Loading...
SAND KEY 11-85 TO 9-86 SAND KEY PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WITH THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, SAND KEY PROPERTIES, SETTLEMENT STIPULATION US STEEL CORP VS CITY OF CLEARWATERS~ ~ i i-ss co 9-g6 Sand Key Proposed settlement with the City of Clearwater, Sand Key Properties, settlement stipulation US Steel Corp VS City of Clearwater ~ ~ Cheezem Development Corporation 7820 38th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 (813) 344-5481 November 21, 1985 HAND DELIVERED Mrs. Paula Harvey, Planning Director City of Clearwater 10 S. Missouri Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33518 Dear Paula: Following our discussions yesterday, I met with our architects and planners regarding the eight acre North Bay commercial site on Sand Key. Given the shape and dimensions of this parcel, we feel that the following special considerations must be given for the rational development of this parcel: 1. The setbacks contained in the land development code are satisfactory as written today, but we would have to be protected against future amendments. 2. The 15~ minimum open space requirement needs to be reduced to 10~. With this reduction, we have no problem with providing 50~ of this open space requirement in the front yards. 3. Project plans require that we be allowed a maximum of 60~ building coverage since structured parking must comply with this requirement. It should be understood that the one acre surface parking is credited in the calculation of the building coverage. 4. The only practical way of meeting the clear space requirement or view corridors is for areas of landscaped surface parking to be counted toward meeting this requirement. 5. The maximum parking ratio feasible on this property is one parking space per 400 square feet of gross leasable floor area. 6. We think it is most advisable to not designate the exact location of one acre of surface parking so as to give maximum flexibility to allow aesthetic and functional site planning. ~~~ ~~ ~~et~~ ~ E ~~~~ PLANN~~1G DEPARI'ME(~' Page Two Mrs. Paula Harvey November 21, 1985 :7 If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at ' 344-5481. Sincerely, ~-~~-e ~ /~_ Samuel D. Burns Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer SDB:csh cc: W. Friedlander E. Armstrong S. Wooster R. Propps .~ • JOHNSON, BLAKELY, POPE, BOKOR & RUPPEL, P. A. ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW 911 CHESTNUT STREET POST OFFICE BOX 1368 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33517-1368 TAMPA TELEPHONE: TELEPHONE (813 461-1818 (813) 273-0373 November 25, 1985 FRANK J. MUSCARELLA, JR. OF COUNSEL FILE Frank X. Kowalski, Esquire HAND DELIVERY Assistant City Attorney City of Clearwater 112 South Osceola Avenue Clearwater, FL' 33518 Re: Proposed Settlement Stipulation/Sand Key Property Dear Frank: Enclosed is a revised Settlement Stipulation incorporating changes which were discussed at our meeting last week, as further refined by discussions between Mr. Burns and Mrs. Harvey. Please contact me as soon as possible in order that we might schedule a meeting in which to discuss this most recent draft. Very truly yours, JOHNSON, BLAKELY, POPE, BOKOR & RUPPEL, P.A. E. D. Armstrong III E. D. ARMSTRONG lII JOHN T. BLAKELY BRUCE H. BOKOR ELI2A6 ETH J. DANIELS SCOTT C. ILGEN FRITZ TIMOTHY A. JOHNSON, JR. DAVID C. LEVENREICH E. JOHN LOPEZ PAUL A. LUNDBERG MARIA MAISTRELLIS DAVID N. MORRISON STEVEN G. NILS SON F. WALLACE POPE, JR. FRANK P. RAINER DAVID P. RHODES DARRYL R, RICHARDS DENNIS G. RUPPEL MARY N. SIMPKINS GLEE A. TRIPLETT MICHAEL T. WILLIAMS EDA:jm Enclosure cc: M. A. Galbraith, Jr., Esquire Mr. Tony Shoemaker , Mrs. Paula Harvey ~~ r~~ ~. r* J NQV ~ ~ 1~~~ F! Ar~ti~NG QEP~~rMFNr A. ~ ,. Office of City Attorney POST OFFICE BOX 4748 CLEARWATER,FLORIDA 33518=4748 - November 27, 1985 HAND DELIVERY E. D. Armstrong, III, Esq. Johnson, Blakely, Pope, Bokor & Ruppel, P.A. P. O. Box 1368 Clearwater, Florida 33517-1368 Dear Ed: • ~ CITY OF CLEARWATER Re: Sand Key Settlement Proposal DEC 2 ~ Frank Kowalski, Paul~I-Iarvey and I have reviewed your revised settlement stipulation, and we offer the following comments: 1. In paragraph 11, "commencement" should be defined to include the reactivation of the proposed rezoning ordinance now pending, which we presently intend to continue and leave pending for an indefinite period of time. 2. In paragraph 12, we need a more specific reference to the "schematic drawings or construction drawings previously filed with the City," such as by referring to the date of receipt and the attachment of a copy as an exhibit to the stipulation. 3. In paragraph 13a, the limitation upon future amendments to or modifications of the City's Code should be limited to ten years, to be consistent with paragraph 26 and to eliminate any possible confusion. 4. In paragraph 13b, and also in paragraph 13d, the phrase "established flood plain level" should be substituted in place of "lowest level at which a building may be lawfully constructed." 5. In paragraph 13c, after "marinas" and before the comma, we need to insert "(subject to paragraph 16)" before the comma. 6. In paragraph 13e, "contiguous" should be inserted before "acre." Also, between "bicycles'' and the semicolon we need to insert ", and for driveways and landscaping as required by the Land Development Code." 7. In paragraph 13h and i, the three references to "open space" should be changed to "clear space" in order to reflect the probable intent. The clear space requirement would be 20%, not counting parking lots. Insofar as the open space "F_qual Employment and Affirmative Action Employer" • •. E. D. Armstrong, III, Esq. Page Two November 27, 1985 requirements are concerned, the landscaping within a landscaped parking lot would be counted towards open space, but the asphalt surfaces would not. 8. Paragraph 13j has been deleted. Your proposal is to cut the off~treet parking requirements in half, which is not acceptable. Off street parking on Sand Key is, and will continue to be, at a prem ium, and the nearby county park should not be viewed as a "spillover" parking area. 9. In paragraph 14, the third sentence should be modified to provide a height limitation of 115 feet. This is, according to Paula Harvey, consistent with the rationale that the height limitation should be increased in proportion to the increase in the number of units if a hotel is constructed. The stipulation presently in effect calls for a height limitation of 85 feet. An unlimited height provision is not "sellable." 10. In paragraph 16, after the reference to Section 380.05, Fla. Stat. (1983), please insert the phrase ", or successor provisions thereto," to incorporate any subsequent amendments by the Florida Legislature. 11. In paragraph 18, "Parcels I and III" should be changed to read "Parcels I, III and IV," and the following language should be inserted: ", at the time of building permit application or two (2) years from the effective date of this stipulation, whichever occurs first." The remainder of the sentence would remain as the second sentence of paragraph 18. My schedule and Frank's schedule are such that I will not be able to meet with you until next week, and Frank will be relocating to Naples in order to enter the "real world." I can meet with you Monday afternoon, Tuesday morning, Wednesday (until 4:00), Thursday (until 4:00) or at any time on Friday, December 6. Sincerely, M. A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney MAG:jmp cc: Frank Kowalski Anthony L. Shoemaker r/ Paula Harvey Charles Siem on, Esq. ~. BOKOR & BLAKELY, POPE JOHNSON RUPPEL, P. A. s , , . ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW E. D. ARMSTRONG 2II JOHN T. BLAKELY 911 CHESTNUT STREET BRUCE H. BOKOR ELI2A6ETH J. DANIELS POST OFFICE BOX 1368 JACQUELINE W. HUBBARD SCOTT C.ILGENFRITZ CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33517-1368 TIMOTHY A. JOHNSON, JR. DAVID C. LEVENREICH TELEPHONE (813) 461-1818 E. JOHN LOPEZ MARIA MAISTRELLIS DAVID N. MORRISON F. WALLACE POPE,JR. FRANK P. RAINER DAVID P. RHODES 19.8 5 December 5 DARRYL R. RICHARDS , DENNIS G. RUPPEL MARY N. SIM PKINS WILLIAM R. SWINDLE GLEE A.TRIPLETT - MICHAEL T, WILLIAMS TAMPA TELEPHONE: (813) 273-0373 FRANK J. MUSCARELL A,JR. OF COUNSEL FILE NO. M. A. Galbraith, Jr., Esquire ~ HAND DELIVERY Clearwater City Attorney City of Clearwater, 112 South Osceola Street Clearwater, FL 33518 Re: City of Clearwater/Justice Corporation Settlement Stipulation Dear A1: Enclosed is a redlined draft of the revisions to the referenced Agreement. Please be advised that my client has not yet had an opportunity to review this draft, and, accordingly, I must reserve the right to make such. revisions as it might request. I look forward to hearing your comments on this draft. Warmest personal regards, JOHNSON, BLAKELY, POPE, BOKOR & RUPPEL, P.A. E. D. Armstrong III EDA:jm Enclosures cc: Mr. Bill Friedlander, Enclosures Mr. Sam Burns, Enclosures Mrs. Paula Harvey, Enclosures Mr. Tony Shoemaker, Enclosures Office of City Attorney (813) 462-6760 December 11, 1985 E. D. Armstrong, Johnson, Blakely, P. O. Box 1368 CITY OF CLEARWATER POST OFFICE BOX 4748 CLEARWATER,FLORIDA 33518-4748 III, Esq. Pope, Bokor & Ruppel Clearwater, FL 33517-1368 Re: Sand Key Settlement Proposal Dear Ed: i~ t A~ l 1 t F i ~- ~ F a ~ ,f~. . .. _, ,.... a..... .... ~:y t, .DEC ! 21985 ' 'i Paula Harvey and I have reviewed your latest redraft of the proposed settlement stipulation, and offer the additional comments 1. On Page 3, in paragraph'13a, at the end of your new language (after "basis"), insert, "or any ordinance required to be adopted by any State or Federal law," in order to cover a contigency which is, unfortunately, becoming more and more common. 2. On Page 4, in paragraph 14, in the fifth sentence, delete the new language after "limitation" and substitute "of 210 feet from the established flood plane level." 3. On Page 5, in paragraph 14, fourth line from the top of the page (at the end of your first complete underlined sentence in paragraph 14), change the period to a comma and insert "but to the extent that the Parcel IV settlement stipulation schematic drawings may conflict with any provision of this stipulation, this stipulation shall govern." 4. On Page 6, in paragraph 18, the first sentence, delete the section symbols and substitute the word "Ordinance" (two places). titter the first sentence, insert: "In lieu of the fees required to be paid by Ordinances 3128-83 and 3129-83, or their successor Ordinances, the Plaintiffs shall pay a fee in the amount of $1,475.40 per residential dwelling unit, or $983.00 per hotel unit." "Equal Employment and Affirmative Action Employer" • , f E. D. Armstrong, III, Esq. -2- December 11, 1985 5. Also in paragraph 18, after the sentence suggested above, we need to insert, "Such fees shall be paid at the time of issuance of the initial building permit for each building." Except for the question of the height limitation, which we discussed by telephone a few days ago, the above comments are essentially for the purpose of clarifying the stipulation. I believe it is fair to say that we are about thirty feet away from a settlement agreement. Sincere~l~y, ~J~-~ M. A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney MAG:br cc: Anthony L. Shoemaker ~/ Paula Harvey Criarles Siemon, Esq. CITY ~F CLEARWATER Interdepartment Correspondence Sheet TO: Anthony L. Shoemaker, City Manager Lam) FROM: M. A. Galbraith, Jr., City Attorney' COPIES: J Paula Harvey, Planning Director SUBJECT: Sand Key Settlement Proposal DATE: December 13, 1985 Late yesterday afternoon, I received. a telephone call from Ed Armstrong suggesting .the following: Triey will accept a height limitation of 210 feet on the Sheraton ,?arcel if they can build 416 units on Parcel 2, which up until now has been deliberately left out of the proposed settlement stipulation. Also, they will reduce the units on the Sheraton parcel from 490 to 466. With respect to Parcel 2, however, they believe that they cannot develop Parcel 2 under the new Land Development Code, and they would. like to "work out guidelines" to govern the development of Parcel 2 in lieu of the Land Development Code requirements. I have no firm opinion as to whether this proposal is a good one, but it would be desirable to include Parcel 2 in the settlement stipulation, and not leave it hanging out there for future contro- versy and litigation. Let's discuss. MAG:br cc: Charles Siemon, Esq. • ~ ~ ., f it ~.~~ .JOHNSON, BLAKELY, POPE, BOKOR & RUPPEL, P. A. ~ E. D. ARMSTRONG III ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW Ii JOHN T. BLAKELY BRUCE H. BOKOR 911 CHESTNUT STREET , ELIZABETH J. DANLE LS JACQUELINE W. HUBBARD POST OFFICE BOX 1368 SCOtt C.ILGENFRITZ TIMOTHY A. JOHNSON, JR. CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33517-1368 TAMPA TELEPHONE: DAVID C. LEVENREICH TELEPHONE (813) 461-1818 (813) 273-0373 E. JOHN LOPEZ MARIA MAISTRELLIS _ ~ FRANK J. MUSCARELLA,JR. DAVID N. MORRISON F. WALLACE POPE,JR. OF COUNSEL FRANK P. RAINER DAVID P. RHODES FILE NO. DARRYL R. RICHARDS DENNIS G. RUPPEL December 30, 1985 MARY N. SIMPKINS WILLIAM R. SWINDLE GLEE A.TRIPLETT MICHAEL T. WILLIAMS M. A. Galbraith, Jr., Esquire City Attorney City of Clearwater 112 South Osceola Avenue Clearwater, FL 33518 Re: Justice Corporation Proposed Settlement with City of Clearwater, Sand Key Properties. Dear Al: Please let me know the City's position with respect to the most recent proposal for settlement of the Sand Key zoning issues. Very truly yours, JOHNSON., BLAKELY, POPE, BOKOR &_._RUPPEL , P . A . ~` C C~ E. D. Armstrong III EDA:jm cc: Mr. Bill Friedlander Mr. Sam Burns f~ t! __ ~• - - ~ ~i ~• "~ ~~D~I P~ j±n~t~!~~~r ~~?f;RT1,~~[~T~ ~~~~, b[;,~..a, .a •r•~v... ,/ ~~ q o Office of City Attorney ~ ~~~WA~,E.R C~~'y OF CL POS"T OFFICE ISOX 4748 CLEARWATER,FLORIDA 33518=4748 January 13, 1986 E. D. Armstrong IIIr Esq. p, p, fox 1368 Clearwater, Florida 33517 Re: Justice Corporation Proposed Settlement Dear Ed: I have reviewed with the City Manager and the Planning Director your latest proposal of allowing 416 units on Parcel 2 and reducing the units auTlgnodosalpiscunacceptableo to 466. We have determined that yo p p The primary dispute lies with the proposed 416 units on Parcel 2, which i~as a resulting density of 48.4 units per acre. We have been consistent in our negotiations with previous and current property owners that 32 units per acre on individual parcels was the highest acceptable density that the City would accept in a settlement. Sinceerely, ~~ M, A. Galbraith,Jr. City Attorney NiAG : br cc: Anthony L. Shoemaker ~ Paula Harvey Charles Siemon, Esq. ~ ~~-~ ; ~~~ ~~~~;' ~A~ ~. ~ ~~ P~A~v~v~ pEPARTI4~ENT, '`Equal F_mployment and Arrirmntice Action Employer" • • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT i June 5, 1986 Mr. Ted Cobb Justice Investment Corporation 520 Brickle Key Drive, Suite 301 Miami, Florida 33131 Re: Property on;Sand Key. Clearwater, Florida Dear Mr. Cobb: I have reviewed with City Manager Tony Shoemaker the site plan renderings presented to me by Mr. Y. H. Lee for the North Bay Parcel and South Beach Parcel on Sand Key. Apologizing for the delay in my written response, we do offer several comments. We commend Justice Corporation in their desire to continue with plans to develop the South Bay Parcel with 80 units as have been proposed for several years, and we concur with this effort. We also consider your decision to proceed within the parameters of the Settlement Stipulation between Cheezem Investment Program 1, Ltd. and the City of Clearwater for development of the North Beach Parcel. As I have interpreted the drawings submitted by Mr. Lee for the South Beach Parcel, it appears that each of the alternatives is planned to accommodate approximately 54 units per acre on the site. Although I agree with the concept of arranging the buildings on this site in a fashion that is sensitive to existing adjacent development, both Mr. Shoemaker and I find the density to be excessive and not in the spirit of prior negotiations which attempted to reflect existing densities on the beach side of Sand Key. Mr. Ted Cobb ~. June 5, 1986 Page 2 The proposals for the North Bay Parcel provide for a mixed use concept, which concept is not objectionable. However, in very simple terms, the plans represent to us attempt to fit "too much" on "too little." The clear space requirements of the code which regulate the B zoning on the property do not appear to have been met. The densities of residential and/or hotel development far exceed the general densities established on the bay side of Sand Key. It is unclear that there is enough physical land area to provide all of the parking that would be reasonably required for all of the development proposed on this site. As you indicated to me previously, I can expect that a new set of drawings would be presented to me which would be reflective of the comments I have outlined above. I think I should further advise you, as we have advised the previous parties to negotiation efforts, that the basis of any negotiation effort on the part of the City would be to achieve a reasonable compromise to the development that could occur under the "B" (Business) zoning on the property and the new zoning that the City proposed in its rezoning applications in 1985. I do not see that spirit of compromise presented in the set of renderings presented by Mr. Lee. The City Manager has expressed his desire to proceed with negotiations with your company and he and I are willing to recommend concessions to accommodate development which exceeds that provided for in the rezoning proposals. However, we feel there must be more of a demonstration on the part of Justice Investment Corporation to reduce densities from the level of 54 units per acre on the vacant property on Sand Key in order for us to recommend any terms of negotiation to the Clearwater City Commission. Please advise me of your company's position to these comments. Sincerely, Paula Harvey Planning Director PH:bd c.c. City Manager Anthony L. Shoemaker M. A. Galbraith, Jr., City Attorney ~- 7- -~--~ ~~ ' Y t ~ f ~ a V V j '~ , 115 - ~ ,, (r{)iJ • ~• la` ~ ~~~ •. ~ ~. . ~r ~ /~/ ti -50 Units of Condo ~---2fl,000 SF . ~-- 3-4 levels above Convenient Center garage. with 20,000 SF of Professional Offices on top. .