Laserfiche WebLink
BOOK 95 F',1u 178 <br />Planning Director Stan Boling, using graphics and overheads, <br />reviewed a Memorandum of May 16, 1995: <br />TO: James Chandler <br />County Administrator <br />ION HEAD <br />Community De��vl1elo# <br />FROM: Stan Boling, ACP <br />Planning Director <br />DATE: May 16, 1995 <br />SUBJECT: Proposed Change (Minor Amendment) to the DeBartolo <br />(Indian River Mall) DRI Development Order <br />It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal <br />consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular <br />.meeting of May 23, 1995. <br />DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: <br />On July 19, 1994, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a <br />development order (D.O.) approving the development of regional <br />impact (DRI) known as the Indian River Mall. The project is <br />located between SR 60 and 26th Street east of 66th Avenue (see <br />attachment #1), and consists of a mall, a shopping center, and <br />several commercial outparcels along SR 60. On October 25, 1994, <br />the Board approved some minor D.O. amendments as part of a <br />stipulated settlement agreement with the State Department of <br />Community Affairs (DCA). <br />Among the many conditions within the approved D.O. are several <br />transportation conditions which specify the configuration and <br />timing of road improvements necessary to maintain acceptable <br />service levels on the county's road network after project <br />construction. The D.O. also references a future developers <br />agreement that is to provide more details about the conditions, <br />such as vesting for traffic initial concurrency, and specifying <br />developer and county responsibilities for constructing the required <br />improvements. On March 29, 1995, the developer filed proposed D.O. _ <br />amendments that represent such a developers agreement, and that <br />would incorporate specific developer and county road construction <br />responsibilities, as well as vesting for traffic concurrency, into <br />the D.O. <br />Pursuant to FS 380.06 which governs DRIB, the county may determine <br />that the request does not constitute a substantial deviation. If <br />such a determination is made, the request may be treated as a <br />proposed change or "minor amendment". As a minor amendment, a <br />change in an approved D.O. can be made by the Board of County <br />Commissioners without a formal recommendation from the Regional <br />Planning Council. <br />Pursuant to LDR Section 916.05(1), the Planning and Zoning <br />Commission considered the request (see attachment #5), and at -its <br />May 11, 1995 meeting, voted unanimously to recommend that the Board <br />of County Commissioners: <br />20 <br />May 23, 1995 <br />