Laserfiche WebLink
MAY 2 5 1991 <br />BACKGROUND: <br />BOOK 89 FaGF 699 -7 <br />At its May 11, 1993 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners <br />considered a request from the Town of Indian River Shores to <br />reverse or change the March 1993 residential resort LDR amendments. <br />At the meeting, concerns were expressed by Indian River Shores <br />Mayor Robert Schoen, as well as other north barrier island <br />residents, regarding the potential of residential resort uses <br />expanding beyond the ±70 acre site of the announced Disney project. <br />After considering the request and input from the public and from <br />staff, the Board voted to direct staff to draft LDR amendment <br />language that would add the following types of restrictions to the <br />residential resort specific land use criteria: <br />1. Increase the minimum project size. <br />2. Prohibit the conversion of all or a portion of any existing <br />residential project area to a residential resort use. <br />3. Require residential resort projects to be adjacent to or <br />include commercially zoned acreage, including possible <br />creation of a commercial zoning area to residential resort <br />area ratio. <br />The Board also directed staff to present such draft LDR changes to <br />the Board so that the Board could further discuss restrictions and <br />give staff final direction regarding possible LDR wording changes. <br />As stated at the May 11th meeting, it is planning staff's opinion <br />that the existing regulations and process are adequate but that <br />there is justification for adding each of the previously described <br />restrictions. Staff has now analyzed and drafted LDR changes that <br />reflect these additional restrictions. <br />ANALYSIS: <br />In response to direction given by the Board at its May 11th <br />meeting, planning staff reviewed several potential additions to the <br />residential resort specific land use criteria. Staff's conclusion <br />is that if the Board determines that additional restrictions are <br />needed to specifically address the concerns expressed at the May <br />11th meeting, then four new types of restrictions could be added to <br />the residential resort criteria. The recommended additions are <br />stated below. <br />1. Residential resort projects shall be reviewed and approved as <br />planned development projects, rather than only as special <br />exception projects. <br />Justification: The planned development (P.D.) review and <br />approval process parallels the special exception process and <br />provides the county more authority and discretion in reviewing <br />project details, including issues relating to project <br />appearance and aesthetics. Because the residential resort <br />concept is based upon a resort project having the appearance <br />of a conventional multi -family project, it is justifiable to <br />require a type of review process ( such as the P.D. process ) to <br />properly address project appearance and aesthetics. <br />Implications: this restriction' would have no effect on <br />potential residential resort sites. Only the review and <br />approval process would be affected. <br />98 <br />