Laserfiche WebLink
Residentiaf resort uses and protects <br />Director Keating projected a slidefilm graphic depicting the <br />use spectrum. <br />Commissioner Macht asked how staff differentiated between CL <br />or CG in change #4, and Director Boling explained that there are <br />two alternatives. One alternative would be to require the <br />inclusion of commercial acreage, the advantage being that the plan <br />would integrate the two uses so that you could have one plan for <br />one project that includes commercial zoning which would show how <br />commercial zoning and the uses on the commercial property would <br />integrate with the residential resort. The other alternative of <br />requiring adjacent commercial would provide some flexibility, but <br />it wouldn't require that a single owner or a single development <br />scheme include the commercial acreage in the residential resort. It <br />would require only that it be side by side. <br />Commissioner Macht understood then that alternative #3 for <br />amendment #4 doesn't necessarily imply ownership, and Director <br />Boling stated that was correct. <br />Chairman Bird noted that the Board would have to make a <br />decision on the alternatives in Item #4 after the close of today's <br />public hearing if the decision is made to take amendment #4 forward <br />to the next public hearing on September 7, 1993. <br />Commissioner Adams asked about the differences in the <br />requirements between a special exception and a Planned Development <br />review, and Director Boling advised that the Planned Development <br />(PD) would give the Board more control and more options. <br />Chairman Bird opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone <br />wished to be heard on the proposed amendment regarding residential <br />resort uses. <br />Bob Schoen, Mayor of Indian River Shores, advised that the <br />Town has been trying to find some kind of compromise between those <br />who favored unlimited development of the residential resorts on the <br />barrier island versus those who are mostly concerned with <br />protecting the residential quality of the existing neighborhoods <br />and developments. They feel that none of the proposed five <br />amendments would be detrimental to the Disney project. Of the 5 <br />amendments, the one that is the most important to them is requiring <br />the 3-1 residential to commercial zoning ratio, and their request <br />is that it be under common ownership. Mr. Schoen urged the Board <br />to adopt the 5 changes relating to residential resorts as <br />recommended by staff. <br />17 <br />AUGBOOK 90 F�1UE77 <br />