- SCHEME B -Parcel I!I rl ~ Total Hotel: Total Housing: 220 50 RM DU ~ ~~G~ ~ ~• - 36•s ~/~~J Total Retail : ' 80, 000 SF GLA otal Office: 20, 000 SF /~,;p ~ p 'otal Health Club: 20, 000 SF ~ b? F ~,+2 45, 000 - 60, 000 SF GLA ~"-'22D-room Boutique Center on 2 levels Comfort Court Hotel with 20, 000 SF of probable 5-story Health Club above. above garage. <.~ . G~~- - .r + , ' _ f • . • ~ ~'~. ~ ~ ~~ •• . . ~ 1 t~----~ o~ : o----.~ o fl .: ,- M ` t ~• ~~ '~` .. ~~~ _~ r rr.~ .I ~ 50 Units of Condo 20 Units of Condo 45,000-60, 000 SF GLA 120 Units of Condo 3-4 levels above on top ~of Boutique Center on 2 levels 12 levels 'above ara e. 20, 000 SF of with 2 ara e 9 9 0, 000 SF of 9 9 • nvenient Center. Co Office above. _ G S G~%'~ . SCHEME C -Parcel III ~ / Total Housing: 198 DU ~'=~S© oho ~,~. ~ ~,,~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ f1 G'`''"~~t'°~`" Total Retail : 65-80, 000 SF GLA / ~ ~, ~ ~ `'°""'~ ~ -"~ . Total Office: 20, OOU SF ~ ~/1~~ ~~L, ~ ~ a~~ , S-~ ~~j~ ~0 ~~ -... ~ ~~ ~ ... l SCE A -Parcel II • * 4 Double loaded corridor buildings of 8 DU/FL. * Average ll6 DU/Bldg. (total 464 DU) * 14 typical floors plus-one lobby floor. * Average height of buildings between 145'-155' including garage. ~;: * Approximate distances between buildings - 160'+ . ` ^_ ~ ~::. 1 .• ~..____~ .~-.r.- ., ., .. -_._.._ SQ~@~ B -Parcel II * 3 Double loaded corridor buildings of 10 DU/FL. . * Average 154_ DU/Bldg. (total 462 DU). * 15 typical floors plus one lobby floor. * Average height. of building between 155' - 165' including garage. * Approximate distances between building - 210'+ . i. -- •-- 1 '~ ~ ~ '~ _ ---~ ~' _ •' 0 / O d ]J)Jf)r i ~~ _ q ~~111i I ~ o i~~ • SCI C -Parcel II • * 3 single loaded corridor buildings of 8 IXJ/FL. * Average 156 DU/Bldg. (total 468 ]~J). * 19 typical floor plus one lobby floor.. - - * Average height of buildings between 191' - 201', including garage. * Minumun distances between buildings - 140'+ ~:~ 1 _ r .~+ "'rr 1 ..o ~~ ~~ .rte ..~.. ~.. 11 ~. '. -` 1 -. . • ~.~~ i S(~IEI!~ D -Parcel II • * 2 single loaded corridor plus 1 double loaded corridor buildings. * Single loaded buildings are of 8'DU/FZ, Average 156 DU/Bldg. ~ ' * Double loaded buildings is of 10 DU/FL, 154 DU/Bldg.. total. * Total 466 DU on site. `' ~; * Single loaded buildings average 191' to 201' in height including garage (19+1) * Double loaded is of 155''- 165' in height including garage. (16+1) * Average distances between buildings - 130'+ . i ~-__J-° • SCf~ E -Parcel II . * 2 double loaded corridor buildings plus l single loaded corridor building. * Double loaded are of 10 DU/FL, average 164 DU/Bldg. * `~ • Single loaded is of 8 DU/FL, total 132 nU/Bldg.. ~: * .Total 460 DU on site. * Average building height 164' - 174' including garage (16+l:fls.) * Average distances between buildings 200'+ . <: ' ~ - ~. SCHEME F -Parcel tl * 3 point towerw of 7 DU/FL. * Variable in height: 18, 23 and. 28 stories in height. * 2 floors of non-residential included. * Range from 121, 146 ~ 196 DU/Bldg. (total 4fi3 DU) * Approxima#e distance between building - 200'+ . . • Y. H.LEE E~;ArGhit~3cts 33717th8treet,Oakland,California 94612 (415)451-4400 V. Parcel III. (commercial site) program A. SCHEME A -- Hotei, full retail and housing. 1. Hotel Program: 220 room 5 to 6 stories in height, "Comfort Court" quality. - Bedroom size: 400 SF + - Service area: 4,000 SF - Total Net area : 92,000 SF - Probable gross area: 115,000 SF 2. Retail Area: 105,000 SF (including service commercial) 3. Housing: 50 DU of 3 to 4 stories in height. 4. Parking Requirement: - Hotel: 200 spaces (min.) - Retail: 420 (based on 4/1000) - Housing: 75 (based on 1.5/DU) spaces B. SCHEME B -- Hotel and reduced Retail/Office space and Housing. 1. Hotel Program: Same as Alt. I. 2: Retail area: 65,000 SF. 3. Office area: 20,000 SF. 4. Housing: 50 DU of 3 to 4 stories in height. 5. Parking Requirement: - Hoel: 200 spaces (min.) - Retail: 180 (4/1000) - Office: 50 (2.5/1000) - Housing: 75 {1.5/DU) 0 spaces C. SCHEME C -- Housing and Retail. 1. Housin Pro ram• 2. Retail 0 ice: 3. Parking Requirement: - Housing: 270 spaces - Retail: 340 spaces - Office: 50 spaces spaces Y. H. LEE ArGhit~3cts 33717thStreet,Oakla,nd,California 94612 (415)451-4400 V. Parcel IiI (commercial site) program A. SCHEME A -- Hotel, full retail and housing. 1. Hotel Program: 220 room 5 to 6 stories in height, "Comfort Court" quality. - Bedroom size: 400 SF + - Service area: 4,000 SF - - Total Net area : 92,000 SF - Probable gross area: 115,000 SF 2. Retail Area: 105,000 SF (including service commercial) 3. Housing: 50 DU of 3 to 4 stories in height. 4. Parking Requirement: - Hotel: 200 spaces (min.) - Retail: 420 (based on 4/1000) - Housing: 75 (based on 1.5/DU spaces B. SCHEME B -- Hotel and reduced Retail/Office space and Housing. 1. Hotel Program: Same as Alt. I. 2. Retail area: 65,000 SF. 3. Office area: 20,000 SF. 4. Housing: 50 DU of 3 to 4 stories in height. 5. Parking Requirement: - Hoel: 200 spaces (min.) - Retail: 180 (4/1000) - Office: 50 (2.5/1000) - Housing: 75 (1.5/DU) 0 spaces C. SCHEME C -- Housing and Retail. 1. Housin Pro ram: 2. Retail 0 ice: 3. Parking Requirement: - Housing: 270 spaces - Retail: 340 spaces - Office: 50 spaces spaces Y. H.LEE A~ Architects • 33717th Street, Oakland, California 94612 (415)451-4400 V. Parcel iiI (commercial site) program A. SCHEME A -- Hotel, full retail and housing. 1. Hotel Program: 220 room 5 to 6 stories in height, "comfort Court" quality. - Bedroom size: 400 SF + - Service area: 4,000 SF - Total Net area: 92,000 SF - Probable gross area: 115,000 SF 2. Retail Area: 105,000 SF (including service commercial) 3. Housing: 50 DU of 3 to 4 stories in height. 4. Parking Requirement: - Hotel: 200 spaces (min.) - Retail: 420 (based on 4/1000) - Housing: 75 (based on 1.5/DU spaces B. SCHEME B -- Hotel and reduced Retail/Office space and Housing. 1. Hotel Program: Same as Alt. I. 2. Retail area: 65,000 SF. 3. Office area: 20,000 SF. 4. Housing: 50 5. Parking Requirement: - Hoel: 200 - Retail: 180 - Office: 50 - Housing: 75 DU of 3 to 4 stories in height. spaces (min.) (4/1000) (2.5/1000) (1.5/DU) OS spaces C. SCHEME C -- Housing and Retail. 1. Housin Pro ram: 2. Retail 0 ice: 3. Parking Requirement: - Housing: 270 spaces - Retail: 340 spaces - Office: 50 spaces spaces /~ . -_ _ L~~ ~ ~~` _ 3-4vlevels above garage. SCHEME C -Parcel III Total Housing: 190 DU Total Retail: 65-80, 000 SF CLA Total Office: 20, 000 SF on top'of 20, 000 SF of Convenient Center. - 45, 000-60, 000 SF GLA ~"'- 120 Units of Condo Boutique Center on 2 levels 12 levels 'above with 20, 000 SF of garage Office above. .~•~ f . ~+~. ~ .. ~~ ~ :i ~ ~• > ' .~~ ~ -.1 ,~~ o ~ ~ . .. • ~ ~~- - _ ~-. : - _ -_ 50 Units of Condo 28, 000 SF 45, 000 - 60, 000 SF GLA 22D-room - 3-4 levels above Convenient Center Boutique Center on 2 levels Comfort Court Hotel garage. with 20, 000 SF with 20, 000 SF of probable 5-story - of Professional Health Club above. above garage. Offices on top. SCHEME B -Parcel I11 Total Hotel: 220 RM ~ " Total Housing: 50 DU ~ _ Total Retail : 80, 000 SF GLA ~ , Total Office: 20, 000 SF Total Health Club: 20, 000 SF - SCHEME B -Parcel I11 Total Hotel: 220 RM Total Housing : 50 DU _ Total Retail : 80, 000 SF GLA Total Office: 20, 000 SF Total Health Club: 20, 000 SF - so units of ~ condo 3-4 levels above . garage. .~ ~: ~~%~ 45, 000 - 60, 000 SF GLA Center on 2 levels with 20„ 000 SF of ` Health Club Above. i ~' ~ ~' ,: ~~~ .~+ -~ i ~~ ~ ~.- 2fl, 000 SF Convenient Center' ~/ r with '20, 000 SF -' of Professional Offices on top:. i" ~~ ' , ,\ . v ~~ ~~~ / ~~ ~~ ~- 220-iroom~ . :Comfort Court Hote! "probable 5-story' above garage,. . SCHEME C - Parcel ~ 11 l Total Housing : 196 DU Total Retail : 65-80, 000 SF GLA Total Office: 20, 000 SF 45, 000-60, 000 SF GLA Boutique Center on 2 level with 20, 000 SF ~ of Office above. ,,,~/ o ., _~ o ,- . __ o 50 .Units of Condo ~ ~ ~ ~4 levels above '= ,~ ~ / i ' ~ ~/ _ - 120 Units of Condo 12 levels above ~ li garage Cfl ~' ~ ~: . , . . ~' ~ •20' Units of Condo i ~, ~ on fi~p •of ~~' 20, 000 SF of. ~' Convenient tenter. r SCE E - ParoeO. II * 2 drnable '].oacZed oarridor buildings plus 1 single • loaded corridor bui~ ~•' ~ . ~: * Double lo~-u~ed are of 10 DII/FL, average 164 DII/Bldg. . * Single loaded is of 8 DU/ti'L, total I32 DII/Bldg. * Total. 460 DII on site. - - - * Average ~i~ilAinc~ height 164' - 174' inclu3uzg garage (I6+I; fls-) ~- * Average distances between bui]~s 200'+ . ~ - - .r' SCE A - Paroel-II _ - _ _ ~ ~ - * .4.Double loaded corridor buit~;n;s of 8 DII/FL. . * Average 216 DST/B1+dg_ (total -464 DU) * 14 typical. floors plus one lobby floor,. `~ * Average height of buildings between l45'-155' including garage- * Approxinate distaTmes between ~,;lcl;n~ - i60'± . ~~~ ~ _ _ ~. ,. SCHEME F -Parcel II ' * 3 point .towers of 7 DU /FL. * Variable in height: 18, 23 and 28 stories in height. * 2 floors of non-residential included. * Range from 121,-146 E a96 DU/Bldg. ,(total 463 DU) * ApproxirriateZ}istance between building - 200'+. _, ~ ~ -~ .~ _ _• ••~ - .,. f 9~E A - Parcel II * 4. Double loaded corridor buildi~s of 8 DU/FL. * Average I16 DU/Bldg. (total 464 DU) * 14 typical floors plus aa~e lobby floor. * Average height of buildings between 145'-155' including garage. ,;' * Approximate distances between t,,;i~;*~ - 160'± ~1 ~~ ~ _ _, _.. _. -- ---1 j--- ---- - - -- - --.. ~ ., o o ~ 0 9C~ C - Par..P_1 IZ * 3 single loaded corridor buildings of 8 DU/FZ. * Average 156 D[J/Bldg. (total 468 Dt1) . * 19 typical floor plus one lobby floor.. +' Average height of ly,; l A; rrnt between 191' - 201' r including garage. * Miniaasa distances between lY,i l! i,~ga - 140'± ~ ::: 1 ~ -- _. o ~ O l1 ~~1 = ~E B -Parcel II - * 3 Double loaded corridor ,; ~ ~; • ;~ of 10 DU/FL. - * Average 154 W/Bldg. (fatal 462 D(n . ' * 15 typical floors plus one lotaby floor. ~ - * Average height of Yuildirg between 155' - 165' including garage. * Approximate distances between buildiig - 210'+ . ~. __ ~ , ._ _- - ~ - - ~ .~~•. O ~~ /~~ 8~E E - Ba:oel II • 2 doable 'loaded aoari,do~r 4++i ~*+~A plus 1 single lpadad corridor building. * Double handed are of 10 DU/FL, average 164 DU/Bldg. • Single l;oadad ie of 8 DD/FL, total 132 dU/Bldg. • Total 460 DII on site. . * ]lverage building t 164' - 174' including garage (16+1:f1s.) • !-veraga d{stacnes betreen y~li{nyst li{n 20p'+ . ------= ------ ~ ~ ~ ° ~-. ~Q~ SCHEME F -Parcel 11 * 3 point towerw of 7 DU/FL. * Variable in height: 18, 23 and 28 stories in height. * 2 floors of non-residential included. * Range from 121, 146E 196 DU/Bldg. (total 063 DU) * Approximate distance between building - 200'+ . ~~ ~ ~. _ - ' O .~ 9C}ffirE D - Paroel II * 2 single loaded rnrridor plus 1 double.laaded oorritlor ,;~~;,~, * Single loaded buildings are of 8'DU/FL, Average 156 DU/B1~3q. * Double loaded }y,i~Aingc 15 Of 10 DU/FL, 154 DU/Bldg. total. ,• * Zbtal 466 DU oar site. * Single loaded buildings average 191' to 201' in height ;,,r-~„~;,,Q garage (19+1) * Double loaded is of 155''- 165' in height including garage. (16+1) * Average distances bPtwaen buildi.rsgs - 230'+ . r .. • • I 2~{-p . O V r- i-f'~ 21~~ "I 8 ~ Uri iT5 . :Single-loaded, open .walkway, double views. second bedroom view compromised by walkway :building form is bent to expand view corridors between -buildings f " = 50' ~ ~ I ' ... ' i i L O ~ ~~ ~-~l, Single-loaded, open .walkway:. all main rooms with ocean view . longer balcony corridors than A, difficult to fit on site if more than 3 buildings I" =. 50' ~ ~ .~ (/~ ~' 4 J i N!~ 25p' I D U r-{ t 75 - - ~._ 2'10 - ----- -----~ t _ ----------- - Single-loaded, open walkway; all roams with ocean view longer balcony corridors than A 60° inside angle of bend, expands view corridors between buildings, but creates awkward space on bay side ~'~ = so' 200' . t(oo' CJ N Hybrid single-loaded, double loaded--all rooms with ocean view . more compressed.than A,B,C; expanded view corridors between buildings :. 60°. inside angle of bend ~'' = 50' ~ ~15 • 1.35 ' S ~r-~. i~.. Hybrid single-loaded, double-loaded; all rooms • with ocean view more compressed than A,B,C,D I " ~ So' ! ~I 5 ' ~ l.)ri!-r~j ~,~... o_ N ' Double-loaded, central core; all rooms with ocean • view only 3 bedroom at front tip x„_50, • l~D~ .g ~r~~75 ~o Double-loaded, offset Dore; spread rear to facilitate ocean views of rear units more compressed than A,B,C,D,E,F to expand view corridors between buildings ~~~' ;' ~/ S' ,_ ~ p U~ ~7w H /'t o double-loaded slab angled windows to reduce view of adjacent buildings expands view of ocean more compressed than A,B,C,D,E,F,G ,~ N N 75 8 uN~-rs double-loaded, herringbone all rooms oriented to ocean view, away from adjacent buildings ~ ~ O r ~, ~1~/ ~l Utz lT5 I(~o. ~y ~N-TS Point tower triangular shape to give all rooms view of ocean one unit with bay view only (if 9 units per floor) • .~ ` i z'~'~. `` -- :~ z+ c~. 2+ .:. L i ~~ O Point Tower (Brickell III) mare compressed than J to expand view corridors between buildings only 7 units per floor, one with view only of bay . ~---~ Y :M ~. . I 1O, g ~~--rs : Through units, double views : no co~romised bedrooms with view to bay angled orientation to expand view corridors requires additional fire stairs 00 V R S _, • ~, _. .~ ,~~ .. .• .~„ • • • ~ . N ' 1 !• 'T~ . ~' ` ~; ,I ~ • • I ~- . : ~ ~ I r 1 ~ ~ ' © I r~ ~ ~ I 1 •• •• I ~ •.,~.J ~~~ ~ 1 •' ~/ ~ ~ ~ _ • ~ I I ~ ~ ~~ ~ ` ~\ 1` ~ ~ ~~ ~ I 50 Units of Condo Zfl, 000 SF 45, 000 - 60, 000 SF GLA ~ 220-room 3-4 levels above Convenient Center Boutique Center on 2 levels Comfort Court Hotel garage. with 20,000 SF with Z0, 000 SF of probable 5-story ~ • ' of Professional Health Club above. above garage. Offices on top. SCHEME B -Parcel III . • <. Total Hotel: 220 RM Total Housing: 50 DU ' Total Retail : 80, 000 SF GLA Total Office: 20, 000 SF • Total Health Club: 20, 000 SF .••~.. ~~ i ~ / 1 ~~ ~ 1 , ~ ~ ~ • i Q Q---~----~ . . o-----~ o .. . .~ t J ~~ ~~ - • ~ ~. ~ ~ • ~ ~-.~ _~ r ~ \~.~ V ~~ SO Units of Condo 20 Units of Condo k5, 000-60, 000 SF GLA 120 Units of Condo 3-4 levels above ~ on top ~of Boutique Center on 2 levels 12 levels above garage. 