My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/3/1985
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1985
>
4/3/1985
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:51:12 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 10:16:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/03/1985
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
65
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
APR 3 1985 - Boor 60 P;,,-405 <br />5. The property immediately west of that piece sought to be <br />retained for multiple family is commercial and there is no buffer and <br />properties for condominium use adjacent to commercial use are difficult <br />to sell or rent unless there is a buffer such as a street or other <br />buffer dividing the two areas. -- <br />6. Institutional lenders would be extremely hesitant <br />to make any loans on property of this nature due to the diffi- <br />culty- in anticipating sales and their belief the property value <br />could not be mortgaged as multiple family because the nature <br />of the area is such that commercial designation is the best use. <br />7. There is commercial land directly across the street <br />and to the southeast which makes the property undesirable for <br />multiple family use. <br />In my opinion as a builder, this property is not suitable <br />for anything other than commercial use and I would not be interested <br />in developing the property as a condominium -site. <br />Sincerely, <br />Charles Weiche <br />Attorney Sullivan expressed the belief that this is a <br />transitional area and felt that most of the present small <br />residences on the tiny dirt road adjacent to this property are <br />for sale now. He stressed that he and Mr. LaFever have expressed <br />their willingness to do anything reasonable to protect the <br />neighboring residences; they intentionally left a buffer of <br />palmettos, and they would agree to build a concrete wall; they <br />would give the deceleration lane that will be needed to get <br />traffic from 6th Avenue onto Glendale (8th St.); and they have <br />agreed that any site plan would orient the structures on the site <br />towards Glendale and there would be no access on 6th Avenue. <br />In regard to the $85,000 paid by the County for the road <br />right-of-way for 8th Street, Mr. Sullivan noted that they told <br />the County they would sell the right-of-way at a much reduced <br />price if the property were changed to commercial at that time, <br />but the County would not agree to that, and that is why the price <br />was paid. Although this road'is an advantage to the piece of <br />property in some respects, Mr. Sullivan pointed out that the <br />property could have been used for a number of things without the <br />road being there, and now the road has created the problem that <br />they have a irregular piece that they can't do anything with, and <br />it is actually a disadvantage. Mr. Sullivan felt it would be far <br />better to have a nice striptype store there and reported that <br />40 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.