Laserfiche WebLink
Because of the size constraint of the node (130 acres), the size <br />of the hospital's property (75 acres), and the amount of --existing <br />and committed hospital/commercial development around the hospital <br />(approximately 40.97 acres), in order to include the hospital the <br />node must be enlarged. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning <br />Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval. <br />Planner Shearer clarified that if this is adopted, it would <br />redraw the boundaries of that node to include the Hospital. <br />Commissioner Wodtke noted that no map was included, and <br />Planner Shearer stated that one was not provided because the <br />Board would not be setting a firm boundary today; the intent <br />simply is to include the Hospital property in the node. <br />Commissioner Wodtke asked if the node we have now is 130 <br />acres, and Planner Shearer stated that it is a little less than <br />that. There is some property immediately east of the Hospital, <br />approximately 9 or 10 acres, that is not in the node which staff <br />would like to see added since it will be surrounded by the node <br />on two sides. <br />Chairman Lyons wished to know if that property was east of <br />Indian River Boulevard extension as he did not want anyone build - <br />Ing in the marsh, and Planner Shearer stated it would be west. <br />Commissioner Bowman asked if this would include the area <br />between the Hospital and the Indian River Medical Center, which <br />is not now in the node. <br />Planner Shearer explained that the Indian River Medical <br />Center owns additional property to the south that is not <br />presently in the node boundary and that property is contiguous to <br />and directly east of the hospital. <br />Discussion continued at length about the actual area to be <br />included, the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Map, and Com- <br />missioner Scurlock emphasized that he would like expansion of the <br />node to be done concurrent with a recommendation for what it is <br />going to look like. He, therefore, suggested a Motion to table <br />and defer action to a future date. <br />25 <br />DEC 4 1985 - 62 FA -UE SO 7 <br />