20, 000 SF of with 20, 000 SF of garage Convenient Center. Office above. SCHEME C -Parcel III <. Total Housing: 199 DU Total Retail : 65-80, 000 SF GLA Total Office: 20, 000 SF e 1 ...._:. . ~ ~ .... ~ 6~ A -Parcel II * 4 Double loaded corridor buildings of 8 DU/FT,. * Average I16 DU/Bldg. .(total 464 DU) * 14 typical floors plus one lobby floor. * Average height of buildings between 145'-155' including garage. * Approximate distances between buildings - 160'+ . ,; . 1 .~~. .rte ~.~ ~~ r ~~ T ~~ ~ ^- ~~ ~~ 11 1 .. ~ •• 4 Q ~ L~._.._~ ~ .r,r-,. ~ ~ •. ~+'~ ~i• 9(~~ B -Parcel II * 3 Double loaded corridor buildings of 10 DU/FL. . * Average 154 DU/Bldg. (total 462 DO). * 15 typical floors plus one lobby floor. * Average height of building between 155' - 165' including garage. * Approxiiaate distances between building - 210'+ . ~`, • . 1 _„ _ ._ ~ -----~ . ._. -- -- ~~ ~n ~~ i \~~ -'. I 1 i/ 9(~ffi~ C -Parcel II * 3 single loaded corridor buildings of 8 DU/FL. * Average 156 DU/Bldg. (total 468 DtJ). * 19 typical floor plus one lobby floor.. * Average height of buildings between 191' - 201', including garage. * Minimaan distances between ~tildings - 140'+ : ~, • n C -~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ r• ~ _~ .Yr I~~ !r 1 ... .. .. ~ _,,,, o • D -Parcel II s * 2 single loaded corridor plus 1 double loaded corridor buildings. - * Single loaded buildings are of 8'DU/FL, Average 156 DU/Bldg. • * Double loaded buildings is of 10 DU/FL, 154 DU/Bldg. total. ~. * Total 466 DU on site. ~~ ' * Single loaded buildings average 191' to 201' in height including garage (19+1) . * Double loaded is of 155''- 165' in height including garage. (16+1) * Average distances between buildings - 130'+ . ~ . , •~ •~ • t 1 ,. ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 ~ •• -~ 0 n ~ /~ ~ /~ 9CBEME E -Parcel II * 2 double loaded corridor buildings plus 1 single loaded corridor building. * Double loaded are of 10 DU/FL, average 164 DU/Bldg. ,; * Single loaded is of 8 DU/FL, total 132 ~iJ/Bldg. ~, * Total 460 DtT on site. * Average building height 164' - 174' including garage (16+1:f1s.) Average distarx~es between buildings 200'+ . •I .,' ~~ ~.~ r~ ,ter .r ~r .r' r r • I / O O . • ~ ~ {V( • t ~ ~ SCHEME F -Parcel II * 3 point towerw of 7 DUIFL. * Variable in height: 18, 23 and 28 stories in height. * 2 floors of non-residential included. * Range from 121, 146E 196 DUIBIdg. (total 463 DU) * Approximate distance between building - 200'± . 1 ~~ .. ., ~,,~,, r,J ~ ... ~: ,. ~~ . ~ ..fir • '~•' ~-__s ri "' ~• . Q ~, .. ,• .. .. .._..,..~ ~r,~ ~+•• 1 ~,•r ' ~' 50 Units of Condo 3-4 levels above garage. SCHEME B -Parcel Total Hotel: 220 RM Total Housing: 50 DU Total Retail: 80, 000 SF GLA Total Office: 20, 000 SF Total Health Club: 20, 000 SF ~20, 000 SF Convenient Center with 20, 000 SF of Professional Offices on top. 45, 000 - 60, 000 SF CLA ~'-'-22D-room Boutique Center on 2 levels Comfort Court Hotel with 20, 000 SF of probable 5-story Health Club above. above garage. ~. ~, ~ . • ~;---r .. .; .. ~• .. I ~ ~~ ~ ~ f ~ , ~ ~ M ~~ • 0 , 1 ~ ~ 1 O~ . ' . • ` O , J ~ . • ~ ,• - ~ ~ ~~ ~ _• ~ ~ • ~~ ~~ ` • ~.~ 50 Units of Condo 3-4 levels above garage. SCHEME C -Parcel III total blousing: 199 DU Total Retail: 65-80,000 SF GLA Total Office: 20, 000 SF 20 Units of Condo on top ~of 20,000 SF of Convenient Center. ,. 45, 000-60, 000 SF GLA Boutique Center on 2 levels with 20, 000 SF of Office above. 120 Units of Condo ~ ' 12 levels 'above garage • i .1 i i i i i, i :~ a 1 t 1 ....~. ... ` .. ~ ••~ 9GE~ME A - Parcel II * 4 Double loaded corridor buildings of 8 DU/FL. * Average I16 DU/Bldg. (total 464 DU) * 14 typical floors plus one lobby floor. * Average height of buildings between 145'-155' including garage. * Approximate distances between buildings - 160'+ . ~; . • • ~Y ~ ~~ ^.nr ~~ ~~ ~~- 1 1 .~ •• e., .,tir,~ r/1 t7lT~ e .. -~ _ 9(~~ B -Parcel II * 3 Double loaded oorri~lor buildings of 10 DU/FL. . * Average 154 DU/Bldg. (total 462 DU). * 15 typical floors plus one lobby floor. * Average height of building between 155' - 165' including garage. * Approxitoate distances between building - 210'+ . ,`, .~. ~- 1 _. _- _~ ~ _+ .... . .. 1 .. • ~~~ ffflr ~^) V O ~i ~ ~ / ~ / _ ~'~+ ~. 9(~~ C - Parcel II * 3 single loaded corridor buildings of 8 DU/FL. * Average 156 DU/Bldg. (total 468 DtT). * 19 typical floor plus one lobby floor.. * Average height of buildings between 191' - 201', including garage. * Mininnrm distances between buildings - 140'+ : ~,, • r c 1 _ _ ~,. _ _... - _ _ ~ -.. ' .A/\ \J • SC~~ D -Parcel SI * 2 single loaded corridor plus 1 double loaded corridor buildings. ~ . * Single loaded buildings are of 8'DU/F`L, Average I56 DU/Bldg. * Double loaded buildings is of 10 DU/F'L, 154 DU/Bldg. total. * Zbtal 466 DU on site. ~ °~ * Single loaded buildings average 191' to 201' in height including garage (19+1) * Double loaded is of 155'- 165' in height including garage. (16+1) * Average~distanoes between buildings - 130'+ . ~ -- - -- l ~ •• ~ . • ~ ~7~ O ~rrrr~A SCBEME E -Parcel II * 2 double loaded wrridor buildings plus 1 single loaded corridor building. * Double loaded are of 10 DU/FL, average 154 DU/Bldg. ,; * Single loaded is of 8 DU/FL, total 132 DU/Bldg. << * Zbtal 460 DU on site. . * Average building height 164' - 174' including garage (I6+l:fls.) * Average distances between buildings 200'+ . i • i•+ ~~ 1 .._.. ~.. _.r --. _.. 1 _ _ --.. • 1 ~ ~ ; SCHEME F -Parcel II * 3 point towerw of 7 DU/FL. * Variable in height: 18, 23 and 28 stories in height. * 2 floors of non-residential included. * Range from 121, 146 ~ 19b DUlBldg. (total 463 DU) * Approximate distance between building - 200'+. C ~, ~~. • • JUSTICE INVESTMENT CORP. June Il, 1986 Ms. Paula Harvey Planning Director City of Clearwater Department of Planning and Urban Development P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Fla. 33518-4748 RE: SA1~ REY P1tOPF.RTY Clearwater, Florida Dear Ms. Harvey: -~ 1t , Y ~ ' i ~!, _ ` t"~ `~i JUN l 61w~v ~~ :; 4 ,R -S "~ I~~~ t`.~a%a{'~a~° ~,~v. ?'dam Jt:';1T We are in receipt of your letter dated June 5, 1986 and have given careful consideration to the comments contained therein. As you will recall, in February, 1986, our Architect, Mr. Yui Hay Lee, was directed to develop various alternate land plans for the purpose of evaluating the development possibilities for our North Bay (commercial) and South Beach parcels. Alternates for these two sites were presented to you at our meeting in Clearwater on April 17, 1986. I believe we further indicated to you at this meeting that, as part of the overall development of Sand Rey and in the spirit of good faith compromise, our company was proposing that we continue with the terms of the Settlement Stipulation (March 26, 1984) as to the North Beach parcel, and continue with the 80-unit proposal for the South Bay parcel as previously presented in May, 1985. Our intent with regard to the South Beach and North Bay parcels was to consider the various design criteria by asking Yui Hay Lee to develop alternate land plans, and then to invite input from the City on such issues as building siting, height, and mass, vistas, lot coverage, and open space, as well as the issue of density. However, based on your letter of June 5, we have come to the conclusion that the City's primary objection to the plans presented by Yui Hay Lee is density. We feel strongly that any discrepancies over density can be resolved only by re-examining each of the four undeveloped parcels, not just the South Beach and North Bay parcels. Thus, we propose the following compromise relative to each of the four parcels: 7820 38th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 (813) 344-5481 ' • • Ms. Paula Harvey June 11, 1986 Page 2 1. SOUrH BEACH PARCEL Eliminate approximately 70 dwelling units and thus establish the maximum number of units at 390. Yui Hay Lee would be directed to further develop Schemes B, E, and F based on the lesser number of units. 2. I~UI~I'H BAY PARCEL Reduce both the total commercial use and the number of residential units as follows: At the north end of the parcel retain the 220-room hotel facility, or as depicted in the alternate, the 120-unit condominium. Either the hotel facility or the condominium would be developed in conjunction with one of the following alternates for the southern portion of the parcel: a. A total of 90,000 square feet (G.L.A.) of commercial space without additional residential units, or b. A total of 50,000 square feet (G.L.A.) of commercial space combined with a maximum of 30 residential units. Yui Hay Lee would be directed to refine the previous schemes accordingly. ~. 1~RTfi BEACH PARCEL (At~rox. 15 Acres) Increase the allowable residential dwelling units to a maximum of 500 (from 370). All other terms of the Settlement Stipulation of March, 1984 would remain the same. 4. SOUrH BAY PARCEL Continue with the 80 units on the existing foundation substantially as proposed in May, 1985. We would appreciate receiving confirmation from the City as to the above guidelines before authorizing Yui Hay Lee to prepare additional drawings. Additionally, I think it would be mutually beneficial to arrange a meeting with you to further discuss our proposal. Please call me as soon as the date and time of the meeting have been set and I will schedule a trip to Clearwater. .~ . • Ms. Paula Harvey June 11, 1986 Page 3 Finally, please be assured that we are most interested in achieving a mutually satisfactory settlement as expeditiously as possible and look forward to working with you and the City to that end. Sincerely, ~~-~~'_~ Ted Cobb Vice President ~~~ cc: Justice Investment Corporation Attn: Joel Schleicher Y.H. Lee Associates Attn: Yui Hay Lee >. .:c a FOR Pti~ELLAS COUNTI~, ~L~Q~IUA CASE N0. 78-4765-7 UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, vs. T~ ~ ~~ ~~~ iT ~~~ ~T Plaintiff CITY OF CLEARWATER, T~-~~-r =F -- -. . ~~, .. __,,,,.~;m. ;. Defendant PlOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS T0: Susan G. Connelly, Esq., Charles L. Siemon, Esq. 200 S. Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606; Frank X. Kowalski, Esq., P.O. Box 4748, Clearwater, FL 33518; John Allen, Jr., Esq., Sarah M. Chaves, Esq., 4508 Central Avenue, FL 33711; Dennis P. Thompson, Esq., 1253 Park Street, Clearwater, FL 33516; Thomas F. Icard, Jr., Esq., James 0. Davis,III, Esq , P.O. Box 3239 Tampa, FL 33601 'THE COJRT has reviewed the f~1e and record in this cause and finds that said record fails to show any affirmative action taken by filing pleadings, Order of Court, or otherwise, for a period of more than one year last past; now, therefore, all parties and interested persons are hereby notified that the Court will on its o~rrn Motion, at the hour of 8:45Ai~. on the Zlth day of August 19 86, at Room 482 , 315 Court Street. Clearwater Florida, call up this case to be dismissed pursuant to F.R.C.P. 1.420 (ej. IT IS SO ORDERED in Chambers at Clearwater Pinellas County, Florida, this 12th day of June 19 86 Circuit judge I HEREBY CERTIFY that conies of the foregoing ~~OTION aiiD '~GTICE have been furnished to each of the parties, attorneys, or interested persons, r.an;ed above, by mai 1 thi 5 12th day of June 19 86 , by p ~ acme same in the United States Pdail addressed to the place shown opposite the addressee`s name and with sufficient postage thereon. o-~ Cir ult Cour ecretar;~ . , ,,, .. :4iE !`lone J ~ 9fi~ `~I,~~ OF PROPERTY 01tirNFR(S) AJ`~tRICAN DESIGN AND DE~'ELnP`•~NZ('~Rp_ -- ADDRESS 7820 38th Ave. TI, St. Petersburg, FL g~pgESFYTATI~E (IF ANY) ADDRESS LEG4L DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (SU3JECT OF R Q~ST) P:i ONE lY 400 ~t. ~~~ l l !f l ~Y1' 1 I~ CP!' - Rl-~ r GE.~aERAL LOCATION East side of Gulf Boulevard, immediately south of toll booth and City-owned bayside praperty. ACREAGE Z p 1=SENT zONING DIS T RICT g Bus - ~ ~' R.=QL~ST_D ZONIyG DIS T RIOT` RAi-16 _ ~i te. z jcrai a%° a'vUI1C ~O 15 equlTQd 1i `~1e ZOn~IIg O aii n i distiict is J.oposed to be chal-~o..d_ . _ ~P~~~VT Cis-~=.~~r:~~R Cu~'~~~:tiE\rs-,-~ L~~D i]SF pr ~.\T C?~zSSiFzGaTiON Commercial/Tourist Facilities UESTFD CLy~Rh7ATER CO~iPRE:-?~~tSI~E. LAND USE Pi.~v CLaSSIFIGaT ION -- - Q - '~~P(iil)T?~ IIe}^ci ~• Rcci[iPrti a~ - cP 1 d jc a ~ 1.1TD Ca teaOT~' ~P. JASON FOR REQUEST To keen nro compliance - amore appropriate use for area: PI~~LLAS CO_tIN`~ CO~iPRE`riE`~SI~-E LAs'~D USE PLAN CLASSZFIC_~TION High Density Reside t~ ' IS THE REQUESTED L:.~vD USE G~?EGORY~ IN CY~OR~YCE I1iIy® T'riE PI`.'-LLAS COU~aiY ~~,VD USE PL~:Y CL.45SIFICAI'IO?~_ 1ST As`` s~~~TD~~~iT TO 1~E I'IYEr LAS COUNTY COxh?RF~.-~NSI~ f ~-~tD USL P~~` 3E APPf~OVFD 3Y Ti-ir PINELL_~5 COUh~ p~~i~iI~IG COtINCZL? ~ Y=S .x t0%e: COLLT_tty Land Use Plan e~~Cn~= ent5 Z_ZGL3.? T°_ t_ie a~prOtiZl 02 ~i1e ~zn_n Council if the propcse3 I=na t:se Pi nel~ zs Cot~ty PZ g or Cr,:, s, s-a-- _ -~c:. ~~_ =.^rT `S`° ;~~:7Er~j 2.ia OU?stlOT1 Zc ;~ - = -- CouiztY Lena use °Ian and the Iand area is equal to or e~ceecs tiir °shold Zor the i_n%?-2G.°a use as estaol? =i3ed 321 the acre ale ~ p i ann; zg Counc_I Rules Section ZV of the "Pinellas Count_ COIICeiilln~ file ~G~?n15~r3t20n O~ the COL!.Il~•~:2Gle CGi:,IIrcrlP-^-Slte T End Use PI an" unless otile ~ ~: ise eXC?p tzc ~~-lCe j Szctian III (S; ~Si~nature) PHOME c_. 4 .; • 3TIO~i FOP, C~S'~GB IN ZC~ ~G - .~PP~IC .tea - zr DATE: 3une 13 , 1885 AMERICAN DESIGN AND DEYELOPNiENT CORP . 7820 38th Avenge N. St. Petersburg, FL ' LEGAL DSSCgIPTION OF PROPSHTY: - h4~,B_33-03, SZti' 1/4, Sec. 17-23S-15E 7~9~,B 22-O1, Nlt' Z/4, Sec. 2Q-24S-15E Cr~,:EF.AL 1,OC9TION: On the east side of Gulf Boulevard, immediately south of toll bridge and City property extending to the north side of Bayside Gardens IV pP.BSHNT ZONING: B (Business) Reverted DESIRED ZONING: Rbi-I6 back per Court order ~sCRE9Gg: 8.64 ` DESIRED REASON FOR RSQIJBST: CO°uPP.EAENSIVE PLAN CONFORIdANCE, REFLECT ~~;~-,~~~~~, LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS AND CITY COAi~IISSIUN DIRECTION ~_ ~,~ (Signature) ~ * s ~ s ~ s s * : ~ ~ ~ * s s x s * ~ : ~ ~ s pl aanin~ Depar tneDt Only p~Z Case Aio. ~ Items DATE P.ECI:IVED Hecor... Gate Ftd. DOTE 9CTIUr ~ yc f ; Clerk`s Office Only Copy to PAZ P.ec `d. Pfi Z Date Conn. Date Date Advt. - - 'i} .~ ArP~CgTIOr FOR C': ~:'tGR ih ZG~G °~r DATB: June 13, 1985 _ American Design F~ Development Corp. 7820 38th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida LBGAL DBSCgIPTION OF PgOPB.BTY: M ~ B 43-Q2, Sec.. I9-2gS-ISE, apart of goverment lot 2 lying in Sec. 19-29S-15E further described as follows: Begin at the S.E. corner of Sand Ke~znenof"GulftBou.Ievard4forsa~ paint being on the I~. right-of-k ay P.O.B_, thence Southwesterly along said hest right-of-kay line 1270 ft_, thence jt'.along sea~;al1 s75 ft_, also being the42orthence Line of Cabana Club Condo as recorded in Pl. Bk_ 77 pg. Northeasterly along seawall 1430 ft. , thence Southeasterly 383 ft. also~beingthe South property Iine of Sand Rey Condo 1460 as recorded in Pl. Bk_ 54, pg. 63 to theded in.PleSBkS 65 pgy 19nof PinellasBeach, _ 1480 Gulf Boulevard as recor County Records . _ CE~NY.P_~L L•OCsTION: l~~est side of Gulf Boulevard adjacent to and north of the Cabana Club Condominium. er Court DESIRED ZONING: ~`~-28 PRaSENT ZONING: B(Business) p -Order ACRE3GB: 7.57 ~ _ ' DESIRED ;?EASON FOE REQIIBST: CO~iPRE~ENSTERISTICSCO~~~N~~~`.~'~~~?'~`'~-~LAND USE CI~_RAC . ~ _ li~i (Signature) i i ; s s ~ * s # ~ i ~ ~ ~ # _ ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ s : * * * s ~ ~ s ~s Y ~ # * ~ Pl anaing Department Only P~2 Case No. DATE RECEIVED DATE ACTIUr :'.ecor:. It en r Date Fwd. ~ s s ~ ~ s s ~ * s ~ * * s ~ * ~ ~ : s ~ * : s s ~ ~ s : : * s ~ s s s s Clerk`s Office Onl Recd. F Date Advt. PAZ Date Copy to PAZ Comn. Date Sr^i~4!iC9TI0h FOR C;=.y~GE IN Zt_~ti'G ~- - AMERICAN DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT CORP . 