Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />P <br />Existing Land Use Pattern <br />BOOK : 69 PAGE 275 <br />The subject property is undeveloped. North of the subject <br />property are single-family residences and mobile homes zoned <br />RM -6. East of the subject property is undeveloped land zoned <br />RM -6. South of the subject property are single-family dwellings, <br />mobile homes and vacant land in the County zoned RM -6 and <br />single-family dwellings, vacant land and a used car dealer in the <br />City of Vero Beach zoned commercial. West of the subject <br />property is a single-family house with a detached garage and <br />accessory apartment in the City of Vero Beach zoned commercial. <br />Further west is U.S. 1 and the F.E.C. railroad. <br />Future Land Use Pattern <br />The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and the <br />land east, south and immediately north of it as MD -1, <br />Medium -Density Residential 1 (up to 8 units/acre). Approximately <br />150 feet north of the subject property is the 205 .acre <br />hospital/ commercial node centered around Indian River Memorial <br />Hospital. The land west of the subject property is designated <br />commercial by Vero Beach's Comprehensive Plan. <br />During the Spring of 1986, the City and -County planning staffs <br />studied the area around the subject property to determine the <br />appropriate zoning. At that time, the City was considering <br />detaching the area east of U.S. 1 and north of the Main Relief <br />Canal from the City Limits. The County Planning staff <br />recommended that if the property was detached from the City that <br />the County establish an MXD, Mixed Use District, running 350 feet <br />east of the existing east right-of-way line of U.S. 1 from 35th <br />Street south to 33rd Street and zone this area CL, Limited <br />Commercial District. The Board of County Commissioners <br />considered this recommendation in June of 1986 and agreed with <br />the staff recommendation for the MXD area but felt that the CG, <br />General Commercial District, would be more appropriate. <br />Originally in analyzing this request, staff relied on the work <br />done in 1986 and felt that the west 150 feet of the subject <br />property should be designated MXD and rezoned to CG. This would <br />be compatible with the City's commercial zoning and commercial <br />land use designation for the 200 foot strip of property lying <br />west of the subject property and east of U.S. 1. The applicants <br />would then have commercial zoning for a depth of 350 feet from <br />U.S. 1. However, after reviewing the situation and the area <br />surrounding the subject property, staff has found that the <br />applicantsi property is only .one of several long narrow parcels. <br />Since staff generally attempts to avoid splitting property <br />between two different zoning districts, though sometimes <br />unavoidable, it would be best to permit the greater depth for <br />commercial. This would encourage land assembly for larger <br />projects which are generally easier to develop properly. <br />Further, staff has followed the direction of the Board and has <br />initiated a comprehensive plan amendment to examine the <br />possibility of establishing a larger MXD area surrounding the <br />subject site. Staff anticipates that this matter will be placed <br />before the Board in October of this year for their initial review <br />and comment. <br />Transportation System <br />The subject property will have access to U.S. 1 (classified as an <br />arterial street on the County's Thoroughfare Plan). The maximum <br />development of the subject property under CG zoning could <br />generate up to 2741 average annual daily trips (AADT). U.S. 1 <br />currently handles 21,900 AADT in this area at level -of -service <br />"C". This additional traffic will not diminish this <br />_revel -of -service. <br />14 <br />