Page 10 - CRCCE0225

President’s Message continued

• Commercial Vehicles have not reviewed). The response indicates that the primary
• Mobile Homes use is a private club use, not open to the general public, and
• Bus therefore parking is not required for the ancillary uses. If in
• Inoperable Vehicles fact the proposed use is a private club use, and the use (as
• Recreational Vehicles (RV) – When located in RS-4.4 Only well as the ancillary pro shop and juice bar) are not open to
• Boats, Boats on Trailers, Boat Trailers – When located in RS the general public, then this private club restriction should be
4.4. Only clearly noted on the plans and in the review documents as a
condition of any approval. If, however, the use is not restricted
This is meant to clarify that if an RV, Boat, Boat on Trailer, or
Boat Trailer is located in RS-4.4 they do have to be screened to members only, and independent activities could be taking
from view subject to Section 47-34.4.B.2. However, when place at the same time, then the project should provide
parked in any other residential zoning districts there is no additional parking to support the ancillary uses or obtain a
screening required and an RV, Boat, Boat on Trailer, or Boat parking reduction, which would require a parking analysis.
Trailer only needs to be parked on a hard, dust free surface, We requested a parking analysis at the DRC meeting as you
within the property lines, subject to all ULDR requirements. may recall and this has not been provided.
We reviewed the parking area design, and are concerned
The recommendation to amend ULDR might simplify
enforcement where there are adjacent zoning districts that about the very tight dimensions (13’ drive aisle adjacent
have different requirements. to the 45-degree spaces), very tight turning radii, and the
provision of 20% compact parking spaces and 8 motorcycle
So the City is saying that the code allows boats, trailers and spaces, all provided in an apparent attempt to comply with
RVs to be unscreened everywhere except RS 4.4 districts. We the parking requirements. It appears that some of the parking
responded to the City: spaces may not be fully accessible, or conflict with driveways
Interestingly, the lot in question is located directly across the or other parking spaces--note the parallel spaces at the south
street from RS-4.4 properties. Clearly this is offensive to the end--levitation is seemingly required to get in and out of these
residents of those RS-4.4 properties; I don’t blame them for spaces. It is dubious that private club members will be coming
being upset. Can we work together to craft a City-initiated to this facility in compact cars and on motorcycles. We can
zoning text amendment to this section either: hope for this, but it’s unlikely. Look at the parking lot at the
Coral Ridge Country Club—there are not many small vehicles.
• Applying the RS-4.4 standards to all residential districts? or If this facility will draw a different demographic, no evidence
• Applying the RS-4.4 standards to RS-8 districts? or has been offered. Finally, the data table indicates that 65.4
• Applying the RS-4.4 standard to RS-8 districts where they parking spaces are required, but only 65 parking spaces are
are adjacent to RS-4.4 districts? provided and at least a few of those aren’t really viable. It
Commissioner Herbst suggested we have that meeting but we seems obvious a parking reduction application is required in
have not heard back from the City. We will continue to follow up this situation.
as we have received a number of complaints from residents all With regard to access and egress from the parking area, we
over the neighborhood about the boat and trailer screening issue. concerned about the impact of a large new parking garage with
Development. We spend a lot of time monitoring development full ingress/egress access to a single lane, two-way alley, which
applications around the fringe of the neighborhood, mostly also serves residential uses. We support your comment that
along Federal, Commercial and Oakland Park. A Padel ingress/egress to/from the alley should be limited, and we do
facility has been proposed on the former Sound Advice not believe applicant’s response to this comment is either
property at 400-4008 N. Federal. (see image on page 10) responsive or persuasive. As stated at the DRC meeting, we
would like to see a traffic study which analyzes the best way for
While we believe the facility could be a community amenity,
Development Committee Chairman Bruce Quailey and I vehicles to access and leave the site safely and with minimal
reviewed the plans and staff comments, attended a DRC impacts to the neighborhood. It’s possible that some modifications
meeting and expressed the following concerns about the are advisable, but no expert opinion has been offered.
project to the City: Thank you for your comments about the large balcony use and
design. The use and design of this balcony, which directly
Several DRC comments reference questions about the
proposed use and ancillary uses (the pro shop/cafe) , and overlooks the neighborhood and single family homes, has the
their independent and cumulative impacts. Some of the potential to impact on the adjacent community. The applicant
responses also refer to the submission narrative (which we response indicates that there is no independent nor ancillary

8

1/21/25 7:52 PM
CRCCE 0225.indd 8
CRCCE 0225.indd 8 1/21/25 7:52 PM