Laserfiche WebLink
-7 <br />' AUG 23 M3 900K 90 F��GF.2�� <br />In addition to providing a logical transition, residential <br />resorts would provide a more intensive buffer for surrounding <br />conventional residential uses than is currently required <br />between commercial uses and residential uses, due to extensive <br />buffering requirements [see 971.41(11)(d)6.]. [Note: <br />Residential resort projects must provide a Type A buffer next <br />to residentially designated property, compared to the Type C <br />buffer required between CL or CG projects and adjacent multi- <br />family uses and districts.] <br />Implications: Either of these restrictions would limit <br />potential residential resort projects to a few areas in the <br />county. Potential areas would include RM -6 zoned property <br />adjacent to: the SR A-1-A/CR 510 intersection (Disney site), <br />along -the SR 60 commercial corridor, and along the U.S.1 <br />commercial corridor in the central and north county areas. <br />Alter -natives: There are several alternatives that address <br />this issue. These alternatives are as follows: <br />1. Determine that the existing LDRs adequately address <br />commercial/residential use compatibility and locational <br />issues, and that no LDR changes are needed. <br />2. Require that a residential resort project area include CL <br />or CG zoned property. Such a requirement would ensure <br />that development of the multi -family -and commercially <br />zoned areas are well -integrated and planned together; <br />thus, ensuring compatible and complementary development. <br />This alternative achieves the objectives of use <br />integration, buffering, and providing a transition. <br />3. Require that a residential resort project be located <br />adjacent to CL or CG zoned property. Such a requirement <br />would ensure that residential resort projects are located <br />between commercial and residential areas. This <br />alternative achieves the objectives of buffering and <br />providing a transition. In staff's opinion, alternatives <br />2 and 3, are comparable. Staff recommends alternative 3. <br />Under either alternative 2 or 3, a percentage or ratio of <br />commercially zoned area to residentially zoned area would need <br />to be established. In order to ensure that there is a <br />sufficient amount of residential resort property to <br />potentially "wrap around" a commercially zoned site to provide <br />a substantial transition and buffer, and to ensure that <br />residential resort uses are concentrated around CL and CG <br />zoned areas, staff recommends that alternative 3, with a 3:1 <br />residential to commercial zoning ratio, be established <br />(example: 75 acre residential resort project located next to <br />25 acres of commercial zoning). This ratio is consistent with <br />the Disney project proposal. <br />PSAC Recommendation: At its June 17, 1993 meeting, the PSAC <br />recommended that the Board of County Commissioners not amend <br />the LDRs to require residential resort projects to include or <br />be located adjacent to commercially zoned property. <br />PZC Recommendation: At its July 8, 1993 meeting, the Planning <br />and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 1 to recommend that the Board <br />of County Commissioners approve the amendment to require <br />adjacent commercial acreage. <br />5. The definition of "residential resort" should be modified to <br />clarify the term "...extended resort and vacation stays...". <br />[Reference: proposed changes to definition of "residential <br />resort"] _ <br />Justification: <br />is as follows: <br />The current definition of "residential resort <br />8 <br />