7/11/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

JUL 111989 Boor 77 PAGE279 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. The fourth issue is the impact on area land use patterns. It is likely that a facility such as proposed would act as a catalyst for additional development in the vicinity. With the county's nodal approach, however, future commercial development would have to occur only in established nodes. Conclusion It has been demonstrated that regional malls are special land uses which have minimum size needs. Because of the lack of undeveloped commercially designated land sufficient in size to accommodate a regional mall, the staff acknowledges the need to redesignate land in the county so that a mail can be accommodated. The subject site meets the criteria for designation of a mall site. It is within an urban service area, has access to major roadways, is centrally located, and is not within an environmentally sensitive area. While staff feels that the subject property is appropriate for a mall, the staff feels that the site should not be used for general commercial development which does not have the size requirements of a mall. Because this request is part of a DRI, the county has certain control which is not available in a normal rezoning or plan amendment. That control involves conditioning the DRI development order. In this case since the county does not want the subject property available for general commercial use (for which there is sufficient land currently available) if a mall is not constructed, the staff feels that the development order should provide sufficient time for the county to redesignate and rezone the property if a mall is not constructed. With that condition, the request is acceptable. 19 M - r