8/23/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PZC Recommendation: At its July Be 1993 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3 to 3 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners increase the current 25 acre minimum project size requirement to 50 acres. Therefore, no official Planning and Zoning. Commission recommendation was made on this issue. 3. No portion of a residential resort project area shall include any portion of an existing or approved multi -family or single- family residential project. [Reference: see proposed addition of 971.41(11)(d)8.] Justification: The intent of the residential resort use is to allow development of a project that is compatible with conventional multi -family development. Mixing conventional residential units with short-term rental units within the same project can result in incompatibilities, especially if existing project residents bought units with the expectation of living in a conventional residential development. Projects designed for and inhabited by permanent residents cannot achieve a proper neighborhood character if short-term rental units are allowed to be constructed and operated in parts of the same project. Such a mixing of uses within a project is comparable to mixing conventional units and short-term rental units within the same residential neighborhood. Allowing short-term rental units within a project's residential neighborhood could break -down the permanent residential character of the neighborhood. Therefore, to avoid potential "internal" use incompatibilities, all portions of existing or approved residential projects (e.g. Sea Oaks, Coralstone/Moon River) should be kept separate from residential resort uses. Implications: This restriction would prohibit establishment of a residential resort in areas of existing and approved (e.g. site plan or PD/PRD plan approved) RM -6 zoned projects. Examples of such projects are Sea Oaks, Coralstone/Moon River and Grand Harbor. Under such an amendment, residential resort projects could be approved only on vacant land that is not. part of an existing or approved residential project area. Alternatives: The only feasible alternative is to keep the LDRs as they are and address potential "internal project" incompatibilities on a project -by -project basis via the special exception review process. PSAC Recommendation: At its June 17, 1993 meeting, the PSAC failed to pass any motion for a recommendation on this issue. PZC Recommendation: At its July 8, 1993 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amendment to prohibit conversion of residential projects. 4. Require a portion of the overall residential resort project to contain commercially zoned property or require the residential resort project to be located adjacent to commercially zoned property. [Reference: see proposed addition of 971.41(11)(d)9.] Justification: Residential resort uses complement tourist commercial uses (hotels, restaurants, retail shops); tourist commercial uses are allowed only in the CL and CG districts. Therefore, residential resort and tourist commercial uses should be located in close proximity to one another. Furthermore, a residential resort is considered a use "in between" conventional residential and commercial uses. Therefore, it is -justifiable to treat residential resorts as a transitional use which should be located between CL and CG districts and conventional residential projects. 7 AUG 23 1993 BOOK 90 FnF 2107