My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/27/1990
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1990
>
2/27/1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:02:43 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 8:50:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/27/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
FEB 2 71990 HOK 79 PAA' j9 <br />Page 7 <br />February 19, 1990 <br />for a regional mall facility. Therefore, accommodating a mall in <br />the urbanized area of the county would require redesignating <br />property to a commercial classification. For this reason the <br />subject request appears reasonable. <br />Overall, the amount of land designated for commercial use in <br />relation to projected commercial land use needs is a major issue <br />in the state at this time. For example, the Department of <br />Community Affairs has taken a hard look at land use plans <br />submitted by local governments. One of the major concerns and <br />objections raised by the DCA has been the designation of land in <br />excess of that which is needed to accommodate projected need. To <br />that end, DCA has determined that land acreage should generally <br />total no more than 125% of the projected need over the planning <br />timeframe. <br />The county plan identifies commercial need of 3180 acres and <br />industrial need of 1478 acres by the year 2010. This total <br />represents a need of 4658 acres for the entire county. The <br />application of the 125% rule results in total designation of 5823 <br />acres. The county plan identifies 5363 acres in the unincor- <br />porated county. The five municipalities have identified another <br />1924 acres within these corporate limits. This results in a total <br />of 7287 acres or 156% of projected need by 2010. <br />The proposed site was originally included as part of the newly <br />revised comprehensive plan. On the direction of the Board of <br />County Commissioners, the site was removed from the plan so that <br />the land use for such an important project could be reviewed in <br />greater detail and to provide for additional public input. Based <br />on the previous board action, this request for amendment is deemed <br />worthy of review. <br />The revised comprehensive plan includes an area for a regional <br />mall along U.S. 1 at 53rd Street. It is generally accepted that, <br />despite the rapid population growth in the county, the population <br />base is only sufficient to support one such facility. Despite the <br />fact that one mall has already received initial approval and that <br />only one mall can survive in the county, several reasons exist for <br />the consideration of this request. First, there are no guarantees <br />that the Harbortown Center will be built. Prior to construction <br />certain public infrastructure improvements must be completed or <br />contracted, leases must be obtained, and financing secured. <br />Therefore, the advantage enjoyed by the Harbortown Center is the <br />land use, zoning, and DRI approval. The staff recognized during <br />the land use plan amendment review process for the Harbortown Mall <br />that there is probably no one best site for such a facility and <br />provided opportunities for competing proposals to be reviewed. As <br />with the Harbortown Center, staff feels that the subject property <br />should not be used for general commercial development which does <br />not have the size requirements of a mall. Because this request is <br />part of a DRI, the county has certain control which is not <br />available in a normal rezoning or plan amendment. That control <br />involves conditioning the DRI development order. In this case <br />since the county does not want the subject property available for <br />general commercial use (for which there is sufficient land <br />currently available), the staff feels that the development order <br />should. provide sufficient time for the county to redesignate and <br />rezone the property if a mall is not constructed. <br />46 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.