Laserfiche WebLink
_I <br />BOOK W PALL -60 <br />The purpose of that request was to secure the necessary land use <br />designation and zoning to develop the property as a regional <br />shopping center. The Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation is proposing <br />to construct a 945,364 square foot- regional mall, with. a 404,979 <br />square foot community shopping center and 166,831 square feet of <br />peripheral retail commercial space. The entire project is being <br />reviewed as a Development of Regional Impact (DRI). <br />• Adoption of Land -Use Amendment <br />On February 10, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-1 <br />to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the <br />Indian River Mall Land Use Amendment to DCA for their review. In <br />March, 1994, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5-0 to <br />transmit the Indian River Mall Land Use Amendment request to DCA. <br />Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the Indian River <br />Mall Amendment and prepared an Objections, Recommendations and <br />Comments (ORC) Report, which planning staff received on May 23, <br />1994. The ORC Report contained two objections to the Indian River <br />Mall Amendment. Those objections dealt with the overallocation of <br />commercial land in the county, and with the protection of <br />endangered vegetation on the site. Attachment 5 is a copy of the <br />ORC Report. <br />On July 19, 1994, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5-0 to <br />adopt the Indian River Mall Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Although <br />the amendment's_ support document was revised to address DCA's <br />objections, DCA, on September 7, 1994, issued a Statement of Intent <br />to find the Indian River Mall Amendment "not in compliance". <br />Attachment 6 is a copy of the Statement of Intent. <br />• DCA's Objections <br />In its Statement of Intent, DCA raised one objection. That <br />objection, dealing with the overallocation of commercial land in <br />the county, was similar to an objection raised in the ORC Report. <br />The Statement of Intent's recommended action, however, was entirely <br />different than the recommended action in the ORC Report. <br />In both the ORC Report and the Statement of Intent, DCA expressed <br />concern that there were insufficient safeguards to ensure that the <br />subject property, if redesignated to C/I, could be developed only <br />as a- regional mall site. DCA argued that the C/I designation <br />allows a wide variety of general commercial and industrial <br />development, for which there is already an overallocation of land. <br />The county's position is that, since the. Indian River Mall Land Use <br />Amendment is associated with a DRI, the county has special control <br />which is not available in a normal rezoning or plan amendment. <br />That control involves conditioning the DRI Development Order. In <br />this case, the Development Order could ensure that the subject <br />property would not be available for general commercial use (for <br />which there is sufficient land currently available) by providing <br />enough time for the county to redesignate and rezone the property <br />if a regional mall was not constructed. The previously approved <br />Harbortown Mall DRi Development Order contains such conditions, and <br />the DRI Development Order associated with the Indian River Mall <br />Land Use Amendment request also contains such conditions. <br />Additionally, Future Land Use Element Policy 1.24 provides that <br />land which has been redesignated from -residential to commercial/ <br />industrial will revert to residential if development has not <br />progressed within certain timeframes. <br />36 <br />October 25, 1994 <br />