My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/20/1985
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1985
>
3/20/1985
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:51:12 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 10:15:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/20/1985
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
117
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
area to.be rezoned. He has not seen one and wished to know if <br />this was done. <br />Chief Planner Shearer assured Mr. Gentilly that the Planning <br />Department did post such notice at the south property line on <br />U.S.1 so it would be visible from the highway. Sometimes, <br />however, these notices are knocked down or -removed. <br />Ed Schlitt, Trustee for the subject property, spoke in <br />detail of their efforts to work out a development plan compatible <br />with the Planning Department's overall planning for the area <br />along the proposed Indian River Boulevard extension, noting that <br />they gave up their original plans for a six -place Cobb Theatre. <br />He further noted that when the Planning Department made a request <br />of property owners along this route for right-of-way, his group <br />indicated they had no objection to giving half the right-of-way <br />if the other half was given by adjoining property owners on the <br />other side of the Boulevard. They were advised this would not <br />work because of the apartments that had been built by Vista <br />Gardens, and they, therefore, agreed to give all the 150' <br />right-of-way needed for this project. In view of the fact that a <br />substantial portion of the value of their property was the <br />commercially zoned land fronting on U.S.1 south of Zippy Mart and <br />because the requirement that the total right-of-way come from <br />them consumed all of their U.S.1 frontage in that area, they felt <br />the giving of that commercial property was, in effect, part of <br />the entire overall Comprehensive Plan in that area. <br />Mr. Schlitt then addressed his statement quoted by Mr. <br />Driscoll earlier about the importance of being able to rely on <br />the Comprehensive Plan. He agreed that the Board does have an <br />obligation to uphold the Comprehensive Plan, but noted that he <br />was advised that a reallocation of some of the commercial land, <br />particularly as it related to this area, did not violate the <br />Comprehensive Plan. In regard to the references made regarding <br />residents having to view loading docks, etc., Mr. Schlitt noted <br />that although they still have frontage on U.S.1 to the north of <br />63 <br />MAR 2 0 198�� `' p6c <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.