new condos at vb - old disney property

[nickglover]

I thought some of you VB'ers would be interested in this article. It sounds like Disney sold the land to the south of the resort and across the road, and soon condos will be on both properties.

http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/local_news/article/0,1651,TCP_16736_3260531,00.html

 

[thegoods]

Disney only sold 9.3 acres to the south to the developer. Sea Oaks has apparently sold an unusable (yet valuable to the developer) small triangular parcel on the north end of their property so that the total acreage is just over 12.5 acres. The discussion of the Planning and Zoning Commission was about density, or the total number of dwelling units per acre. Evidently, they can build a total of 77 units, according to current zoning of 6 dwelling units per acre. If I recall, some of the arguments on this project involve the location of the east property line adjacent to the Ocean.

Disney owns nearly 40 acres west of A1A, in two distinct parcels. The two parcels are no doubt distinct for property tax purposes. Disney can only sell these parcels if they replat and subdivide the land. Keep in mind, much of the support services for the resort are on the west property that fronts A1A and can't be sold.

 

[madcoco]

Just a little update:

County sinks developer's Ocean Sands rezoning
By Henry A. Stephens
staff writer
October 20, 2004

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY — County commissioners Tuesday turned down a New Jersey developer's plans for 66 condominiums and 12 cabanas on 10 acres, saying they wouldn't be consistent with the area of Disney's Vero Beach Resort and the Sea Oaks condominiums.

"Our big thing is views (of the ocean) and we don't have any views here," Commissioner Fran Adams said.

In a 3-2 vote, the commission granted an appeal from the North Beach Civic Association, which sought to reverse the Planning and Zoning Commission's approval in August of MGD Development Group LLC's plans for Ocean Sands condominiums.

MGD is now limited to six residential units per acre, as the zoning states, rather than the proposed 6.6 units per acre with the 12 cabanas.

"I think this will stand the test in court," Commissioner Ken Macht said, making the motion.

However, the vote sent MGD attorney Bruce Barkett of Vero Beach into discussions with his clients of whether to sue the county for a wrongful rejection.

Records show the county in 1993 granted conceptual approval for what was then the 70-acre three-phase Disney Florida Beach Resort.

But Disney in April 2001 dropped the second two phases, south and west of the resort, selling them instead to MGD.

"These people want to get credit from (Disney's) time-share units and turn (the southern phase) into condos," association President Bill Glynn said.

Adams and Chairwoman Caroline Ginn supported Macht's motion, winning applause from North Beach residents.

Vice Chairman Art Neuberger and Commissioner Tom Lowther dissented, favoring Planning Director Stan Boling's argument that the 1993 approval governed the proposed Ocean Sands site, even if Disney sold the land.

Neuberger said he agreed with residents' opposition, but said Boling proved his point "over and over and over" that the Ocean Sands plan followed the earlier approval.

Glynn and Macht recalled the county giving Disney a unique deal, such as individually taxed time-share units, in hopes that the entertainment giant would beef up the local economy with jobs and tourist taxes.

Glynn and Macht, meanwhile, took issue with the 12 cabanas.

Boling said Ocean Sands wouldn't rent the cabanas to others, he said, only as part of its condominium packages.

Even if the proposed Ocean Sands cabanas were living units, Barkett said, 78 units would still be a reduction from the Disney-era allowance for 91 time-share condominiums and 72 efficiencies

 

[nickglover]

"the goods" seems to know what he/she is talking about, but the article did give the impression that this NJ co. bought property on both sides of A1A and plan to build condos on both sides
-

even if they just build on the oceanside, south of the resort, it will mean more people on the beach and probably more restaurant traffic for Shutters and Sonyas, which can be pretty busy already when the resort is full...also possibly more people visting the Green cabin - I would expect they will be nice neighbors, but it may crowd some public areas a bit more

 

[thegoods]

I am fairly certain about my comments but I am not 100% sure ( I did not sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night). I researched the Indian River County tax records and found that Disney still owns the parcel(s)on the west side of A1A. That said, the developer could have a purchase contract that is contingent on the County approval of their site plan (this was not approved).

The same can be said for the 9 acre parcel south of the resort. I do believe that Sea Oaks was selling off a triangular parcel that is useless to them but of great value to the owner of the 9 acre parcel. The tax map shows this. The issue here involves set back requirements on the triangular parcel and the ocean front value.

Regardless, Disney still has quite a bit of support amenities on the west property including laundry, storage, parking, tennis, tunnel, etc. They would have to keep this or move it around if they sold some of the property. The tunnel is fixed so I doubt that they would sell the frontage on A1A. They could still sell the westerly 30 acre parcel that includes the lake. I am not sure if this lake provides stormwater detention for the resort. It might.

This will be fun to watch.

Jeff