Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />BOOK 98 ME 280 <br />1. Landscaping upgrade along SR 60 frontage. In keeping with the <br />increased landscaping required along the Indian River Mall DRI <br />project's SR 60 frontage, Type "C" landscape strips are being <br />required along SR 60 and at major intersections (e.g. along <br />58th Avenue north and.south of SR 60). Examples include the <br />Indian River Square (Target) shopping center, Cracker Barrel, <br />and Applebees projects. <br />2. Building foundation plantings. Plantings of shrubs, flowers, <br />or understory trees are being required along portions of the <br />foundations of new commercial buildings. Such plantings are <br />contained within landscape strips or planters. Examples <br />include Applebees, Cracker Barrel, Indian River Mall and <br />Indian River Square outparcel projects. Some foundation <br />plantings are also being provided along the main buildings of <br />the Indian River Mall, Indian River Commons, and Indian River <br />Square projects. <br />3. Monument -style free-standing signs. Except for sites at the <br />I-95/SR 60 interchange, limited height, monument -style signs <br />are being required. Examples include Applebees, as well as <br />Indian River Mall and Indian River Square outparcel projects. <br />(Note: On April 23, 1996, the Board approved a sign package <br />for the Indian River Mall, consistent with this requirement.) <br />4. Architectural features. Buildings proposed or constructed are <br />required to use roof slopes, canopies, or other features to <br />provide some building articulation. Examples include <br />Applebees and Cracker Barrel, as well as Indian River Mall and <br />Indian River Square outparcel projects. Some building <br />articulation features are also being provided with the main <br />buildings of the Indian River Mall, Indian River Commons, and <br />Indian River Square projects. <br />There are limitations to the pending ordinance doctrine, as <br />indicated in the attached, recent memo from Deputy County Attorney <br />Will Collins (see attachment #3). In general, invoking the pending <br />ordinance doctrine is more likely to be legally sustainable if such <br />action is based upon a proposed ordinance change that is imminent <br />and specific. The Deputy County Attorney has recommended that the <br />pending ordinance doctrine not be invoked for other corridors (such <br />as the CR 512 corridor) until recommendations (a full plan) are <br />formally considered by the Board. Until that occurs, the Deputy <br />County Attorney recommends that staff continue to encourage <br />applicants to incorporate various staff -recommended design upgrades <br />in order to avoid possible nonconformities with plans and <br />ordinances that may be adopted in the future. <br />ALTERNATIVES: <br />The Board has various options regarding Ms. Osborne's request. <br />First, the Board must determine whether or not it wants to have a <br />CR 512 corridor plan proposed, and whether or not it wishes to <br />appoint a task force to prepare such a plan. If the Board decides <br />that it wants to appoint a task force to prepare a CR 512 Corridor <br />Plan, then the Board has several options, including the following: <br />1. Appoint a CR 512 task force and begin the CR 512 corridor <br />planning process now, and: <br />a. Invoke the pending ordinance doctrine now, after citing <br />specifically what pending regulations are to be applied <br />and the circumstances to which they are to be applied; or <br />b. Invoke the pending ordinance doctrine at such time as the <br />Board considers the task force's recommended plan and <br />adopts a CR 512 Corridor Plan. <br />JUNE 49 1996 <br />34 <br />