7820 38th Avenue N. St. Petersburg, FL - LSGAII DBSCEIPTION OF PROPBETY: Begin at -the "SE corner of Section I9, Township 29 South, Range I5 East, run N 89°04`07"k, 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~89004'07"E, 293.05 feet to a mean high water line; return tO thence P.0_B. ; thence N 31058 ° 20"E, 27-3.71 feet; by a curve to the left, radius 1,809.86 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 ti~ater line; thence southerly along said mean high kater line to a paint that intersects a line running-from the P.O.B. S 89°04'07"E, 293.05 feet, less and except right-of-v; a}' for Gulf Boulevard. D3TB:June I3, 1985 G-;~EP.?L LOCcTION: East side of Gulf Boulevard adjacent to and south of Sand Rey Condo, Wayside Gardens II _ er Court DES IF.FD ZONING : RT4- I6 ppESBNT ZONING: B (Business p - ' Order 9CRE9GE: 9.18 ' DESLRED P,..E9SON FOg REaDEST: CO~uPP.EHENSI~RISTICS~ON~~"~"~FE~~~ ~~~~L~.ND USE CHARACIE II ~ ~ (Si egature) : s * s ~ ~ s : ~ s * * ~ f * ~ s : * s * * * _ * ~ : ; : : s * s s s s FI anning I}epartaent Gnly PgZ Case ho. Item DATE RECEIVED kecor:. Date Fwd. DOTE 9CTIUh * ~~ * : * * s s ~ s s s ~ * _ _ * # s : _ ~ _ _ : ~ ~ s# s s z~ s s Clerk's office Only Copy to p~Z Recd. Date advt. p~Z Date Coma. Date Ft,/'0i • ~c.L.~, sew, _... • ~ ~~ _ _.~f. pLANNING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT June 13, 1986 CITY ®F CLEAR~ATER POST OFFICE BOX 4748 CLEARWATER,FLORIDA 33518-4748 ,~ Mr. Yui Hay Lee Y. H. Lee Associates, Architects 337 17th Street Oakland, California 94612 Re: Dear Mr. Lee; Sand Key Property Clearwater, Florida As requested, I am forwarding a copy of a draft proposed settlement that was forwarded to the City of Clearwater on December 5, 1985. This is forwarded to you for the purpose of giving you the benefit of the concerns we previously covered with the Justice Corporation regarding land use, density, heights, special fees, etc. I must emphasize that this was a draft which was never forwarded to our City Commission for approval nor was actually approved by Justice Corporation. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~~ Paula Harvey Planning Director PH:bd Enclosure "h,'quol F,mployment and Affirmative Action Employer" June 17, 19$5 ' P Mr. Ken Cheezem,'Vice President American Design £~ Development Corp. 7820 38th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 ' . ~ Re:~ Rezoning . ~ Sand Key i Dear Mr. Che.ezem: - Enclosed are copies of the agenda items which will be officially received by the City Commission on Thursday.,. June 20, for-the purpose of advertising for public hearing the~Ci y-initiated applications-for reclassification of properties on Sand Key under your ownership. As I had indicated to you previously,' I am available to discuss thepr.oposed changes with you. Please call if you have any~'questions.. Sincerely, Paula Harvey ' Planning Director ~. PH:bd .-,» `¢ Enclosures ~ '~, •~ t. ` ~ ;. f ~ w ~; 'a ~' ~: ' - `Y ~: - ~ -. r ~ . , ,, ~~~~ ~~ ~ i~ ! Iw ~~e~i~~ ~~`s~s~~n ~~. ~"l ~..~ i i r~ g ~ c: i e: 6-?c-ss oaf ~~~ ~i~y ~~ ~~~a~~~~ --- . Land Use Plan Amendment from Commercial/Tourist Facilities to ldedium Density Residential on N., 400 Ft. of M&B 33.03, Sec. 17-29S-15E and a Zoning Atlas Amendment from B (Business) to RM-16 (Medium Density ktulti-Family Use) on M&B 33.03 , Sec. T7-29S-15F and td~.B 22.01 , Sec. - 20-29S-15E (American Design &~ Devel. Corp./City) LUP 85-25, Z-85-10. RFsCO~td~NDATION: City Commission receive this request and refer_ it to the proper departments. - [] And that the apprapriate officials he~authorized_to execute same. B.9CKGROUhD: - - The property is located on the east side of Gulf Boulevard immediately - north of Sand Key Condo, Bayside Gardens IV. The site is vacant and contains 8.64 acres M.O.L. The Land Use Plan classification is Medium Density over the southern 6.34 acres. The northern 2.3 acres is classified Commercial/Tourist Facilities and proposed to be amended to Medium Density Residential. The zoning over the entire parcel is B (Business}, on alder zoning designation which remains on the property as a result of a Court Order issued for Case No. 78-4765-7, United States Steel Corporation vs. City of Clearwater. The order found City Ordinance No. 1749 to be invalid for the purpose of rezoning those properties on Sand Key owned by the U.S. Steel Corporation. Legal counsel and staff feel that sufficient opportunity and time have gassed to. allow development to occur on the property under the B (Business) zoning category. It is recommended that the-City Commission proceed to rezone the subject property and to amend the Land L'se Plan to Medium Density Readential for the proposed Rtd-16 zoning. Commissian ~isposifiion: 1. Aporrnr~ as Repmt:~er~3~rKnrised/Cor~i:ianal 2 C~rrti,zued to . S~.~brnitted by: ~ Advertised: EScte: Foyer. Fallow-up Action: ,D tiff ected Parties Notified of 1~4eeting City ~lonager X~Q Fiat Required ^ tot Required C3riginatinq Department: Data & S2~uential PLANNING Ret?f?nCe Costs:._ Iv~A- Funding Source: D Capifia[ lmprave- ment Budget D Operating Budget D Oil'~er Appropriation Code ~Attachroents: Drak in g Applications D Nave _r . J. _ :~.i:.. _. { _~ •J C(n itFrEO SUnvE- / • i _ +:~ ~r ~ .SE p! /Sv9E 7T T. • ~ °"t.. ~ •~ ~' '1 ~ ' :r. .~ ~. •~ •..y E 6 - _ - - ~ _ -£T` ~ (nS oEn.rED rn STCiro~ ~_. - _~ ~_~_ - - 1 t' TD THE ClE yp.~TEti CI '.. f! _ ( -~! 't , : T'. _ .. _ti ~._ <-~ ~ ~ ~ _•._ '~ ~ -• vao It LT_ i«IS IowE ~' - r' ~ r ~ , _. 1 .^~!~~\) J ~ •_ ~ _' t+~ ~/tom a reCl UOF 3, tLL VnD / ti„. ~~i .. , r .• `,!I i L~-~ ~ - ~ ~, ` • ;trEES FNE IrME OF 1 y` ~ i'N n~LLEL T6 TNF. UM /iy%l :`. _ - ~ -r-~r`~ijs rLt DE=tn LD 1• SE C7rl =iii ~, • 1 ~ 1 3 3-c, - _•_ .. E '. .•r ~ r - e .' rY ~ ~ - T ~ - ~ , ,rn s ~ ~ ~ _ ' t' ji ~ 7-) ~ r' •~ ~ T t - ~ Tsci • _ - - ` s TS .. •• 1 • _ .. i, ~~ ~ '~ - ~ ~ lZ~JcZ-c 7 lam" ~-K j( ~ z~c Z _ ~ Q03 ? ! ,.J ), P C I .. o ' '; - .. i~ - ~ - t _ - '` ' _• . - ` -' ~ ~ •`y RAVE `e ~ ~~ L - • r - ~ ~ Ti53 ~ . • :~ t > ~/ ' • "! ; e _ •. - i s •• - _ •i _ ~::: ~ ~ _ • - j :.' • 2 s - -. .: ~ ' '~' ' - ' -- ..- -_ _ o ~ - - _ - .. -, /` ~ _ _ ,a _ _ - _ ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ r v» ~. e r ..:.. t_u A ~ E ~ t cAK D E.S ~ G 1~3 ~ I~E~ co R~ ~~ p o n~ t-y t~ ~ a D ' tvs 4.3 3 3 - 0 3 ~'c,~:gustt~aESS M~ 8 33-3 S~~ (7-2t- IS =~~= CvMM EtZ~-lA~ !-f ~ v( SEL ~a-2Sr- IS {y M~ ~ 2Z- `° ; RESIDE r.3Tto.t- - C=tY • - ? o ar.,-~in~ any' ^. _ ?T•~:~Iic ::ea___,g I~au \l::,~r~eT Zer___E~ 3aa_d C~,::l.._ss.or r.- _ •_ i _ "'t'om ~ Curlal+ Rd, I _ ~~ ,~ ~w H ~ .' a ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ Norchelde Dr, ~ti°D r ~ I Q j ~ ~ ~ O I ! ~ a I~ a ~ I s,n, ssa ~ ~ir.- - ~ i ..r...~ , ~Q I r1>fe ad, .C, R, l0i I Enterp ~ I i ~ ~ A ~ i O II ~ i I I Union 5t. „ p ~ ~ '~ I~/at` ' hr Illr ~ rll /rl •~ IIE•r~^ m b ~ 41ti ~ ~ N i ~ K _ ptaln St,~ S,a,s89 tie Sunset Pt A Rd, I I b ' a .a ,~ ; i > I ~r ~^^ ^ ~ m , a ~ 1 ro ~ ~ w ~ .+~.~, rn ~A~MM~n I. ~ M ~ l a ~~ I 1 ~ m ~ r-1 ~ 7~Uj f I ~ ~ ~ ~ Q Ix ~ .• ^ Y I u Drew St, a. r Cleveland St. I ._ ~. -- i ~ /~ 191 R, 60 ~ ~ ~ Lr ~ I Cnurt St, lJ ~_ Gulf•to•aoy Ulvd~ ~ ~ I ~yb' __~ _ Druid nd, ~ ~ I ° ~ ~ I , ~~ ~ M, ° e ~+ 1 H u H 1 y .+ i N ~ m ~ e ' ~'~ 1 a NureerY Rd. rn ,_ 1 ;^ ~, u 1 ,~ R e l 1 e n l r Rd , ~~ er ~ i ~:~.:--=-, ~~~ ~ ~ °' ~i ~ ~r -rr - ~~ •~~ oN p M l 1. ~ I 1 1 0 l ~ 1 ~~ II Il~ 4 b ~ ~ ' 1 ~ ~ ,. ~ ..~.,.._...^...~ .. ~ I ~'; . '. I ftl' . ,•' . I'in .,1,t ~ . ,, ' ;, .,. -,li'` . '~~ ~' ,~ ~,. _~~ ~! ~ ~, ~ ~, , ....~.~___-__ __._.._~ .~_ _ ____ . _.. _ -_ _ ... - _ - -- 1 ~,~ g ~, ~ ~ u a .v o . f y ~~ l~ ~ ~~~ ~ i ~°~ctirg ~a-e: b-2c ~~gs ~..~ ~~~~ - ~~e ~i~ Ga~ss~a~ of ~~~ ~~~y ~~ ~~~ar~~~~ ~' SUBJECT Zoning Atlas Amendment from B (Business} to RM-16 (Medium Density Multi-Family Use) for M&B 43.01 and Sand gey Condo South Beach 1501, Sec. 19-29S-15E (American Design & Devel. Corp., Multiple/Citp).Z-85-12. - RECOt~!d.FNDATIOI~-: City Commission receive this request and refer it to the proper departments. - - () And that the appropriate officials be s.uthorized to execute same. BACK.G ROUND: The property is located on the east side of Gulf Boulevard adjacent to and south of -Sand Rey Condo, Bayside Gardens II. The site is partially developed with one condominium containing 64 units. The Land Use Plan classification is !,gedium Density F~esidential with a zoning designation of B (Business), an older zoning designation which - r.emains on the property as~a result of a Court Order issued for Case No. ?8_4785-7, United States Steel Corporation vs. City of Clearwater. The order found City Ordinance No. 1749 to be invalid for the purpose of rezoning those properties on Sand bey owned by the U.S. Steel Corporation. Legal counsel and staff feel that sufficient opportunity and time have pzssed to allow development to occur over the entire subject-property under the B (Business) zoning category.- It is recommended that the City Commission proceed to rezone this property. Commission Qisposition: Z. appraved ~s Re~~n,~i=rrd~lRerrised/C~;~ditioral Z Continued to . __ Submitted by: City t~Sanoger Advertised: Date: pQper. Not Required Gate &SeQuentiaf ~ e`erence Faliow--up Action: QAffected Parties Notified of Meeting ^ Not Required Originating Department: Pva~~Ir~G Costs: NrA --- Funding Source: ® Capital Improve-_ meat Budget ~.J Operating Budget Q Other Appropriation Code ®Atiachment_~ Drawing tipplicatior.: Q None ~°i f_ ~. ' 3 . o - -. , ~ u ..~ ~ ~ Y- _ - 1 - ~ v I - ~: ~~ - ' F ~ ~'~ fV ±' 1 -' , ' I L. . __ e: ..~. ~ • ~' C . ~ , ~ ~ -~ t ~;~•.~ ~. =' ~~ I . '• tjoTE REYEQT -- i ~ ' J .t~ ~ -j -, _ - d }_ - f .:• , -. ' . r •4 .•~ j,- ~ ~ i :_. i ~~ o ~ y ~~ ~ - -, `~Q Ow.~s;n ~ f Z U ~m [! ~ `~" I ~ ~ ~ _ _ - } _ U 4J Q ~t O w O ~ O m m- ZO S ~ ~ QV ~ C ~ ~ BAc.~ ~O oR~t2 1 - i T' - O.r.D 1749 ... / rt E B ~?- 02 -- - .t ' ~ s~ i r. ~ 3-1 j J 1 i "'~ -. ~ ~ - - .: ~~ W L - ~ , ~~~ ~,~;~ -~ ~ ~ I iil ~,• X - -Q }--- - N Q m O~ ' ti - I I7G9 4.78 }~ r~ / 4 ~ ~~ o _ Q _ ~ _= O O c ~- Z ~_ 3 O a _ ~^ ~ Q ~ ~ ~~ ` ~" m - 111 Y ~ ~` _= o ~ -i ~= Z o }= a N _ ~ I- - 1. Oa[ i~ e i • ~ v 4 '' of = u bR a3. O~ \`\ l~~{~1 1. ~t\\ ~' \ ORD ~ \\ (jf ~ 17<° + G .7° I ~\\,\\\\~~`\,\ ~; o cu S 1 \\\~• \ \ `~ ~ ~ ~a`\~ ~~~ ~_ ,~ ~~ . i ~ 1 L t - ~ `~ _ ODD p - r1 .. 4.83 tiJ _ _ i \\ ~ \ _ -. ~ e - ~ ~'~ a -m - ~~g - ~ ~ ' OicO `r \ NP G 1 -o ~ 1440 ~PgA ON~~ z ~ 6-.s G o 1 - `~ ~ Z __ _ Z - - - --pro °rty G,~rne r - jti/19J t~~ D ~ l.._ E - ~ P ~~3v5t~ESS~~ ~E,.( ~-oN~a S®~T~ Reeves ~ iror,l SA Fl D _- - - gEAc~ E 5o t . - - Planning and City Zoning Board Cornissian Public hearing Zte~ ~Iu1-ai~er _ -- 1Ql T R?n~° 1 S A`ias P~~° J ~ 1~ _ o- " ,~~, v NurthelJe fir, tib ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ „~ , ~ °~ . !s f ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~I ~ ~ G ~ ~ ~., . ~ I G1 O ~ ~ `: i , t, .. I s,n, San _.___-- ~' ~ ",'' I (1~ rise Rd" C, R. 102 I y Cnterp 1 ( 'I '' I ~ ~ I ~ , ,"'" ~ I ~ .. , , I 4 I ~~ 1141fon St, „ ~~p Q vi r r wr rr ~~r~ -w r.r~r M ~.~ I~/at' 1 v ~ 5 I ~ti ' I k 1 Maln St.~ S,R,SaB r... tiu 11` h t ~ Y' r ,; ~ I ~ ~ ~ro~ > J ~ r. - ~ b ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~~ ' > f x ~~" ~ a ~ ~~ ~~ t v _.._ '~~ ~ 0 ;~, ~ i',,~ ;~ I~ fa ~DreN St. °~ ~ ._ ~ . i ~ Cle_ti"gland 5t, f; -~j ~ 15,8,60 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ Cnurt St, ~ Gulf•to•BaY Blyd~ i ti°' ~~ aril a aa" ~ ~ ' ~ ~ .~ w I ~"~ ~ r ~ ~ p ~~ ~ I u v ~o 1 ~ ~I ~'~K' ' m p u r0 alvd, S 17'F` ~ •w - y° ~ e' '0' 1 ~ Nur~arv Ad, ~~ 4 N 11 ~ Ilelloalr Rd, 1..~~.+..".u~l ~ ~ ,~ w , ~.~~ r /11 r Ir i r i ~r a1~M Jiwly M ONp MI4.Fl 1 7~ ~~ .~ b I 1 ' ' I _ , M ~ ~,.. ~,.~ ~..~.._.....~..... ~ ~- .~~. .~ ,~~,. ~.~ ~~ ~ „~~ ~ 1f ~ ~ S Office of City Attorney 1 Charles L. Siemon, Esquire 200 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Re: United States Steel Corporation v. City of Clearwater (Case No. 78-4765-7) Dear Charlie: (813} 462-6760 June 24, 1986 We have received notice of a hearing on August 11, 1986, on a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute (copy enclosed). In an ordinary case, I would be pleased to let the case be dismissed. Thisr of course, is not an ordinary case. Can you think of any reason why the City of Clearwater should attempt to show cause why the case should not be dismissed? Sincere^ly, M. A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney MAG:br cc: Anthony L. Shoemaker J Paula Harvey John Richter ii t ,,...~ ~ - .. _ . - ,~_...~1 "Equal Employment and Affirmatioe Action Employer" ® ~ ~/ L ~ d 1 ~ ~ L 1 i POST OFFICE BOX 4748 CLEARWATER,FLORIDA 33518-4748 rr ~'~•7~. ~.9i r, tl ~ • '1}.~ r I ~'~~' '~~:. ~;i ( ~, ;_ POST OFFICE BOX 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33518-4748 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT July 3, 1986 Mr. Ted Cobb Vice President Justice Investment Corp. 7820 38th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 Re: Sand Key Dear Mr. Cobb: I have discussed your offer presented in a letter dated June 11, 1986 with City Manager Tony Shoemaker. For your consideration, we offer the following as a reasonable approach to reaching acceptable terms of a negotiated settlement. We feel a point will have been reached after you review our counter-offer when we must sit down with the appropriate representatives of your company and finalize a settlement agreement to submit to the Clearwater City Commission for their approval or recognize the fact that a settlement will not be reached. It concerns us a great deal that we could go on for an extended period of time adjusting numbers and reviewing site plans without actually sitting down at a negotiating table with our legal advisors and finalizing a proposed settlement. Please understand that we do not wish to intentionally delay you in your efforts to develop your property on Sand Key.However, from our viewpoint, we have been negotiating with various individuals about. development of the parcels in excess of three years and during that time period, we have maintained several basic positions: 1) the Bayside parcels should reflect density levels similar to what exists today - 12 to 16 units pe•r acre; 2) the north Bayside parcel could support limited non-residential development which would primarily be for the use and convenience of persons residing or vacationing on Sand Key; 3) the Gulfside parcels should reflect density levels similar to what exists today - averaging 32 units per acre. The positions are unchanged. "l~qual lin71~loyrrresrl unrl /1~~rrrrtatrrr /Ictiou lurplc~yi~r" ., ~- Mr. Ted Cobb July 3, 1986 Page 2 With these basic premises in mind, we offer the following for your consideration: 1. South Beach Parcel Establish a maximum number of units at 330, a density of approximately 38 units per acre 2. North Bay Parcel Provide 65;000 square feet of'commercial and 64 residential units or 96 hotel units or Provide a maximum of 120;000 square feet of commercial only 3. North Beach Parcel Increase the allowable residential units to 480 (from 370) at a maximum of 32 units per acre 4. South Bay Parcel Continue with the 80 units on the existing foundation substantially as proposed in May; 1985 which achieves a density of 16 units per acre over the entire parcel. Hoping that this counter-offer will serve as a step in the direction of formal negotiation; I am requesting you respond directly to our City Manager to set a meeting time for finalizing a negotiated development proposal for presentation to the City Commission. I sincerely hope that this matter can be resolved and a satisfactory resolution be reached. It is the Manager's and my opinion that this matter has gone on too long and should be settled. If we cannot reach a mutual agreement; I would suggest that the time for negotiation will be over. Sincerely, ~~ Paula Harvey Planning Director c.c. City Manager Anthony L. Shoemaker M. A. Galbraith; Jr., City Attorney PAUL D. BEITLICH•• BRIAN W. BLAESSER GERALD P.CALLAGHAN SUSAN G. CONNELLY" ALFRED LLOYD FRITH' WILLIAM R. HOTZ•'• WENDY U. LAR3EN DAVID M. LESSER FRED W. MATIIIN•• GREGG W. MCCL03KY• WILLIAM W. MERRILL 111•• GLORIA OHSMAN NORTH•• JOHN D. PURDY, JR. F. CRAIG RICHARDSON, JR.