Laserfiche WebLink
MAY I1 1993 <br />BOOK 09 FAGS .S13 <br />1. Conclude that the existing LDRs are sufficient, adequately <br />address the expressed concerns, and require no change. <br />2. Conclude that more restrictions should be added to the <br />residential resort specific land use criteria in order to <br />provide more assurances that project impacts are fully <br />addressed. <br />3. Conclude that the existing LDRs related to residential resorts <br />should be repealed, and address Disney's "grandfathering" <br />status via a determination of vesting under the current <br />regulations or alternative re -zoning action. <br />CONCLUSION: <br />It is planning staff's opinion that the residential resort use is <br />an appropriate special exception use in the RM -6 zoning district. <br />Therefore, staff is not in :favor of repealing the residential <br />resort LDRs and does not recommend pursuing alternative #3, above. <br />It is staff's opinion that some of the expressed concerns could be <br />more specifically addressed by adding to the specific land use <br />criteria applied to residential resorts (alternative #2, above). <br />Staff believes that there could be justification for adding the <br />following types of specific land use criteria to the existing <br />residential resort LDRs: <br />• Increase the existing minimum project size (currently 25 <br />acres); <br />• Require Planned Development (P.D.) review and approval as part <br />of the special exception use review and approval process to <br />give the county even more regulatory and approval authority; <br />• Specifically require a traffic analysis demonstrating that <br />traffic impacts for the residential resort are no greater than <br />the impacts of developing the site as conventional multi- <br />family residential; and <br />• Limit or prohibit conversion of existing multi -family projects <br />to residential resorts in order to prevent potential internal <br />incompatibilities within existing conventional multi -family <br />projects. <br />At the Board's direction, staff could initiate changes to the <br />existing residential resort LDRs to augment the existing specific <br />land use criteria in a manner that would provide even more <br />assurances that address the expressed concerns. Staff does not <br />recommend the Board take action that would prevent a residential <br />resort project application, such as the one being proposed by <br />Disney, from being reviewed and considered for approval. <br />RECOEMNDATION: <br />Staff recommends that the Board: <br />1. Determine what specific additional approval criteria and <br />assurances should be incorporated into the LDRs to address <br />concerns expressed about residential resort. projects in the <br />RM -61 RM -81 and RM -10 districts; and <br />2. Direct staff to initiate any necessary LDR amendments. <br />48 <br />