2/28/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r FEB 2 8 1989 Page 4 February 14, 1989 BOOK In analyzing the request for the land use change and rezoning, staff has focused on several key issues. One issue is regional mall land availability. The Urban Land Institute estimates that shopping centers require about 10 acres of site for each 100,000 square feet of building area.. Since regional malls are usually 750,000 square feet or larger, a regional mall would therefore require a site of at least 75 acres. Site requirements, of course, are also influenced by local land development and site plan regulations that determine the required parking, loading, circulation, open space and drainage areas needed to support this size shopping facility. Using this standard, the subject parcel would be adequate for a regional shopping facility. A review of land uses reveals a total of 561 acres in 12 existing commercial nodes. Of this total, 40% (222 acres) is presently in a vacant state. This does not include commercially designated land in the Mixed Use Districts, or the commercial/industrial nodes. Thus, there is an adequate supply of vacant commercially designated land to meet the growing needs of county businesses. General commercial land is also available in proximity to this site. The North Gifford/U.S. 1 node, at the entrance to Grand Harbor contains approximately 95 acres of which 2/3 is currently vacant or planted in citrus. Further review of commercially designated lands reveals that no one node, except the large commercial/industrial nodes atthe interstate, contains both an adequate supply of vacant land (over 75 acres) which is also in a configuration suitable for a regional shopping mall. Therefore, accommodating a mall in the urbanized area of the county would require redesignating property to commercial. For that reason the subject request appears reasonable. Since the comprehensive plan did not provide commercially designated areas adequate in size to accommodate a regional mall, there appears to have been an oversight in preparing the plan. Generally, the staff has applied a three part test to evaluate comprehensive plan amendments in the past. It has been staff's position that a plan amendment would be warranted if it can be shown that there was either a mistake or an oversight in initial plan preparation or a change in conditions since then. The lack of mall sites appears to be an oversight justifying the amendment request. The second major issue is the compatibility with existing development patterns. Large scale facilities such as the one proposed must be located in proximity to the population it serves. There are several areas in the county which could be used for the proposed use, but there is arguably no one 'best site'. The subject site provides the benefit of being between the two urban centers of the county. Being located in the urbanizing area between Vero Beach and Sebastian, the subject property constitutes a central location which could result in shorter trip lengths - a transportation planning objective. The third issue is the adequacy of services and facilities. At the present time the public infrastructure (roads, water, sewer) would not be adequate for this large a facility. However, the site is located within an urban service area where such services are planned. The thoroughfare plan depicts major roadways adjacent to the site, and these, when in place, can accommodate projected traffic demand. Water and sewer service, while currently not available, are programmed for or capable of being extended to this site. These issues, while important in the consideration of this request, are covered in detail in the DRI process. 12