• CHARLES L SIEMON•` 'ADMITTED IN FLORIDA ONLY °•ADMITTED IN FLORIDA AND ILLINOIS '''ADMIT'TED IN WISCONSIN AND IWN013 FEDERAL EXPRESS LAW OFFICES Siemon, Larsen & Purdy 200 SOUTH WACKER DRIVE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 TELEPHONE 312-876-1560 `'/J p~ ~- (~l;~c,ce~ ~ ~ • ~~ ~~~ ~~~i~v~ - ONE LINCOLN PLACE 1900 GLADES ROAD BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33431 305-386-9200 1491 SECOND STREET SUITE C SARASOTA, FLORIDA 33577 813-955-9050 July 9, 1986 Mr. Al Galbraith City Attorney City of Clearwater 112 South Osceola Clearwater, Florida 33516 Re: United States Steel Corporation v. City of Clearwater (Case No. 78-4765-7) Dear A1: I can't think of any reason why we should object to the Motion to Dismiss for want of prosecution.. I have the same sort of sense that you do but conclude that there is really no advan- tage to be gained. I will. be in a meeting till 2:00 p.m. Thursday but will call you afterwards . Sincerely, ~~~~~~c~ Charles L. Siemon CLS:col ...,~.,. ~. ~'~i A• lil ;~ `- __ ~ `~ -'~ r". .., Sri r ~ JOHNSON, BLAKELY, POPE, BOKOR & RUPPEL, P. A. E. D. ARMSTRONG III JOHN T. BLAKELY BRUCE H. BOKOR MICHAEL T. CRONIN ELIZABETH J. DANIELS JACQUELINE W. HUBBARD SCOTT C. ILGENFRITZ TIMOTHY A. JOHNSON, JR. E. JOHN LOPEZ MARIA MAISTRELLIS DAVID N. MORRISON F. WALLACE POPE, JR. FRANK P. RAINER DAVID P. RHODES DARRYL R. RICHARDS DENNIS G. RUPPEL WILLIAM R. SWINDLE GLEE A. TRIPLETT MICHAEL T. WILLIAMS HAND DELIVERY ATTORNEYS ANO COUNSELLORS AT LAW 911 CHESTNUT STREET POST OFFICE BOX 1368 GLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33517-1368 TELEPHONE (813) 461-1818 September 8, 1986 M. A. Galbraith, Jr., Esquire City Attorney 112 South Osceola ' Clearwater, FL 33518 Re: Sand Key Settlement with the City of Clearwater Dear A1: TAMPA TELEPHONE: (613) 273-0373 FILE NO Enclosed please find the proposed revised draft of the Settlement Stipulation between Justice Investrrent Corporation and the City of Clearwater. Our client has not yet had a chance to review this draft and there- fore we must reserve the right to make such changes as he may deem necessary. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, JOHNSON, BI,I~I~LLIY, POPE, BOKOR, RUPPEL & BURNS, P.A. E. D. Armstrong III EDA:jm cc: Mr. Anthony Shoemaker Mrs. Paula Harvey Mr. Tedd Cobb •G ~~ .~..--- ~1 ~N i1~1 a..,. P- V~-~ ~~JNLQ~ ~~wV~~e-- --- r r I /~J~ ~~ c-e., I ` ~ / 1~~~ - -- _ - - ~ - -- --------..__ . ~~ - ---- ~~ ~~ ,' ;~ ~~ ~~ ii `~ Q~,~ ~II ~~f S, i ~ ~~~~ ~' N y ~ ~ • .~ ~ Nz1s ~7~ ~e~ ~ -~ ~S~ ~r` ~~ d ~v a~~- cam.-..'~ ,.~. ~~~ ~~~ /!!C~ ~~. -a ~ / ~i~ l '~ ~ ~ ,~. ~~ ~~. ;~.%~ ~ ~~~ ~ "~ ,~ ~. ,~ ~~ ~~ iY CITY ~~ OF CLEARWATER POST OFFICE BOX 4748 CLEARWATER,FLORIDA 33518-4748 Office of City Attorney HAND DELIVERY E. D. Armstrong, III, Esq. Johnson, Blakely, Pope, Bokor & Ruppel, P.A. 911 Chestnut Street Clearwater, Florida 33516 Re: Sand Key Settlement Dear Ed: September 25, 1986 (g13) 462-6760 jJ ' r ~. 4 e '` ~ ~~~ L; ~~ ~ r pn ~., .. rv s 5 t ; S.. . `.. • V~~ I, ~.~ i ....,.., i~..~ .ss. ~'1T In response to your letter of September 8, please be advised that your proposed revised draft of a Settlement Stipulation has been reviewed by myself, the City Manager and the Planning Director, and we believe that we can recommend approval to the City Commission if the following changes are made: 1. In Paragraph 10, first sentence, add, "or a total of 144 residential dwelling units " 2. In Paragraph 10, last sentence, change to read: "Plaintiffs shall not be restricted to utilizing the existing foundation for the construction of the additional eighty (80) units permitted pursuant to this Settlement Stipulation." 3. In Paragraph 11, after the second sentence (ending on line 6 of page 3), insert the following: In the event that Parcel II and Parcel IV are conveyed to different owners, or that either parcel is conveyed to any person not a party to this Settlement Stipulation, subsequent to the entry of a judgment based upon this Settlement Stipulation, the transfer of any residential dwelling units from Parcel IV to Parcel II shall require the consent of the owners of both parcels. Plaintiffs shall memorialize any such transfer by recording an appropriate notice of transfer in the public records of Pinellas County and by filing a copy thereof with the City Clerk of the City. 4. In Paragraph 12, next to last sentence (ending on the ninth line from the bottom of page 3), add, ", including the City," after "construction." 5. In Paragraph 13, the first sentence should be modified to read: As additional consideration for the agreements contained herein, the City agrees that Plaintiff shall be entitled to develop Parcel IV with an additional one hundred fifty (150) residential dwelling units, or a total of 520 residential dwelling units, which number includes the density authorized by the Parcel IV Settlement Stipulation, provided that ... [pick up on line 4, page 4] . "Equal Employment and Affirmative Action Employer" • E. D. Armstrong, III, Esq. Page Two September 25, 1986 6. In Paragraph 13, the second sentence (beginning on line 10, page 4) should be amended to read: The total number of residential dwelling units yr hotel units shall be subject to reduction in the event of a transfer of not more than forty (40) residential dwelling units from Parcel N to Parcel II. 7. In Paragraph 13, fourth sentence (beginning on line 15 of page 4), "constructed for" should be changed to "constructed in lieu of." 8. In Paragraph 14, after the third sentence (ending on line 4 of page 5), insert: Such approval shall not be deemed a waiver of any applicable requirement for a building or other permit for development. 9. In Paragraph 14, next to last sentence (line 10 on page 5), "and/or," should be changed to "and,". 10. In Paragraph 15, the second (last) sentence should be deleted, and the following substituted therefor: In lieu of the fees required to be paid for the development of Parcel N by Ordinances 3128-83 and 3129-83, or successor provisions thereto, $545,898.00 shall be paid to the City to be used for any City purpose as determined by the City. This sum represents the $900,000.00 provided for in the Parcel N Settlement Stipulation, less the amounts already paid or to be paid in conjunction with the development of the project known as "Crescent Beach," which amounts may be used for any City purpose as determined by the City. Such payment shall be made at the time that the fees required by Ordinances 3128-83 and 3129-83 would otherwise be required to be paid, or three years from the entry of a judgment based upon this Settlement Stipulation, whichever occurs first. 11. The last sentences of Paragraphs I1, 12 and 13 should be moved to and combined with Paragraph 16. Paragraph 16 should be modified to add: or (iii) in a building code adopted by the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, or any successor agency thereto, or by the State of Florida. 12. In Paragraph 17, first sentence, delete "solely" and change "building permit" to "permit." •~ • E. D. Armstrong, III, Esq. Page Three September 25, 1986 13. In Paragraph 17, fourth sentence (beginning on line 10 of page 6), modify the sentence to read: The City shall be entitled to submit the plans and specifications filed with the City by the Plaintiffs to its respective department heads, and to the City's Development Review Committee, for the purpose of determining whether or not the working drawings comply with this Court's final judgment and with the applicable codes of the City in existence as of the date of submission of said plans and specifications. 14. In Paragraph 17, on line 18 of page 6, change "the working drawings" to "complete working drawings." 15. In Paragraph 17, on line 22 of page 6, change "ten (10) working days" to "twenty (20) working days." 16. In Paragraph 20, insert "and their successors and assigns" before "shall be bound ...." 17. In Paragraph 26, change "Northern Parcel" to "Parcel N." Also, change "Southern Parcels' to "Parcel II." 18. Include a new paragraph releasing the City and its officers and employees from any claims which the Plaintiffs and their successors, predecessors, principals, officers and employees may have for delay or otherwise resulting from the disputes giving rise to the Settlement Stipulation, including indemnification and hold harmless language protecting the City and its officers and employees from any such claims from persons not parties to the Stipulation. I am enclosing amarked-up copy of your proposed Settlement Stipulation to assist you in locating these proposed changes. You should find that most of our proposed changes are intended to clarify the language and to eliminate later confusion. Please review them with your clients and let tLS know promptly if any of them are objectionable. Sincerely, M. A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney MAG:jmp Enclosure cc: Anthony L. Shoemaker, City Manager Paula Harvey, Planning Director • • IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF CLEARWATER, a Municipal corporation, Defendant. CIRCUIT CIVIL NO. 78-4765-7 SETTLEMENT STIPULATION Plaintiffs, JUSTICE INVESTMENT CORP., a Florida corporation and its subsidiary limited partnerships and corporations, CHEEZEM INVESTMENT PROGRAM I, LTD., a Florida corporation, and AMERICAN DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT CORP. OF SAND KEY, a Florida corporation, and defendant, CITY OF CLEARWATER, a municipal corporation hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. JUSTICE INVESTMENT CORP., a Florida corporation, and its subsidiary limited partnerships and corporations, CHEEZEM INVESTMENT PROGRAM I, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, CHEEZEM LAND CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, and AMERICAN DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT CORP. OF SAND KEY, a Florida corporation, are the successors in interest to UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, the original plaintiff in this cause. 2. Plaintiffs are the owners of four parcels of land on Sand Key within the City of Clearwater, hereinafter referred to _ as Parcel I, Parcel II, Parcel III and Parcel IV, which are more particularly described in Exhibit 1 attached hereto. 3. Parcels I, II and III were part of those lands owned by United States Steel Corporation that were the subject of Count II of the original complaint in this cause. 4. Parcel IV was the subject of an independent action, Circuit Civil No. 83-14905-7, which was dismissed upon entry of a judgment incorporating a Settlement Stipulation (herein, "Parcel IV Settlement Stipulation"). E~, ~. y~,~'" ivy a, C~rc,[e~ r~s ~ a ~ara r~~ ,~-~ i~ur ,~ q -Z s g~ -~ ~. ~-t :i • 5. Parcel I is a 9.18 acre parcel of land located on the bayside of Sand Key that is improved with 64 residential dwelling units. 6. Parcel II is a 8.6 acre parcel of land located on the Gulfside of Sand Key that is unimproved. 7. Parcel III is a 7.9 acre parcel of land located on the bayside of Sand Key at the extreme northern end of the Key that is unimproved. 8. Parcel IV is a 15 acre site that is located on the Gulfside of Sand Key immediately to the south of the existing Sheraton resort that is unimproved. 9. Plaintiffs and Defendants desire to amicably resolve particular disputes that have arisen between the parties in regard to Plaintiffs' rights to use Parcels I, II and III under the final judgment entered in this cause and the City's authority to amend its zoning ordinance in regard to these parcels. 10. Plaintiffs shall be entitled to develop an additional a ore -E~a( aF (~4- nos; d~.4 ~ ~ 80 residential dwelling units on Parcel I~ In the alternative, ~,,;, . if Plaintiffs so elect, the development of Parcel I shall be in substantial accordance with any of the alternate schematic site plans prepared by Community Design Corp. and dated August 28, 1986, which are attached hereto as Exhibits "A-1" through "A-4" and hereby incorporated by reference. The schematic site plans shall govern the development of Parcel I in lieu of the Land Development Code and the City Municipal Code or any other zoning codes or ordinances of the City of Clearwater, whether the same be enacted in the past, be presently in effect, or be enacted in the future. Plaintiff shall not be restricted to building the ~~' eighty (80) uni permitted pursuant to this Settlement Stipulation o he existing foundation. 11. Except as provided below, Plaintiff shall be entitled. ,, to develop up to three hundred sixty (360) residential c~wellinq units on Parcel II, provided that such development is in substantial accordance with any of the alternative schematic site plans prepared by Community Design Corp. and dated August 28, 1986, and which are attached hereto as Exhibits "B-1" through -2- • "B-4" and. hereby incorporated by reference. In addition to the three hundred sixty (360) units set forth above, Plaintiff shall be entitled to transfer no more than forty (40) residential dwelling units from Parcel IV to Parcel II, in which event the number•of units permitted on Parcel IV shall be reduced by the d t1~'TLT number of units transferred to Parcel II.~ The schematic site plans shall govern the development of Parcel II in lieu of the Land Development Code and the City Municipal Code or any other zoning codes or ordinances of the City of Clearwater, whether the same be enacted in the past, be presently in effect or be enacted in the future. 12. Plaintiffs shall be entitled to develop up to 85,000 square feet of non-residential floor area on Parcel III. In addition, Plaintiff shall be entitled to develop up to one hundred ten (110) residential dwelling units on Parcel III, or up to two hundred twenty (220) hotel units on Parcel III, or any _ combination thereof, with a conversion ratio of one (1) residential dwelling unit or two (2) hotel units. No structure i on Parcel III shall be in excess of one hundred (100) feet above ~• the established flood plain Level. The development of Parcel III shall be in substantial accordance with any of the alternative schematic site plans prepared by Community Design Corp. dated August 28, 1986, which are attached hereto as Exhibits "C-1" ; through "C-4" and hereby incorporated by reference. The City agrees that Plaintiffs may construct no more than forty-one (41) boat docks on Parcel III, provided that Plaintiffs have secured ~~ ~ the necessary approvals from the State of Florida and any . ~~~~ -.i ® regulatory agency having jurisdiction over such construction~`h ~~, ~i ~ ~ The schematic site plans shall govern the development of Parcel ~ ~ III in lieu of the Land Development Code and the City Municipal Code or any other zoning codes or ordinances of the City of Clearwater, whether the same be enacted in the past, be presently i in effect or be enacted in the future. 4 13. As additional consid tion for the mutual agreements ,~ ~~ ~ contained herein, the y agrees that Plaintiff shall be entitled to develop arcel IV with an additional one hundred ' -3- i0 0 •, fifty (150) residential dwelling nits (or an additional two (' hundred twenty-five (225) hot units, at Plaintiff's option) ~,~~~'1 above and beyond the d sity authorized by the Parcel IV l Settlement Stipulation rovided that the development of Parcel IV with such additional residential dwelling units or hotel units shall be in substantial accordance with either (i) the Parcel IV Settlement Stipulation or (ii) any of the alternative schematic site plans prepared by Community Design Corp. dated August 28, 1986, attached hereto as Exhibits "D-1" through "D-4" and hereby incorporated by reference. Plai iffs shall be entitled to transfer no more than forty (40 units from Parcel IV to Parcel II without the consent of e City of Clearwater. Plaintiffs shall have the right to determine whether residential dwelling units or hotel units, or any combination thereof, shall be constructed on Parcel IV. It is agreed that 1.5 hotel units may i v~ ti2w be constructed f ~ every one (1) residential dwelling unit of density allocated to Parcel IV. The schematic site plans or the Parcel IV Settlement Stipulation, at Plaintiffs' sole discretion, shall govern the development of Parcel IV in lieu of the Land Development Cade and the City Municipal Code or any other zoning codes or ordinances of the City of Clearwater, whether the same be enacted in the past, be presently in effect or be enacted in the future. 