u Q o z ~ ~ m ~~~~ o o 3 0 ~ o M8B ° ~ !-8 c 1 } M a s j I-s 2 ~ ~ ~ O ~ 4 O Z ~ O O ~ U ~ ~ '.c.! Q ~ Q 3 i 0 V AL ORD, 15`I 4•TS i 0 -o a ~XCEPT ALL ZC SHALL LINE, CERTIF. USE 0' sEawAR (•A S DE TO THE (AL)• T ALL L~ Q F !+! E A i ~ ... i t COQ;DC• r I 1' o~ Ca~DEt1C IIL '3 w•Tl ~Iht ` ~ I:-IG ---. - - - --- - ~ i~ 16 •~- ---- ~; ... ~ ~ ~ ~oo M>;B I-9 y ~ MEB I -1 CITY 7"eNNrS Co~erS M b B MEB I_2 ~D~ NSt~~ ~~ :, ~ - US COAST ORD M - _ GUARD • 1904 MfiB ORD 4 79 oRc. 1749 ~ •~ ~63~ 12.7 \4 7i3,~ ~_~ L O ~ w ~-• ,v QWH ~ ~ I..1 ` Y N ~ ~ Qom ~ ~ ao p Z a W Z~ .- tD Z W V ~U N O ~ V > Q W O Q m } C7 Yo w ~ ~ W Z m ~ Y W O - ~ ~_ c p = 3 Z U f- ~• 0 to ~ Q ~ - Q ?-~ ~ Cn ~O N Q o m c :- '" Undivided Half X Interest Undivided Half ~ _ Interest O = U ~ - Q Q r W LLl W ~ ~ ~ r . m Y 0 =~ ~ O O ~ - Jm Z Z ~ cV $ p ~ Q O O O a NV to D_N ~ Z Z ° '- O W z ~ ~ V D o W = S p to - ~ Y p E..._ U~ ~. cD r Q ~ ~ ~ Z ~W~ ~~' ~ Y (~ ~ ~ Q O ~m ~ O W cn p cn "' Z - I `D N >- Q ~. m ~ I J ~ o 0 ORD 1749 4.7B J 12 19 - ~ ~~ i• - J•3 ,: ~ ~ , o .~ ! ~ ~: ~- I I ;. r ~N~ ,. , -- - ~- Iz.~-- - - - OFD f ;. , ~ 17 4 9 ~ 174 a~ i 4~/8 ~\#_Q ~ I o ~ \ o \ • \ .~ \ ~ \ C i ~ 1749 ~ \, \cJ i ~ , •~~ ~ . ~; .X , . .~ ~ ~ ~ ,, ~w o ~ ~ ~, ~ C ~ ~ \ ~ o l ~,\ ~ ~ o \ __ - r ~\~ OKD \ ~ ~ ~ 194 0 ~ z ~ 6 -?9 - ~ 0) 13 °m g~ i • ORO. ~ Ic~`I C ORD 4 -75 w ' 1768 m ; 6 78 ~ cJ p.N~ vi s e - ~.E ~ oN~O \ 17.2 c m , 1_ ~`~ ~ ~( G 8 a K% `p,,8 ORD i 1749 4.78 o - Z ~~ 3 . o~ ~, ~ l~ - ~ J I a ~ ~ C~ M b B I ORD 17-3 1939 6.79 MbB •~ .~ ~'. 17 ~.+/ i~ 1 ~ '' M58 1 7- I c'' e' e ~,• ~~ • e~` O~ ~C i ~~ • t / ' - \ X00 ' / c ~ o f ___ .f.. -.__ . ___ '~0 i ` ~ ~ --, /174 a ~\ #_t4) I f of for ORO'~ \~ 1749 C ~ ;: ~ \\~ Q~ ~ ,~~ .~ MA , wo~ ~ ~._ ' OkD ~ ~ ~ 194 0 ~ z ~ 6'9 o °' U ~ 9~ 058 ~~ SP ~~ QFONO~ ~ ~ K ,~ G a$ `g , 0.'1A . AL 15 / / :~ vl s g 17-2 ORD 1749 4.78 -1 5 ~I•~ M6 B 1 7-3 \\ / \ ~\ ~ \ ~;~~ rn ~~ \ o ~~ ~ \ ' •`~,~ ~ ~ .\ 15 928 1,5 15 ~~~~~ •, ,~,t% l i ~ • 0 ~ ` 0 ~, ~ O I ~ /~ '`•/ ' ~ I ~`t~ 16 - wJ- ~ ' ~~~ e~' . ~~w ~~ ei~ o~ EXCEPT AS HEREIK ALL ZONING L'ISTR;C SHALL TER I.IIN ATE A' LANE, SUCH LINE TC CERTIFIED SURVEY USE OF PfiOP~RTY. SEAwgRD pF THE ^~ I~S CEFINED IN SECTI< TO THE CL~%'~RS!'A7ER ~AL~, Tr!S ZpNE' FUG l.' c';D Q\~ 'r~;TE