10/18/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

_I � �a PC CK W PALA 526 • Adoption of Land Use Amendment On February 10, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the Indian River Mall land use amendment to DCA for their review. In March, 1994, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5-0 to transmit the Indian River Mall land use amendment request to DCA for their review. Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the Indian River Mall Amendment and prepared -an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report, which planning staff received on May 23, 1994. The ORC Report contained two objections to the Indian River Mall Amendment. Those objections dealt with the overallocation of commercial land in the county, and with the protection *of endangered vegetation on the site. Attachment 3 is a copy of the ORC Report. On July 19, 1994, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5-0 to adopt the Indian River Mall Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Although the amendment's support document was revised to address DCA's objections, DCA, on September 7, 1994, issued a Statement of Intent to find the Indian River Mall Amendment "not in compliance". Attachment 4 is a copy of the Statement of Intent. • DCA's Objections In its Statement of Intent, DCA raised one objection. That objection, dealing with the overallocation of commercial land in the county, was similar to an objection raised in the ORC Report. The Statement of Intent's recommended action, however, was entirely different than the recommended action in the ORC Report. In both the ORC Report and the Statement of Intent, DCA expressed concern that there were insufficient safeguards to ensure that the subject property, if redesignated to C/I, could be developed only as a regional mall site. DCA argued that the C/I designation allows a wide variety of general commercial and industrial development, for which there is already an overallocation of land. The county's position was that, since the proposed land use amendment is associated with a DRI, the county has special control which is not available in a normal rezoning or plan amendment. That control involves conditioning the DRI Development Order. In this case, the Development Order could ensure that the subject property would not be available for general commercial use (for which there is sufficient land currently available) by providing enough time for the county to redesignate and rezone the property if a regional mall was not constructed. The previously approved Harbortown Mall DRI Development Order contains such conditions, and the DRI Development Order associated with the Indian River Mall land use plan amendment request also contains such conditions. Additionally, Future Land Use Element Policy 1.24 provides that land which has been redesignated from residential to commercial/ industrial will revert to residential if development has not progressed within certain timeframes. Despite the county having addressed DCA's ORC report objection regarding commercial land overallocation through a development order condition, DCA found the -Indian River Mall amendment not in compliance. DCA's noncompliance statement of intent, however, differed from its ORC report in one significant way. In the ORC report, DCA indicated that the county could adequately address DCA's objection by adopting.a site specific policy ensuring that no OCTOBER 18, 1994 16