14. Plaintiff shall have the right and ability to develop any or all of Parcels I, II, III and IV in accordance with the site plans attached hereto. In addition, Plaintiff shall have the right to modify any or all of the site plans for Parcels I, II, III and IV, without the consent of the City of Clearwater, provided that: (i) there is no increase in height; (ii) the set-backs are greater than or equal to those shown on the site plans; (iii) the parking shown is no less than what is shown on the site plan; (iv) there is no reduction in ogen space; (v) there is no reduction in permeable space; (vi) there is no increase in density; and (vii) there is no reduction in view corridor from the plan being modified. If the Plaintiffs propose to modify any of the schematic site plans described above, then -4- • • the Plaintiffs shall submit any proposed alternative site plan to the City Manager of the City of Clearwater or his designated representative for approval, which approval shall not be ~ N5~~" unreasonably withheld. ~ Within fifteen (15) days after such submission, the City Manager shall determine, in writing, whether or not the proposed site plan is in conformity with the provisions of this Stipulation. In the event that the City Manager shall determine that the proposed site plan is not in conformance, then Plaintiffs shall have the right to ap~l the . decision of the City Manager to the City Commission-ate^~ at their option, Plaintiffs shall have the right to obtain judicial review through the Final Judgment executed in conjunction with this Stipulation. In addition, Plaintiff shall be entitled to subdivide any or all of Parcels I, II, III and IV and assign appropriate density thereto. ~' 15. Plaintiffs agree to pay an amount equal to each _and every impact fee imposed by the City Municipal Code for development of Parcels I, II and III; and each and every impact fee imposed by the City Municipal Code, other than §3129-83 and -~ §3128-83, or their successor ordinances, for the development of ~~Js~ Parcel IV. ^ In mutual consider ion of the resolution of a- dispute between the parties ove the effect of the final judgment la in this cause on the appl' ability of the City's impact fee requirements, Plaintiffs d Defendant agree that the monies paid to the City under thi paragraph shall be free of any payment restriction contain d in any impact fee provision of the Municipal Code an shall be expended by the City for the general benefit of the esidents and visitors of Sand Key. t r~SGf~T , (1 16. ^ Notwithstanding any provision of this Settlement Stipulation to the contrary, nothing contained herein shall limit enforce i an life-safety do t or Y the ability of the City to a p ( ) ordinance adopted on a City-wide basis, b~. (ii) any ordinance ~ l required to be adopted by any state or federal statute ~ or ~ ~ ~ ~~ ^ 17. In the development of Parcels I through IV or any portion thereof, the Plaintiff shall, after obtaining approval of the site plans as.specified in Paragraph 15 above, be required to -5- ~ • ~y submit building plans to the City of Clearwater, `s~'7'~e~.~ to (v initiate the ?fig permit application process. The City shall expedite, promptly process, and not delay in any way the issuance of any required permits, and shall 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. 13 The City shall be entitled to submit the plans and specifications f filed with the City by the Plaintiffs to its a+nc~ respective departments heads, a~rd-f-ems to the City's Re~s~urre ZZeJ~ew Development ^ Committee, for the ~a~a purpose of determining whether or nat the working drawings comply with this Court's t3 Final Judgment, and with the A~a~.-#~i aid sa€aty codes ~ n exis ence O ~ as of the date of submission of said plans and specifications. All permits and building permits shall be issued within w.pl~f~ ~L~ forty-five (45) days from the filing of '~h~ ~rorking drawings by . n Plaintiffs with the City of Clearwater, provided the building plans and specifications comply with the terms of this Stipulation. It is further agreed that the City shall issue ~~~~~za) (5 foundation permits within ~:sa 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 their intended development of Parcels I through IV. Issuance of the foundation permit shall not constitute final approval of working drawings for the entire structure, nor shall same guarantee issuance of a final building permit. 18. This Settlement Stipulation and the final judgment to be entered by the court shall be enforceable by either party by injunctive relief or by any other legal or equitable remedy available in civil actions at law or in equity. 19. This Settlement Stipulation and the attached final judgment shall be deemed to establish property rights and obli- gations that run with the land and that are binding upon and -6- • • enforceable against and in favor of Plaintiffs, their successors in title, and the City of Clearwater. ~(t~~r s~.~~s aid asS,yhs ~~ 20. The parties ~ shall be bound by the , terms of this stipulation upon its execution and confirmation by the entry of the attached final judgment in this cause, unless the terms here- ~~ of are modified by mutual agreement of the parties and are approved by the court at a later date. 21. The court shall retain jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this cause for the purposes of enforcing the executory provisions of this stipulation and the attached final judgment. 22. This stipulation and final judgment in this cause shall be recorded at the expense of Plaintiffs and a recorded copy thereof shall be provided to the City of Clearwater. 23. No other agreement, either express or implied, which is not made a part of this stipulation and the final j udgment of the court, shall be binding and enforceable against any of the parties hereto with respect to the parcels described herein, and any modifications or amendments to this stipulation shall be in writing, signed by all parties, and approved by the court. This stipulation and the attached final judgment shall apply only to the real property described in Exhibit "1" hereto, and not to any other property now owned or later acquired by plaintiffs. 24. The Plaintiffs hereby represent that all necessary action has been taken by Plaintiffs to make this stipulation binding and effective. The Clearwater City Commission approved this settlement on • 25. The development rights agreed to herein shall remain in full force and effect for a period of twenty (20) years, and thereafter the City of Clearwater shall be free to regulate the use of the four parcels without limitation as a result of the final judgment entered in this cause in this Settlement Stipulation. 26. By executing this Stipulation, Defendant agrees that (7 neither 'bhp Parcel nor 'the S~grn Parce ~ will be made o _?_ r J i ~. i. •. r the subject of any future building moratoria imposed by the City ~ ... of Clearwater. i S ~~~' ~ DATED this day of . 198~~ Countersigned: CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA Mayor-Commissioner By: City Manager Approved as to form and correctness Attest: City Attorney By: City Clerk JUSTICE INVESTA'IENT CORP. gy. CHEEZEM INVESTMENT PROGRAM I, LTD. a By• CHEEZEM LAND CORPORATION gy. AMERICAN DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT CORP. OF SAND KEY By. JOHNSON, BLAKELY, POPE, BOKOR & RUPPEL, P.A. M. A. GALBRAITH, JR. Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33518 (813) 462-6760 Z'T~i-ef Wit. City Attorney Attorney for Defendant RE43.1-09086 ~a~ ~ ~ ~ _ P ~ ~~~ By: E. D. ARMSTRONG III Post Office Box 1368 Clearwater, FL 33517 (813) 461-1818 Attorneys for Plaintiffs -8- ~''~ ~I 1i III ~ !'~~ ~~ i'', 2-~-. i~ Fes- ~' I~ ~-- ~ i s~~+ ~~~I ~.~.~,- ~--~. ~~ i ~~ JL ___-~= ~~~ ~~~ ~3~,oa o 3~~ 3~ 1 `3, ~~o laa, q ~ o a3b, a8o ~~, crar'o IG, s~ 7~, o~~ ~S~S~~ l l ~ ~Ba ~-8~ D D O l~ ~~ a 0 0 ~~ ~0 D ~ D-~-U ~Ifloo ~o oaa ~3 Sow /3~foao ~ po J ?SO ~3~ ~ ~l~ 3~4; sow ~ ~° 8, ~ ~03~ S~ ~~ `l~~'~~ ~~ ~ 1 `~ i ii ,~ `. ~~ ~ s ~ ~ ,;~ .S ~~ ~ .. ~ ~•,~-- /ar ~s i z~ ~!o ,~- l ~erw•o-,,•.~ Qlu ~ ~...~. r~~os-- 7~- ~~ 9 ~b~- ~ i- ~ LJ ~r~,,..,~.Q.s Pla~.a.. s,/Z S8'~ D~ ~,e. S8 ~ ~~~ z~ ~~~ ~~'~ ~ ~~,~5~ ~~ ~ a'fl'~ ~s~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ d~ ~a ~ ~-~-~ ~'~; ~~~ ,~ .`i`ll.r^S C~~iTY Sri~Pi}iu ':TER S'JF~cY - 1,5~ CCTITER kA,TtIR - TOTAL P'ri~ii(It26 TOTAL VR'~"rf t~;? ~~ ~~~- ~ .. IE~-:4ZS_;- .. ---- ---T~=:~tTS- Sa:~~ - -~:~:1~ -- ,. 1 E~3.';6E EX~'.'~ ELLIS FIRST }~T. ±~`t~C/~O4Y ~ TI€ ~A FAST. 35 lE'~2 ;0~2~ 2; S EASHI1;tS/r z::-~~IIt 1}~~(SIDE Dr1I Atlk4' ~f S --- --_-. . ~ _ . _ -- ----. 2 TR,t S'~JAAE K-r#?RT13 BYRiIN .'.: `> - ~ _ . ° ..° . _. : , Ifi 1178- 177` , : > ~- < 5~ 3 TA=~'1 t'ALL PL~l.IX/ECKEkD/E~7K LIhi"?SLYlSES1TTYS : . 15 . ., -..738 . I4I~ < 37r~ 4 T~~L.AZA ~I}fit_DIX.IFLA~_ ~Ry{~.~1i11~Q-J~ ~~~_SIQ#~ 5 21a SD,.,~ _ ~' 5 TAf>`~"d'S t~LYr'JIC PLAZR CARLSu'LS - 6 2~~0 45~C8 s`~~2 b SJ'J7IS'E aY€ S.G 3 i18 27~ «r~ 7 E~~.D~EY ~ AZA __~ A~'+~li,°tiITURE ~-- -g5 - 25?~5 1.5222. 8 Ct~~:;1L S`~:~,RE _ ... _ ,. 15 255 35158. _ 14153 9 : ,. : ttA± IBU 5i'E5 ~`~2LD tx L~'4`cE 5 -< I45 .._ I3I352 - , _. 15t'~ . ,: _R_ffi~UTR`~LI13" - 1?2 _. 233 - _ 11 LAKE TA~QN S.G ~RCt~ D~V REST./PICK KkIK 2$ 141 259 8 i2 P~ F~R~-wR SN~S --iR~R CL`aTRt~TI~}- - 212 42328 - 13 CRYST~ ri ~r~! PLAZA N'~DIXIE/EGKE+~~ LS'R~.~ 4~31'E~.S -tr'ST_ 14 3~_ -E5381 t2~8~ S4 : ~L1+{ K4R~~~R CANTER `_ ---LR4~=R {~4a"'Trc~TIGY--- >~ - _ _. ~5 ii94-f'~ _ - . 35 ,.: F~s~~.ti PLAZA ._. KA~i M KARRY/bk'I`6REr7~/FQr'tTL.w Fl~}t"R4. :: ~Rin'~ ;: - 25 _ 439 ~85b t~ 5~8 FIf~T F~~iL [>= TRH P 25 PALIR }'ARB7R CQLLELTIO;V ----U~?lER CCt~TRLk:TI~'i-- - 252 4',~'~''~ - 17 THE FQL~~iAI,4S STEAK E f~E REST/f~yICI ~4TS FQDD E",:~DRILt~/ 53 43E &~~ w8'~ 12€'~'~ --- ---- OCD_WnRLD_C-ESE fi~~LLIEEf.`+`Y'_S~hZfIl~fiI._-. ---- ---- - - 18 PR~.~C Air~.`:g --~tiR CQtiST. {~-~~w€LL' S ;~~".ER ~.ST.1-- - 372 636 - i9 E-S,At. RIB Q;°~--- --t;'til~R Q~,STn~JrTI - 2B 434v~ - 23 }?IG~€ 4YD L = ~S_S. C. ~.r~~X/S'~?ER_X/CLIIZE~ E~ R.~ 23 _- X68 - --P5725 __- B- --- 21 PAS'! LAnS S. C. biIt~1 DIXIEIECKERD/~RSTEf,~/~~' B=~~(/ RA'~t ~ 33 652 113463 9f.58 (Z._.E-?`,ATER/L~~ ATh€R' S t ST/B. T. b~`ES SST. 22 C.Q~_f~S AT T~IN_LA~;;:S ----~tii7~R Y-lST.. (~fl. S-~±"'K~ST L--- - __273- --555 -- _ ------- _ -- 23 VILLRsc AT L_4tE ST.~,~RCE ~-~~ ri 6d 22 236 38298 12';33 24 EG~T lrA~~ V~}.7DL.F`;~S PLAZA Ix~-4IX/'~GSct'~`S . : 18 6?4 85189/ 8 25 ',~~ ~'~SQ'JARE iY~~'ARIL!{^~-~~X.4RnY1- °" ~~ST --L?Y.I'ER - t`~- 25it~'~ - - - 2fi FCLST L~~ES ~~AZA __ _ -~J~'DER Q1tiST(E~'~RD/{~I}~4 DiXIE1P~.A.x 1 Ct1",?LETE- 5 582 817r8'~ 73'~~d 27 VILLA ~4iER CL't~'VIEiT F(ItID .ART/RI6 J.R.S SST. 25 ~ ~~ •`~''3~ 28 -- S~ABR~Z~ S. CL ---_ -~.iti'`ER~'~STRt~'.TIr~- - -%9 _ _1745-._ - tEGtERD/PAC-}I-SR4€/Fr=~`ti~CS tiiF~RY.6 G~,~TS1 :: 29 G~~AY ~.AZA S.G 6iI'~'1 DIXiE/ECKERD/I+~Ri7RYS/r :t~'.'A? DS =. 23 574 122822 2~i3'~ 3i3 G`I<AL~SI_S. G P! r~ I X/;,~! fir~tt~'SIJt'~1~:'rK P.fST 1 ~_ 432 _ -5~'~'2---_ __l 31 C3~JRTYARD ~-:.'P:'E5 ZAYRI_/SFr`'VICE ~;aJISE16R.AhDYS RESTi~JRR'dT/ 35 18'26 18'u'~ 23445 Cr'~S.A LUPITA RESTWJR,~YT 32 ~'-f,~ES AT ~J~LfiI LRKES --{_;'~~R CO;~Th~'TICx~-- - 3S6_ ~-7151 - - 33 NQRTF'SID` S~.~RE _ -{ltiDER ~~'STRi1~TIG`a- - - -iBB' ~~ - 3bP~t'?' a__-' 34 Ct;v;JTRY VILLA PLAZA T~-'=SAY RED' TY/Sv`4~S7 SIQiT b SQC4~ _ .> 21 212 3b533 ~ _ 35 ~=:~~DIPIi1' -tAZA-- - ~~ ~- -~'~ - 35 t-~1ir.~A Pty S. G -tlv~ R Ct745TF;JrT I OY--- - 253 41 [~C12 - 37 SIN STR=xT S.G --i!'t[~R CDti~STkJC`TIE1lt-- - 3`8 Sle~2 - - 38 t~,,'~~IN 5<C. __ PI6b~LY 6¢I6b"LY - 4 _ _ 1Y~9_ -24'8 -- B- - --- - 39 - D{~.~I?: FY.AZA PI6~.Y {dI~ Y/FIR~STO.~.~/is~.~LSISU~ER X/!~i.~ '~RY$ 16 362 6~'`c'~3$ 8 42 ASTER KEY (~iTER {~.k~FTRY BtIY F~ILY R'ESTAJE~.YT - ~ 17 IP.B 2'6753 8 - 41 Ih'u^ti~'fl~"J`~-~ ~?~;~ kI}~'~ DjXIELECY~RI~LPIQ.`~tR_Sc~i'Ji'~ I.~','u( _ _ 1g -214-- -- 5is5~ 1~'2 _ - 4a -- &='-:'~:;aA PLAZA S.G ~ - PU~IX/'~6~~/FIRST CE3Ll;=3IA h`~:`~.'~-iT _ 14 2P2 8~~ b492 43 Cr~'TAL F~Jy'ZA KQ.at !t' KARiiY/Y^?Gl PCsiL.O rtSTA:~Rf++(T 28 353 7177 8 - - 43 - - Pr' t SUB TOTALS - -- - - - 547 16165 3128735 2293~;b • "" --- ~i"~---- 44 C(7.~'~`iRYSIDE PLAZA K-i"s~RT/6F?'=~"c~ E~'~1Gid/LEE RD/PIhR1R S ~FICE 21 b47 SS~~ 1P,~ _ S'J~LY/PH.~R-!~JRE%LG"dt; J~Cd SILVEi~i SST. - - 45 VILLAS AT CG`L"1TRY5IDE 6dIL5Gt~'S/RED LG~TER/P4DIG S~t?~~(/F11DUR~-'~',ERS/REST. 18 I2Z~3 122?~ 4 45 ~C~3 R~~Iv`TER t,~~ cR'-T`PICTUr'~ SIl~~iiRYSiDE FL`.~.'dIrURE 9 ib8 25~ ~ 8 _-47 -PIJ~DL4tA --- - ----- -- ~IX S-+N'ES/I~~S FRBRICSIt~'~1{ iti~r~...D FITh~ ~NT~ _ Ti 1b7- --3~?=.~8 - ---8 -- 48 CGG'ZIAYSIDi 1`~' L J. C. P~.~;t~(Y/J BYR{.~"UF`O` 5/RDiiI~"a"i/~.ARS _ 154 bi u'B lIc 21$ _ ;`,~'d 49 CGi.~'~TRYSiDE VILL~~ PUTT 4 7}~.4T-tRS/Srp,D Dt~i7AL 0.TIiIC/PLvDS REST. / 57 1528 244558 721$ --- S~JA~ -- ~BcRTSt'1ih51fi'~=l7IF;RT~TFE~~7T.7.?'`~XXI~~~~FF~.- -- - KE?dTL~(Y FRIEII CHICKE7! 58 CYPRESS WIitI S. C. F:'-~R5!',~I.LS/I-~;~ DEWT/I~fiILI'S F~57/S:-"~'I;:~~S ~ ~";ERICR 3B 874 IE~43$ 1~~~2 ----gj --f~.14_~ttFJ`r~TN-CRfTt~R " -----RI=NIZE-DR:`oj/7~EV"tN-- - - =--9- 5~ 6d-+~'~ ~-° - 52 ,~"JRti4`7JD t;AKS S. C. K.~1 ,4' KARRY/'~6REE1~ :. , 28 412 843T5'~ ..: 53 PdDAri-F.X~'u~; P"tfiZA I#Itc`ti DIXIE/J~T~a~'!-~r.RS Di.k: ART - 41 '~"1ZaS5 •1~'~~' . ' `; 8 - ,.. --~ - i~?~R~4~i~ _ -6IEI'S TTALT~-}~51~,~.ITT'x~TL,7IL~I~h~i~dTT?,``~-1F~~.1S~t- ---~3 -~2iu~ ~~?~d- ~- CRRNET DEP(IT 55 5.r~~-T ~JiYT i9 S.G F~!_~LIX/E~RD/CLGTIi i~`JRLD/LI'tt-'~! L~`Jlll-flFli;?'~tITuI~ FGr7if'!, 20 I3S$ 157z~8 197i~d - ---`.,6 tTr ~S~:S~ 4ZA- ~~! ~~'`~: IFR•~~'~"I~:~.~tEl`t~4C`7R~T~":~ ` - iS4$ - 28,E-- 57 ~~ S.G .~! i IX/E~tERD/Di.~~IN LIBRARRY :.: ` 7 '. 328 ,. 5%I2 B 58 NI~~~'+~ ~~~ - }tIF~TJ DIXIE/SIi~ER X/T 6.°~ Y it mss`-~5' °5E'~'~^~.,: 8 -~5~ -~°;`cT ~suRr~'~'-~ Dt~.~R~c,`~~ STGrt~Itt~RirIRC` i~;Wr~?.:.IKr":~fiNtKA 8T~TB $ 60 1S!~?1D ESTATES I`~1.L PUC~IX/~ICt~lS PfY4RWgvY/CARTERt-T ~VI~~:~lB=~~~SYS REST. i2 3I9 5E52~ 675 51 CLEticL~'D PLAZA Ni~BLIX/ECKERD/t~JDt4~~JRTH 14 4~ 6`tv'2 2758 --- ~ --S1,~:5; f I Cti BALL --- --.i: CG Pt?;~r'YtJ- BYR;~t1 S~~iRTS-1~3~ I ~ 17 ET /i~' I S I iii irk t~52b57- 425~~ --- - 2 -----'. 53 S`A=;aTC~"d S. C. S~?S/bItt~! DIXIE/f~;~DCK FA~T~I~/~~~LIC~( r^,=t'~C/ 35 i8ad 218 7275 .~ . ,.: BILL }i~LLS fir~~IR"~SL Ff~~IGtiP`tr.-=`i/>~~~R.~'':f~; F`.AL~ - ~ -: _---~_ ~,.X..e-TD-ELY-S.~ tt~,J<Eh~ PI~CI'-1~'Iu `t1~~Rit~~f-fI7'~-~ t -"792'i,~` .. i2~.6R~~/k~S RES7A~J.~"d7/~ A;JTO L~r;R7S 65 K ,'MRT S. C. K-IAA RT/Ci T i Z EP,'S FEi1ERRL 2 475 957 351~i3 -----{s5-- --C'~.f~-7~ ~Y P'~.~iZR-- -r"ubilXfECKERD ,. :.. 57 DR~~! 19 5.G Kn"S:~ 11' i<,ARRY/{iILSG"~B~°U FJR~dI7L'RE i8 95x3 2~' 8 t6$ J PARK PLACE -. --I~~`R Ctr".;STR!~vTI~r'tF'r~^~ 1? . ..1958 ~2~3Ev$~ -, --. ~ ~`J-- ~ -fX~A=,'R°~TEfi ALL IVcYS/?TJ~"I.~;T'=rTY-k:~~IBtiRLI5~6nYrtti5 ~ 5- ~ - 1&~~8--~ 78 CLEAR'~TER EAST 6JDFAT}'cRS RESTA!JR.A,4s1CGKES~IRY ~'?KS7DR£ 15 111 ~'~'~s3 8 ~ 7i D44'SK PLAZR DE;1~K FACTORY G1ITLfT 6 52 ~ ~~ ~~z~ --=~2- -I~'~Ri~-5~.~~2c -- --IiIt~~l DiXIEfS!~~ER-X/D(~LRR-t c, ~R~ STt~:~S - --- --Tg -3~- -E~~~d --- - - 8----' 73. ~RIR CGVE S.G LGS ~",i~~ REST. /TRA.'.~iISSIDPd CEPtIER 7 IB5 31332 F :-. ;-_ I . 74 LEVITZ Pi.AZA LEVITZ FUr2'iITUF~IP`,i;oREBD ~/FDRTLL`c Ft-L~~L 19 53i 158t'~i~ ~8 -- 75-- ~'„~f£~'S~'~}t-S.C--- ~C~S'DIA- - 23I4S- 28St'~- _ 3~8 ,1 32 PFD 5JB TDTRLS ~1. - 4 . i, - - ~\ -- C ` ~ ~ J` _, C~'dTER r'~AJDR ' ---- --- --- - -----TEtt;:YTS ----- -- _TDTAL _I-~ii"do TUTI~L V;?C''wYT T~:t,'" ITS :r`?~S tFA'a='•.t~~ -- A.~ - L ~. ~• 1, c~ ~ ~ , J U ~ _~t--~ • 9~1 31512 b~2124 1431 D.9 ~.. - r _~ ~.; _~ ':~ C~ tR ~:~:.JuR 7uT~. Pr•.:.rF•5 ?T'TR` 4't~~.~;4T .. «;r cR `:',~ T~'i~`~TS 1 `'t.~ti 1S .,"'~.;ES l ~ ~:=,~.E ~?~2 _ ~7b )4ISS7Ur~I r~RT_--- - PICK_K_dIK/RR_CI;. !~is'IC/DYCg_F'RIK'i/i~iI":R 9JY~'L~s;r~RS _..~1 ----375_ _ E5,`,Y.~- ---C~'~3 . - - . 77 CEAt`TRRL PR~K PLAZA E45,.F F~'~ILY DI~~4'T/~5 FABRICS/SFlf SERVICt S~.xS/ 13 268 45~~~ 8 , J~'2 T/1~IF~~I RC~GS _ 78 t#I "Y S. C. P41~IXlECKEi~/CiCTIi~JRi.D~n.~S-.fL5T1IR7cRIDR-1T~I!~ _ -____17 _.__-9Z4_ _r^2~48d- -X438-- ----- 79 ~~Rs(ET PLA~~ SST ., 41I!~ DIXIE/k:~6Rf~dS 18 528 1~ 32:'E3 B2 ZRYR~ S<C. ZAYR=/C`t~ STDP AUTO PARTS/JOEL-R-JERRYS 8 6.`,$ 13t~c''~ 0 ---_81--- - B~`-L~RIR E:~Z~R---- -- - - _f~Y~J47J_.J~~:5 E_RS~.LI'~_1~~*~ CLOT/RTU?t~TIC Ems( .---32 ----?~2.. ~$- ---.$---.- -- .62 . T)i PC.AZA W~"~R i~;RD;~;.Ri: -,. ~..;: 18 275 3JQ~?a . 6 83 1~RBOR )x l~5 S. C. .. ~~.Rl~!;~/~1 FR~:KLIf4 14 IS$ 4~f~ 2~2 _ 84 PI)E'F1ii~.S. C. ~.(T}itS`~"T_~t~7i1;-~I](/E~KE.RJFa.DIO S~t~".,tL/_C~...c~-h;n^D~~?a.RFJ . '::: 14 : - .;~ ~$. -S93h'~3 -1L~------- Rt1T1.F'.D P:?'