9/25/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

node, the other prohibits expansion developed unless otherwise warranted. the expansion would keep the node more closest existing node. Policy 1.23 is area to accommodate a regional mall in expansion otherwise warranted. of a node less than 70% Policy 1.22 is met because than 1 1/2 miles from the also met since the lack of existing nodes makes this Overall, the amount of land designated for commercial use in relation to projected commercial land use needs is a major issue in the state at this time. For example, the Department of Commu- nity Affairs has taken a hard look at land use plans submitted by local governments. One of the major concerns and objections raised by the DCA has been the designation of land in excess of that which is needed to accommodate projected need. To that end, DCA has determined that land acreage should generally total no more than 125% of the projected need over the planning timeframe. The county plan identifies a commercial need of 3180 acres and an industrial need of 1478 acres by the year 2010. This total represents a need of 4658 acres for the entire county. The application of the 125% rule results in total designation of 5823 acres. The county plan identifies 5363 acres in the unincor- porated county. The five municipalities have identified another 1924 acres within these corporate limits. This results in a total of 7287 acres or 156% of projected need by 2010. While in excess of DCA's ideal 125% factor, this amount indicates that there is not gross over allocation of commercial acreage in the county. The proposed site was originally included as part of the county's comprehensive plan, since the subject property has been under consideration as a regional mall site for some time. On the direction of the Board of County Commissioners, the site was removed from the plan so that the land use for suci"i -an important project could be reviewed in greater detail and to provide for additional public input. Based on the previous board action, this request for amendment is deemed worthy of review. As adopted, the comprehensive plan already includes an area for a regional mall; that mall site is along U.S. #1 at 53rd Street. It is generally accepted that, despite the rapid population growth in the county, the population base is only sufficient to support one such facility. Despite the fact that one mall has already received initial approval and that only one mall .can survive in the county, several- reasons exist for the consideration of this request. First, there are no guarantees that the Harbortown Center will be built. Prior to construction certain public infrastructure improvements must be completed or contracted, leases must be obtained, and financing secured. 'Therefore, the advantage enjoyed by the Harbortown Center is the land use, zoning, and DRI approval. Second, the prospect of competing mall sites reduces the chance of speculation by!holding commercially dlesignated land -and increases the_ chance of a mail being constructed in the near future. The staff recognized during the land use plan amendment review process for the Harbortown Mall that there is probably no one best site for such a facility and provided opportunities for competing proposals to be reviewed. As with the Harbortown Center, staff feels that the subject property 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), the staff feels that the development order should provide sufficient time 2 P 2 5 19