~t Fa CC~`~TRY CL~ PLAZA FR;~1 STCRf FMS/CO;~YTRY CLL`•3 LI(rJORS/ 'r^~ ~ !i IC'$ 87~'d 1~`d _ PLC'-"i3ItFS _ 85 K~~`= F~AZA i~I'.'1 DIXIEIFIr~"~! FED. /ELK=.RD/rruID ~?-~~{1F1~. ~t,~R 21 4$9 915 4-c"~ - -__ 87 EAST BRY GAZA WRIA~/RL~i'sTS=~/1~?~R KIt~~, .; 25 __:::.. 47$ 1~Qu$ 1428$ . 69 ~-~ Ku~'T;-!4~tILl~R6E. - FR~'~.{~ KE:?~~Y.~.I'r,.~~7511~4SL~Y__LIL~~IL~3~~SlLf~~J~~d 17 I~d._ ~i76$ --1440 SIL<<RS R:ST~1=:~-~T 89 L1I~ ,'CD it % 244£ 8 _-_ 9~ D~.~f~ F_:~lE L.):+;it',ERBY'_SFfisILY_C~~:R.~RYLSA4'L4S51~'~ICAJb*' Y5L ie 728 ~821~ Rr-E'8----- soL~a~ c~~:~aL _ 91 TRI-CITY PLAZA EI~~/P(~IX/TS li Y/A~ h'ARIv~';EI~.R',iIS(~~ CAFETERIA =19 ° ' 605 97698 0 _ 92 i4Y ~.?{..A-Cfi1Ti~T ~'A(.L_ __I~,F~i~3XXLV~JE 75 1343 ~7822fl _6~8 _ 93 FEATH=R SOCk7D SLC~1f~ 1~'?STItF~ f~ST/FEAT-€R SDL"ED SJ~~R"4RT/S~`= ti'~C4'S ft.ST/ 14 271 45720 1780 BRY~~T E;i-SP"Ei~RI4~lFltt-D E? ~LRRD G R-SSDC. ---____ 94 _CF .~: ~TC4-1~I1<7 P~.AZA K_'~RII'K`A: 6r'~ '(S/~C4Sli ~_4~:RRRY A -78L __-13370$ _ .-0 - S'5 . ~.J!~ RTC.'( 66TH GiAZA B:~SC FCr.~ ~~,=~~J:ti/r:RiISC 19 22$ ?317$ ic~$ 95 LR:rSO FAZAAR 5 137 26`52$ 18256 ----~Z- -~"'~TRfFptAZA_ S`~;~~ST'.~/F.rf LY~RL7H.L~~a7t7t/_d~~9`~~f~T~RY t5- --25$- -4$7~-- --SLa~2 - CUTLET (12x~ Sf l?~AR Cfl!:oTR1A,TION) 98 P+.AZR BE S? k~JS B 8 L RiJTD Ps;RTS 19 2'2$ 36E'~ 45w"`~1 -- __ _-- 93__ -- -~-! L~: R ~!,ARr_ - --- 70tiYS 6A~D?~' f,SST.1~f~s;EE~~BLriR.~':~~aY;z_F~ST -- 19- --~4_ -5~t'2$-- --E.E'Z.2-- -- --- 1t'~ DrE~D~io~ PLAZA 2 132 26294 3270$ 131 S.=r~It~,7~ C:t~TER PISS Y {~IESLY/~`.~Slhsf C`'"7ER DR~JSS 7 I5$ xc+~ 0 ?$2_- l~r'~ILLR~ _ kII.4i DIXIEI_E~~E.~LTr~R~1~RL~TCRrcSLEI.RSI~IIY~ 17 4?3 ~? it~8-- , !f-3 SctyIt~':k F FtVD. 5~I1R~ -P'~R5'_' C<~'lE Cs7~LETE(P'-{ASE TWO 10,62.2 57.FT)- 2 IS6 124'x'8 6.`x~ 164 FR'#ILY ~4RT S. C. FA.r4ILY t~RT 5 4£~ 74222 43i;2 105 -- LAK~I 6Rr`F__ti~t`G.~ ~i!??r`S k~! Fh c_~/KAwH '~' K.AkRY/C}?U~Cr,~~I~iI~•.~'! 12 ~$__ ~24?$ - -72-___-- - 1 P:5 , Iti^~SIt<`~ C~ :'~J,'~S °. ' A~.~.RTS«`tSIS<uJTiYS/Fr":,^-_~~;S h~~rZY ~ Cr'~"T5 0 ~2 1734S5 0 107.. !-:ARBOR Cn"E5T S.G 1&2YSIIlE D41X~u/TEpS ~i.ITD FFARiS/7-ELEV~/fIS'..1~ST.:-- : - _ 14 7$ 24@.'!$ 0 -_ 108_. . ,: : , ~k'DIRti~~~,.){S_$.C. t~"'!"~ E~=x'SIP;~LIX(ErK~l6~1K_LII~:r,"EYLt~"`~RY ' ` , _ 14_ 589 -81440__ -_--@-- 169 PAl4 G-4RDE1; S.G 6dlt~d DIXIEJR?DIO ~~?r%K/S.,~R X/1}:ILLAR C~~~ STDRES 7 23$ .`,070$ 0 116 1~-~"LIl"`'S LA!<DIP~ S. C, -!!`DER Ca"~Tr~JCTIC`- - 470 94-23$ - 35 1 SiIB TDTA3..5 - 553 142^2.4 27`.,b767 2L~8328 ' ~ "~ C:',T=R 1~~.iDR • TDTAL ;~;-{1!a'S TDTAL 1~,~;.~YT -~I3ER !~ i~ ~ T E?;:=~vTS T~~.0.tiTS c"y:''~S LEASRB',.,E AREA lIl EY~,"(f~itST FtRZR F~JBLIX/ECKERD ~ -_V`---------- - -- -- - II2 tl,'!;n`~ 6YS/RRT ~ .tC~DL1DLIR" i`ILLS' 13 358 4~2~ f~ -- 113 -~Y-RIDS ~7ER . L'A';•~ STtfDID/FRAY'-FRS,'-~It7:~/tw"FD;,'~ -- 21 ~q- 194 fgS 3229a --~7~ I~ -~ f1.4 5J4i'~3:.E 1`~lt J SYr~3'~/ZAYRE1Pll3?_IX/DRIFTk'D:JD ~E/~ft~ CIS 73 Z2~8 4I7968 Sf~3 115 TkIN ~{ P',3IZA 6~,AkDYS REST. /r~'fDYS PEST. /SELF SEriJICE S~`.k STCRE/ - 4°8 ~.~ _ ----- - ----- - ---- - -- tX_D 1~RL1}-~~-~~ F4;1LY- R`57. -- - ---- ----- --- IIb K~'.A:;T P1..P.ZA ~. K.-1`TRT/bilE~l DIXIEIS;~"ER X;~J,R~ER KI~'6 i6 _ 7~ 1=B3b8 14E8 .: 117 F~tRS{ PLACE ~tiER ---{g~CR COfSiR!~TID:d---_ - _ @ 112 241E 8 -_118-- --;~.w{~TRRf{EY i4~RZA - -1'~ -#i' KA;RRYI~r ='~` r~~,;~; - P,-~~:..At~tl~`~T7 B:=_'~;SfL I ~~_~~- --17 ~ v -7175$ -- - 5v~i~ ----- 119 STA.~i6!{T P,~,iit( S. C. uIt.'1 DIXIE1EGs(ERD 9 180 4?~ 8 128 EnRu-"~]R VIL! ~ PtJ3LIX/ECfCEP.D/RTL4hi IC B^~~ 28 10'55 173B8b 8 ----121 -F~,~SII6E F~:~.lA_ ---i.~tE~R-C~J,`~T(F:=R.~rtY'-S LDL~SET--- - --- - ---~- -2a1-- --334 -- -28. ----- 122 ~:.,-~:::~~vR VILLR~~ ERST ---{.R C~STt~.A:.TIG;- _ ~ ® 8 - 123 PI-L`1L~ P'~ACE 1¢I~~! DIXIE/ECKERD ,: . _!9 ,.557 1728 23239 --_-1a4- -~,~T~tklD PLAZR _.. -,~a~a?S~-J~STR~.IR.~YT- ~-- 2`,ir-- -~1~a Tu2'd 125 ~~ ~ KA'~{ h'tKr^,Rr~Y/i~_6Rt~-?~'S/TB ~ Y/ii)i~RT!$RS PIZZR 13 345 67"~ 25i~a 126 A?RIL FO!J;YTAIb S. C, CC~~JIENCE FDCD }~J'sRT/t:~~DS 6Y$ 9 157 3rd 82`~ -----127 ix'.R;{~L4.ZA S.G---- r•?~.LAt~6c~~,w~+ STDR~/AiI~iIX!_F~itD/it;~RTIi! 26- --1B~ -if-4~ 8-----. ~ I'r;RD`r /RED CAV~IER RF5TAt1R.`~#1T - 128 Ft?Ikk~uS S.G ECY~'RD/CITIZE;~S Ft1~RAL- ,`: - - 12. 344 >. 634 32Ek'$ --1'r3- --LRYr~ S.C.-- ZAYfi~IKASH.N'K.R,Rt~'i/R,~~~4-GI~k-~aR-D~ 5 b.`A- ~22~'.80- -z~'~- 13$ PI~`'1LRS SDt'RRE ALL F;~riR;;~RY HARD/J. C. I+`-~4tYlIVEYS/~'JRRISJ?~ CAE/ 123 3188 695E'~9 ll~ti'~ G~wRAL CI!lER;~2/F'U3~f?cf~A REST. --------13L _C-9Tt..r_~Y_I¢4LL --.I- hYh`JiJEl:KERDIR`u$L1"XIZRYi{r/LEk..'~!-TR~ $r~A/LERIEF.RS/ ~4 - --~~"~d-- -4,`.~?~~t~$- ---~----:.-- U. S.F~ST DFFICE/1`~R'2RYSl1aRRI~~ ~~t/~TTY51 ;::::_:>.:.: ,: .:- '~ Ct~;'~TRY DI!t~ Pi.AY1-LSE _ _ -132. ~t~~'TI~~_AL.AZA _ ECKEFD/kIt~~t.DIXIE/LL`RIt~IRUTL~,~-F,~'.-(/FLLl:?IDA--[)FIVcPS 2P--~38- 147802-0--- L I C~~1SE 133 TC~~ F?.AZA PLC IX/r~.6R.~~t.:5/T6 6 Y/RA~r'tTT I~!K 29 388 658 12`.,8 _---.134-- --Il-`~zyvs~4S AL43TH STR~ __ ~~JST_CC;:`~LET~- -- - - -- - 1%- - -s'8k~~i'3 135 G',?~.~ FR.r,"T.{' S h'JRSERY 1 C°^-~-TS 5 1~ . : s~~ 1853 136 FF~ILY ?°~R7 PiAZA _: -- ~~'I~R ds"tST(FA:~ILY >~;RT3-- ~ :. : : - 49~' 960118 - -13I-- -L~~~? : ltI4'i DIXIE/StI~'R-X ;.;. _ - R '.~13-- 7582 B I38 i~i~Zz1 DIXIE G~YTER NI'e~ DIXIE 3 163 ?.,~ S 139 l~,Rr~.~T S. C. PU_"-+~IX/ECKERD/CLDTI~f 1rD.~D/''ri'.JQ±4~9RTGilH b D Cf`.cETERIA/ 32 757 155448 8 _-- -- - - _ ACE ~r~~f RE_ - ---- -- - - - - i4S _ Stt~L ISLE Fi.AZA SU7f 1~:'~(/S4`rZL ISLE ~`~~/54`ELL IS~...E f-b~f~~~REI. 22 ~ 3~gg5 -, .. ~' -_.. S' 1L ISLE P~R,"~Y . ~ ___S4I-- -4TiiSTr:.~.C`~.'7FR----- --,I01-It'-JERRYSIi;t~LA>°, ~ APR`--STQ?.ES -- --7- 188- 578- 12F~2 142 A'i1EA,T'~..E S. C. KASN N' KRRRY/~'~ ! F?dDN E DRUSS 11 ~8 3S~ 6 143 DiSSTD:~t P'LRZA Pi.~IX/EG(ERD/~xRtQRY/TR'JE ti`ALL,t FI+?P,D~tASE/~I1::_-''lA`~fS ~2 eza 147 f44 Ct~C~Y S. C. KASN N'KARRY/~:~~IR.R CR~:GR/Ct~{i<'Y DRL~S $ 28a 285c"~ 8 - 145 = 1?~=.DEIr~k S_C. Pt1~ IX/c'~LKS/~:RifiRf~7$ 9 285 76.5B$ 8 ibS 1~RTER~~11A EdI~~1 DIXIEIECl~ . 12 v 147 TYnix+E SDZA~ ~ !"~~'~/RDB IR'S~~/Y.AR3/J. C. PE'i!l1' 139 .`,8'c~ 1 ] ~~ 8 148 T~ t~R{ET PLRCE Ft!?ZIX1EChERD/B. T. E~`~5 PAST/r"I r5'T FLORIDA &`~~;/e:';~ 2fi 474 93C~ 4 - - ----- -- SSE OUTLET _ --- _ _ _ - ---- -- 149 CnItQDS S.C 1~~:-i~.LS/SCIITTYS/LIGi~L PLAYi,1JRLD - 18 ~5 I`,~~ ICS .. 158 C~;~..~ 5. C )~JRDI!~S/U.REX DRU~/F~ItdS L_R"~/1~<~I6~S RrST. / 24 1928 34500a - 22P,08 _.~.DS_1~:3VIE- ~rTEr'~ICLDY~:~D/PItiSli~S-D~'~"t1Y - _ TAX CQLFCTDR .. 151 ZAYRt S. C. _ ZRYRE/KC,~ri N' KRR:aY/iF1'!AR Eil~eRAL STQRES 6 4£8 1Ce ~'~e'.8 8 ~~ TYr:~~.R~>S S.G__ EIII.''tlIIXIE/EL~~/;`xJPl::Y~C}f.~{.E.CF~SE-t~.STR;!?,F~7! -42 172-- 2121?.28 -i~d- ttDT k~c;RRI!-'& 42-. ~!3.7QT~~ v19-~=2.~-.`9~7-r~,j:'4 ~, ,' .~ lio) 1984 i'IPIELLAS COUNTY :~FIOPPING CENTER INVCNTORY O 70.000 - 99 000 aq.ll. t OD,600 - <99,000 ~y It. V 500.000 .ci.ll n~J oror. CG! F ,\ of M Fri ~o Q dv '\O\.' n. j a ~~ P ~ ~---~-_ e,~ Y '. ' . ` , ~~ f i r '~' -- - . ,y . 1 i IJ7 ~ I Z ti ~ 1 it - 1~. , _~_ F , ff~~,tl ~ . T t _~ -1I~ i 11 1 .. 1,~ .~ •r . is P~tlf ~i,PGV t - .. ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ; SAND 'KEY SETTLEMENT Undeveloped parcels on Sand Key were rezoned in 1978 from "B" Business to classifications of RN1-28 on the Gulfside parcels and to RM-16 and CG on the Bayside Parcels. In response, U. S. Steel, a principal landowner, brought suit against the City which resulted in an order granting U. S. Steel vested rights to develop according to the "B" Business classification in effect when Sand Key was annexed in 1971. Since that time, the City has sought relief from the order and has been unsuccessful in those attempts. We have thus pursued a course of negotiation with landowners to achieve a course of development that would characterize existing densities and patterns of development on Sand Key. lNe have dealt with several landowners in the process. Cheezem Development Corp. purchased the U. S. Steel properties. During the time Cheezem owned the property, the City successfully negotiated a settlement stipulation which was executed on March 27, 1984. This settlement addressed only two parcels of property referred to as the "Southern Parcel"- presently being developed with the Crescent Beach Club and the "Northern Parcel" located south of the Sheraton Hotel and presently undeveloped. 1 In 1985, the City filed applications to rezone the parcels not covered by the settlement stipulation. Staff was immediately notified by Cheezem that their position was to try to negotiate a settlement to cover the vacant parcels, and the rezoning actions were tabled. Negotiations were initiated and almost immediately the properties were sold to Justice Investment Corporation who continued to negotiate with Staff regarding a~settlement. Following several months of what appeared to be a near completed negotiation effort, Justice Corporation dissolved its partnership. Again the City staff was approached in 1986 by new individuals of the Justice Corp. to resume negotiations. Reluctant to begin again with a new set of players at a task. which seemed endless, staff met with the Justice Corp to negotiate a "new deal." Over the last lZ years, many concepts and versions of a settlement have been drafted. The one being presented to the City Commission at this time is the latest proposal which has been agreed to by the Justice Corporation and the chief negotiators for the City, which include the City Manager, the City Attorney and the Planning Director Four parcels of property are involved in the settlement, the last vacant parcels owned by the Justice Corporation and currently zoned "B" Business. They are identified in the proposed settlement as follows: 2 • • Parcel I 9.18 Acres Southern Bay side Parcel II 8.6 Acres Southern .Gulf side Parcel III 7.9 Acres Northern Bay side Parcel IV 15. Acres Northern Gulf side A discussion of the proposed settlement as it relates to each parcel is as .follows: PARCEL I is partially developed with 64 condominium units known as the Harbour Condominium. The settlment proposes to complete development of this parcel with 80 additional residential units. Maximum height would be 100'. Overall maximum density on the site would be 15.7 units per acre. 3 exhibits attached to the settlement would regulate development of PARCEL I. PARCEL II is vacant. The settlement proposes development of 360 residential units or up to 400 units with a transfer of 40 units from PARCEL IV. Maximum height would be 210'. Overall maximum density on the site would be 41.8 units per acre with 360 units or 46.5 units per acre with 400 units. 4 exhibits attached to the settlement would regulate development of PARCEL II. 3 f - ', • PARCEL III is vacant. The settlement proposes a mixed use development of residential, hotel, and commercial development. A total maximum of 85,000 square feet of commercial building area would be allowed with up to 110 residential units or up to 220 hotel units or a combination of 2 hotel units per 1 residential unit. Density of the residential/hotel portion would be approximately 31 units per acre. The F.A.R, of the commercial area would be approximately 0.4. 4 exhibits attached to the settlement would regulate development of PARCEL III. Maximum height would be 100'. PARCEL IV is vacant. The settlement proposes 520 residential units or 780 hotel units. If 40 units are transferred to PARCEL II, the amount would be reduced to 480 residential units or 720 hotel units. Maximum overall density on the parcel would be 34.6 units per acre (520 units) or 32 units per acre (480 units). 11 Exhibits attached to the settlement would regulate development of PARCEL IV. This includes the 8 exhibits which were part of the prior settlement stipulation with Cheezem. Maximum height on site would be 210'. 4 • • A comparison of what can be achieved with the present "B" zoning and what is proposed is as follows: "B" zoning (54 units/acre) PARCEL I 495 units PARCEL II 464 units PARCEL III 426 units No F.A.R.".limit on commercial PARCEL IV 370 units .(Limited by prior settlement) TOTAL 1,775. units + unlimited F.A.R. Settlement Regular Zoning 144 RM-16 = 144 360/400 RM-.28 = 240 110 CG = 98 (3.5 acres 0.44 F.A.R. 0.4 (4.4 acres 520/480 RA1-28 = 420 1,134 + 85,000 sq.ft. commercial 27.9 units/acre 902 + 77,000 sq. ft. commercial 22.2 units/acre AVERAGE DENSITY 43 units/acre The development of Sand Key does not equate to the zoning that is in place at the present time. The maximum height existing on the Gulf is 20 stories with a maximum density of 37.9 units/acre. Average height on the Gulf is 13 stories with an average density of 32.4 units/acre. The maximum height existing on the Bay is 16 stories with a maximum density of 34 units/acre. Average height on the Bay is 8 stories with an average density of 21.7 units/acre. 5 ,, ._ • • Overall, the proposed settlement attempts to achieve what the staff has encouraged throughout the negotiations: • densities and height which reflect an existing development pattern--higher on the Gulf--lower on the Bay; • provision for commercial development that would provide a capability of providing services to residents and visitors on Sand Key; • providing the essential amenities on a beachfront site otherwise required by the Code, landscaping - view corridors - integrity of the CCCL - adequate parking; and • recognition of impact fees necessary to mitigate impacts of development. 6 .:~ , ° - ~. -. pr ~ ' ~ i M Y .. Y ~ ~ '~ ~ ~L ~t y ~i A W C ~~ f ~" ' PLANNING'"$ UR$AN . , ,~ - - ~- - - - - --~. ' -- - -- DEVELOPMENT Y-*- - -- g 4 # F . { L.eY~ ~. t • ~ ~ 44. • S ~ r . . i a • September 30;~ 1.986 ~ ~~:= . ~ • ~ rt , . • ~ ,Mr. Carl F ,G. Me er ~ .. :~ . . ` `r r, ~ =1~, ~ ~~ ~: , °Sand Key Property Owners Assri. : r~" '- 1501 Gulf °Boulevard - ~ `~~° ~~k Clearwater; ~FL 4 33515 • ` ' ~~ ~, ~ N. `~ .y , v Me er.. Dear` M : L ~ ~ ~ y r. ;'~~'~ , ~; ~ ~~.~ Yr yt~1F ` v ! .{y. ~ ~~. _ ~ ~ . ;'.° nom' : short s;tstement Enclosed as you :requested ~~~'s~ a y iY -~ about the`i ~`° ~ ~` ,` ° : . to your assoc ~ati~on. ~.'-P1;ease .call.. ~" upcoming presentation x4Y F~' ~ ~, , ' Q ues~ions. . me at 4b2~68$0 if you~.~have- any. . : ~ ': ~,.. ~ Tl< < , , ,, . .._ ;~ r ~ ~- . ~~ • * ~ ~ ~. _ .,~9 ` .~ ' the homeowners ';°~ ppreciate 'the opportunity~to speak to a • Y tarice . 0ctob,er :13 .Thank ~, bu for our assis on . ~x 1 '' ~;~ ~ ~ • I~ .w ~ ~ ... f ~~. ~'. s a'k++ - 4 . .~. , !~ ice' `Yt .. }. fib. . ~ • ~ ~ ~.a F ~,,. ~k x _ . a• .r #' _ _ Y P E ~ • - r .. L .. i ;; • F . ~~ w ;. Paula Harvey- ~ ~~ ~ Planning 'Director ~ ~ ~: ~ - .~ -~'' ~~ ~ - - _- _ _. =: -~_ ~^- t ~ ,~ ~-~~.~,y ~d ,~ ~- _?~ ;,. ~~ . a ,.: ~ ~'~ .j. r r f ~ 5~~ ~r . _ PH J J m =- ~ ~ a~ 1 16 7 ~ y +'• ' ~ °, . y s. ` LJ L t+ + a eft Enclosure - t ~. ' - . ~^ a F .,,.~ .~ i, ,t. .s~ fr L.. ,y~L-''' , • t ' t ~ ~ ~ Y . . ~ - • i • •r r ~y> /~ [toy _ ~ ~ •. .• . ., L. g+ ~ $ T ~'y 1 ~;` ~ al ~{• .. ~ .. d ,~.. F ~ 1 w .. • , ~ ~;y i • P SS ti ^~ ~ ~ A' w "K • City Planning Director i'aula Hat.-vey and C~ ty Attorney Al Galbraith will r~i<::r;e a presenta±~i-on at this meeting on a proposed negotiated settlement being considered by the Clearwater City Commission for the development of the four vacant parcels on Sand P:ey now owned by the Justice Corporation (formerly owned by U.S. Steel). City Planning Director Paula Harvey and City Attorney Al Galbraith will make a presentation at this meeting on a proposed negotiated settlement being considered by the Clearwater City Commission for the development of the four vacant parcels on Sand Key now owned by the Justice Corporation (formerly owned by U.S. Steel). • City Planning Director Paula Harvey and City Attorney Al Galbraith will make a presentation at this meeting on a proposed negotiated settlement being considered by the Clearwater City Commission for the development of the four vacant parcels on Sand Key now owned by the Justice Corporation (formerly owned --_-.._ __-_-- by U.S. Steel). __ -- City Planning Director Paula l;arvey and City Attorney Al Galbraith will make a presentation at this meeting on a proposed negotiated settlement being considered by the Clearwater City Commission for the development of the four vacant parcels on Sand Key now owned by the Justice Corporation (formerly owned by U.S. Steel). City Planning Director Paula Harvey and City Attorney Al Galbraith will make a presentation at this meeting on a proposed negotiated settlement being considered by the Clear~•:ater City Commission for the development of the four vacant parcels on Sand Key now o~~ned by the Justice Corporation (formerly owned by U.S. Steel). City Planning Director Paula Harveyresentation Attorney Al Galbraith will make a p at this meeting on a proposed negotiated settlement being considered by the C1ear~+-a ter City Comrnissinn for t}~~ develo~5t•,ent of the four ~;:~~~~+nt },arcels en Sind };cy no;a o•.ned I~:~; ~i,~~ ,7~.~::~ ~r~e C<~tl,,,,,,-;{ ;nn (;or;n~~r-1•~ o',;~~~>d ii ... i i / _c-S Q _ _ _ ~e.G1!ea.~is,~J l_~,.~_cs~_S -;~~ - ~ c'~ss ~ ~,/'e-~ii~ ~~ ,~ ~.e~ ~ S.'~ ~ 5p. G l'~u dam-- ~ _ _e.8_(~ ._ __ __~-_~_ ~~ ~ ~ ._ I i _~-- f ~~ i ~~ • • IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, vs. CIRCUIT CIVIL NO. 78-4765-7 CITY OF CLEARWATER, a Municipal corporation, Defendant. SETTLEMENT STIPULATION Plaintiffs, JUSTICE INVESTMENT CORP., a Florida corporation and its subsidiary limited partnerships and corporations, CHEEZEM INVESTMENT PROGRAM I, LTD., a Florida corporation, and AMERICAN DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT CORP. OF SAND KEY, a Florida corporation, and defendant, CITY OF CLEARWATER, a municipal corporation hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. JUSTICE INVESTMENT CORP., a Florida corporation, and its subsidiary limited partnerships and corporations, CHEEZEM INVESTMENT PROGRAM I, LTD., a Florida limited partnership, CHEEZEM LAND CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, and AMERICAN DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT CORP. OF SAND KEY, a Florida corporation, are the successors in interest to UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, the original plaintiff in this cause. 2. Plaintiffs are the owners of four parcels of land on Sand Key within the City of Clearwater, hereinafter referred to as Parcel I, Parcel II, Parcel III and Parcel IV, which are more particularly described in Exhibit 1 attached hereto. 3. Parcels I, II and. III were part of those lands owned by United States Steel Corporation that were the subject of Count II of the original complaint in this cause. 4. Parcel IV was the subject of an independent action, Circuit Civil No. 83-14905-7, which was dismissed upon entry of a judgment incorporating a Settlement Stipulation (herein, "Parcel IV Settlement Stipulation"). • • r 5. Parcel I is a 9.18 acre parcel of land located on the bayside of Sand Key that is improved with 64 residential dwelling units. 6. Parcel II is a 8.6 acre parcel of land located on the Gulfside of Sand Key that is unimproved. 7. Parcel III is a 7.9 acre parcel of land located on the bayside of Sand Key at the extreme northern end of the Key that is unimproved. 8. Parcel IV is a 15 acre site that is located on the Gulfside of Sand Key immediately to the south of the existing Sheraton resort that is unimproved. 9. Plaintiffs and Defendants desire to amicably resolve particular disputes that have arisen between the parties in regard to Plaintiffs' rights to use Parcels I and III under the final judgment entered in this cause and the City's authority to amend its zoning ordinance in regard to these parcels. c~ 10. This Settlement Stipulation shall have no affect whatsoever on the legal rights and duties of the parties in re- gard to Parcel II under the final judgment in this cause. 11. Notwithstanding the notice requirement of the Municipal ~'V.:~ ~ Code of the City of Clearwater and Florida Statutes, the City ,~~~ `-;~~~/~~; ~ agrees to provide Plaintiffs at least ninety (90) days' written ~ ~:_ L'~` ~ notice prior to the commencement of any City-initiated attempt to re-zone Parcel II. \`:~~~ir! 12 . The development of Parcel I shall be controlled by the requirements of the RM-16 Zoning District of the newly enacted Land Development Code except as expressly set forth herein. Plaintiffs shall be entitled to develop an additional 80 residential dwelling units on Parcel I provided that the development complies with each and every requirement of the Municipal Code of the City of Clearwater and the City's newly enacted Land Development Code other than residential density and height. In the alternative, if Plaintiffs so elect, the development of Parcel I shall be in substantial accordance with ; either the schematic drawings or construction drawings previously . `"~`' ~ filed with the City, in which event the Land Development Code and ~~`- , ~ ~~J' -2- f • the City Municipal Code shall not govern the development of Parcel I. 13. Plaintiffs shall be entitled to develop up to 105,000 square feet of non-residential floor area as defined in the newly enacted Land Development Code of the City of Clearwater on Parcel III, subject however to the following conditions and limitations: a. Except as expressly set forth to the contrary in this paragraph, the development of Parcel III ~~ . shall comply with each and every requirement of ~ ~L; , ~.`~ ` the Municipal Code of the City of Clearwater and , ~•~~~,rr' ..~' the City's newly enacted Land Development Code as ' ~ ;,•',,+1~~ ` of the date of this Settlement Stipulation, ~ ~ `' 3. - '~~ provided, however, that no future amendment or .. ~,~:~'t t;~%`~ modification of the City Municipal Code or Land . -:~'`'~ :;=~ ' Development Code shall be binding upon Plaintiffs; J b. 1 The northernmost 3 acres of Parcel III shall be ~~4_ "1'~ ~,~ ,,1~,: ~.;_ ~;,~/" ~~ subject to a height limitation of thirteen (13 ) lding bui which a a t 1 feet above the lowest level _ _ _ ___ _ may -be lawfully_ constructed; ~ " ~~ '' c. The northernmost three (3) acres of Parcel III '- %_~~~~ shall be limited in use to active or passive ~~~~~1 ~~,`~' ~ ,, _ recreational uses, including but not limited to - iu =s ~,-- `-"-marinas;, tennis courts, swimming pools, golf ,and `~ ~ ~ ~ \' other 1'eisure activities, bars and restaurants; d . Four (4) acres of the southernmost five (5) acres ( -~, ~ ; of Parcel III shall be subject to a height ~ , .,, _, .>> '~-~~~" ~~ limitation of fifty (50) feet above the lowest ~'~ U{'~ level at which a building may be lawfully - --._- --- _ _-- -- . , constructed; - e. One (1);;acre of the southernmost five (5) acres of • ~ ` ' ~ Parcel III shall be used exclusively for surface ~,; parking for automobiles, motorcycles or bicycles; ~ ;r"`~,a,•''',~ • f . ~ ~,.^'- No residential dwelling units shall be developed ~ ~ . '~ on any part of Parcel III; ~ ' -'• 'L•~ g. The development of Parcel III shall include, at a ;~~ - jy v minimum, a non-freestanding convenience store, ``,,L ' „!:,~ which sells groceries, among other items, of y' approximately 2,000 square feet open to the ~;~~,, pub 1 i c ; t t;. ~~ ` h. Notwithstanding any provision of the Land ~~`` .,~_;;~' Development Code to the. contrary, it is agreed ~~,,'' __ ~ '~-"- __ that the- ` opeii~ space requirement for the development of~ Parcel III shall be ten percent , ;~~/;- ,; i. landscaped surface parking areas shall ~ be ~~All ~ ,, , ~ , ~..,,.~ ~ ~ ,.~~~~`:~ , , considered as~open space in determining _ whether ' ~ ~~, :' ~ ~ ~ -~~`4' Y, the development of !Parcel III meets the ;open space v:."~,~~~4t re irement as set forth herein; and- qu L~ i L- t'- ~ ~ j . One (1) parking mace-shall be mired fob each fou~undred (-40"0) square feet~'o"f gross leaseable -floor area--constructed on~ the Parcel III. 14. As additional consideration for the mutual agreements contained herein, the City agrees that Plaintiff shall be -3- • • ', ~~. \ ` - .~. ~' ~~-` `~ entitled to develop Parcel IV with an additional one hundred and twenty (120) residential dwelling units (or an additional, one hundred and eighty (180) hotel units, at Plaintiff's option) above and beyond the density authorized by the Parcel IV Settlement Stipulation provided that the development of Parcel IV with such additional residential dwelling units or hotel units shall be in substantial accordance with the schematic drawings approved by the City and attached as exhibits to the Parcel IV Settlement Stipulation. Plaintiffs shall have the right to determine whether residential dwelling units or hotel units, or any combination thereof, shall be constructed on Parcel IV. It is agreed that 1.5 hotel units may be constructed for every one (1) residential dwelling unit of density allocated to Parcel IV. For the purposes of computing density of Parcel IV, a hotel unit shall be a room, efficiency unit or suite not in excess of six hundred fifty (650) square feet. The City agrees that there shat-l-be-~io height !_l imitation on the development of Parcel IV;- ( ~ ~ . -\ .! The City agrees that no more than 1.2 parking spaces shall be required for each residential dwelling unit .constructed on Parcel IV, and no more than one (1) parking space for each hotel unit constructed on Parcel IV. The City agrees that neither the City Municipal Code nor the Land Development Code nor any amendment thereof, shall apply to the development of Parcel IV. 15. Plaintiffs shall, prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for any development on Parcel III and Parcel IV, construct, cause to be constructed, or pay to the City a sum equivalent to the cost to construct, the roadway improve- ments described in Exhibit 2 attached hereto. The roadway improvements described in Exhibit 2 are hereby agreed to be site specific improvements, and construction of the improvements or payment in lieu thereof shall not relieve Plaintiffs of its obligation to pay any impact fee imposed under the Municipal Code of the City of Clearwater. In the event Plaintiffs determine to pay to the City the cost of the roadway improvements, the Plaintiffs shall submit an engineer's estimate of cost, bearing the seal of a civil engineer licensed in the State of Florida, _~ r ~. -4- ,. A ~ and shall pay such amount to the City within fifteen (15) days of request by the City. 16. It is understood and agreed that Plaintiffs may, at their sole discretion, seek permission to develop all or a part of Parcel III, other than the area designated for surface vehicular parking, as a marina. The development of a marina on Parcel III shall be permitted only if approved in accordance with each and every requirement of the Municipal Code of the City of Clearwater, the City's newly enacted Land Development Code and controlling state law. The City agrees that it will not interpose any objection to the development of a marina in any proceedings involving the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Environmental Regulation or the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund; however, it is agreed and understood that nothing herein divests the City of any of its duties or responsibilities under Section 380.05, Fla. Stat. (1983) in the event Plaintiffs seek approval for a development of .~ ti regional impact. 17. It is agreed and understood that development of Parcels I and III shall be subject to the site plan approval requirements of the newly enacted Land Development Code of the City of Clearwater, except as expressly set forth herein. No development shall take place on Parcels I and III until a site plan has been approved under the Code. It is further understood and agreed that, except as expressly set forth herein, the City retains full and complete authority under its Land Development Code over the development and use of Parcels I and III, provided that no condition, requirement or limitation may be imposed on the development that conflicts with, or frustrates, the rights of Plaintiffs established by -this Settlement Stipulation. The development of Parcel IV shall be governed by the Parcel IV Settlement Stipulation, except as expressly set forth herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Settlement Stipulation or the Parcel IV Settlement Stipulation, and the City Municipal Code or Land Development Code, the -5- r~ ~ ~: - provisions of this Settlement Stipulation and the Parcel IV z~t Settlement Stipulation shall control.„~~ ~s~ /~ s% ce~ ~`_. ~ 18. Plaintiffs agree to pay,~an amount equal to each and every impact fee imposed by the Municipal Code of the City of ~ -~ Clearwater for development of Parcels I -and III;-prow-ided,-how- .~ .=ever, that-in mutual consideration of the resolution of a dispute between the parties over the effect of the final judgment in this cause on the applicability of the City's impact fee requirements, Plaintiffs and Defendant agree that the monies paid to the City under this paragraph shall be free of any payment restriction contained in any impact fee provision of the Municipal Code and shall be expended by the City for the general benefit of the residents and visitors for Sand Key. 19. This Settlement Stipulation and the final judgment to be entered by the court shall be enforceable by either party by injunctive relief or by any other legal or equitable remedy available in civil actions at law or in equity. 20. This Settlement Stipulation and the attached final judgment shall be deemed to establish property rights and obli- gations that run with the land and that are binding upon and enforceable against and in favor of Plaintiffs, their successors in title, and the CITY OF CLEARWATER. 21. The parties shall be bound by the terms of this stipulation upon -its execution and confirmation by the entry of the attached final judgment in this cause, unless the terms here- of are modified by mutual agreement of the parties and are approved by the court at a later date. 22. The court shall retain jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this cause for the purposes of enforcing the executory provisions of this stipulation and the _ attached final judgment. 23. This stipulation and final judgment in this cause shall be recorded at the expense of Plaintiffs and a recorded copy thereof shall be provided to the City of Clearwater. 24. No other agreement, either express or implied, which is not made a part of this stipulation and the final judgment of the C~-~ ~ ' ~~~~ ~ 1.(µi y-~,?.,,_-~, ';~:~..- .~ ,~ {~ ~ , • • court, shall be binding and enforceable against any of the parties hereto with respect to the parcels described herein, and any modifications or amendments to this stipulation shall be in writing, signed by all parties, and approved by the court. This stipulation and the attached final judgment shall apply only to the real property described in Exhibit "1" hereto, and not to any other property now owned or later acquired by plaintiffs. 25. The Plaintiffs hereby represent that all necessary action has been taken by Plaintiffs to make this stipulation binding and effective. The Clearwater City Commission approved this settlement on 26. The development rights agreed to herein with respect to Parcels I, III and IV shall remain in full force and effect for a period of ten (10) years, and thereafter the City of Clearwater shall be free to regulate the use of the three parcels without limitation as a result of the final judgment entered in this cause in this Settlement Stipulation. DATED this day of Countersigned: Mayor-Commissioner Approved as to form and correctness City Attorney 1985. CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA By: City Manager Attest: By: City Clerk JUSTICE INVESTMENT CORP. By: CHEEZEM INVESTMENT PROGRAM I, LTD . By: CHEEZEM LAND CORPORATION By: -7- i M. A. GALBRAITH, JR. Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33518 (813} 462-6760 Chief Asst. City Attorney Attorney for Defendant RE43.1-11255 AMERICAN DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT CORP. OF SAND KEY By: JOHNSON, BLAKELY, POPE, BOKOR & RUPPEL, P.A. By: F. WALLACE POPE, JR. Post Office Box 1368 Clearwater, FL 33517 (813) 461-1818 Attorneys for Plaintiffs -8- Z Q p /.yy 5 ~~,~, ~-~I~A4 s .. _ . A_.. ---.- ---- ------ -- -__....__. T_- ----- , if s.~ /5'~~~ ~~ `f 1 S. 7 1 3 3, / I lc . ~ `~ ~` ~{tb Mc~i ~6 S .s~ 39 0 '~`S. ~ 8 ~ `~ `~ ~ o ~ _' ~ 3N ~ ~o ~ ,~.~~ F~ ~ ~ oS, /05,~ /~j ~~ ,~~ s~ f~ ~ ~ 8 ~, 3 `~ ,~ . 7 YGG ~.1 3 7 O ~. Q Soo 3 3,: 3 3A~ py6 ~ 01 S ~ a °Sa°o / /7q /1/S`I. 8 S 3 8 02, 1.'7 S ¢ i ~ ~ ~ ~~ 7 .7 I' + i ~' , 1 n ~ \ p '~i 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ 3 ° '~ ' 'S ~ ~ ~ y ,, ~' 'l ~~, ~ ~~~6 ~. i I ~ i i 7 7.~~~~~" 4