Comment Up
Well no wonder no one can remember it--it was too long ago. This Ordinance was in 1996. As developer interests now dominate our Commission once again, I wanted to print the Ordinance that affects how our city can look.
East of Dixie Highway within the city no building or part thereof shall be constructed which exceeds a vertical height of sixty-five (65) feet above grade. West of Dixie Highway within the city no building or part thereof shall be constructed which exceeds a vertical height of one hundred (100) feet above grade.
Ord. No. 96-32, § 1, 12-5-96)
So, that is the Ordinance in the Charter. No where does it say that the City must build 65 feet east of Dixie or must build 100 feet west of Dixie. It says that heights will not exceed that. We, at last, have a knowledgeable employee in the planning field, William Waters, and it is his strong and professional recommendation to build much lower because building higher is not sustainable per infrastructure studies.
Many over the past years and those who have been extremely conscientious about Lake Worth have told you that, but politics has always entered into this argument. The planning of Lake Worth and its sustainable future has been a constant struggle as developer interests have been strong and always entrenched to some degree in our elections. The majority of the people have always said that they wanted a small town with charm. That's why they moved here and not Fort Lauderdale or Miami. We are heading in the right direction.
As testified to at many Planning & Zoning meetings, residential development does not pay for itself; commercial development breaks even; industrial development is the one of the three that actually is a plus for any city's bottom line. As previously mentioned before, we are the most dense small city in Florida. We already have way too many people in our city to sustain any further growth--6534 people per square mile.
Our present Planning & Zoning Board is working hard for Lake Worth and none of them have any other interest but what's best for this city. They are not rubber-stamping every plan that comes before them as some planning and zoning boards seemed to have done in the past but rather they have asked the owners and their designers to come back with alterations and changes to make the project better.
It doesn't matter if you want ten stories or two stories, the reality is that we can't support what we have NOW!!Does ANYONE out there understand that we don't have enough resources(that's WATER,people)to sustain the out of control plans of the past? Those of us that have been here our entire lives can't even maintain a decent looking property because of water restrictions!!!The majority of us value quality of life over developer profit. Just dive thirty minutes south and look around. Would you want to raise a family in that pit? Drive to Orlando and ask yourself the same question.
ReplyDeleteHas anyone ever heard of an office building, no one is saying the people have to live here, but some businesses that could increase the tax base.
ReplyDeleteAs testified to at many Planning & Zoning meetings, residential development does not pay for itself; commercial development breaks even; industrial development is the one of the three that actually is a plus for any city's bottom line.
ReplyDeleteSo, if you want to increase the tax base, it will mean more industrial development--that means the Park of Commerce.
I thought the $40 million dollar reverse osmosis plant was going to save the city?
ReplyDeleteRemember Joane Golden said she didn't want any businesses moving to Lake Worth because they used too much water?
Wasn't Scott Maxwell just chastised for wanting to make the POC a top priority?
Now what?
LOL
ReplyDeleteMaxwell wants the City of Lake Worth to pay approximately $11 million in infrastructure in order to develop the Park of Commerce. We don't even own the properties yet.
The $25 million dollar RO plant will allow the City to have water well into the future and to be a supplier, not a buyer thus controlling the prices.
Jo-Ann was actually right on some things.
If, as you and Anon @ 8:51 claim, the City is unable to provide enough water to the Park of Commerce and current/future residents - how on earth would they be a "supplier" to surrounding cities & towns?
ReplyDeleteMark--I said--if you read--
ReplyDeleteWe need to spend $11 million dollars just on infrastructure in the Park of Commerce. I did NOT say that we could not provide enough water!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Look at the commercial building at the corner of Federal Hwy and 2nd Ave. North. Said building is way too tall, it towers over the historic cottages in the neighborhood behind it, its 4 stories tall and then another 1 and 1.5 stories tall when you take into account the towers (so almost 6 stories abutting a single family home neighborhood). This building has been empty since it was built, 2008. I guess the upside is that we are collecting taxes on it, @$40,000. But I still believe improper building for the community and a failure in that its empty 4 yrs later. If it were full, it doesn't have enough parking to support it, an ongoing problem that P&Z likes to ignore, and would be pushing commercial parking into the residential area.
ReplyDeleteYes, the P&Z of the past.
ReplyDelete"The majority of the people have always said that they wanted a small town with charm."
ReplyDeleteIs that the "super majority" it takes to put the building height guideline in our Charter?
"Who" has "always" said they want a small town?
We ARE a small town. With the exception of West Palm Beach, we are ALL small towns.
I, and many people I know, have always wanted a prosperous growing city and not a stagnant decaying city with no growth. Keeping a small town feel is mostly attributed to the people and NOT the building heights.
We could never look like West Palm Beach.... much less Ft. Lauderdale. The Gulfstream "Sky scraper" was built way before all of "they" were born.
Yes... there some anomalies like the Lake Worth Towers and now... the Lucerne... but we have ALWAYS had 6 story buildings East of Dixie.
The Lucerne was NOT given a variance for height. It was always ALLOWED to be built 65 ft. It was the setbacks, the parking and the architecture that got the variances.
If you keep saying that "We all want to keep our city a low rise city" does that make a difference that we NEVER were a low rise community?
You people are in the twilight zone.
I don't mind your debate and certainly encourage that. It is your last sentence that is problematic. You all get very offensive when any one has a different opinion. You have no idea how to be nice. Ms. Manners would not take kind to that remark about the twilight zone.
ReplyDeleteWe have ALWAYS been a low rise city and we want to keep it that way--except for you Realtors and developers, of course.
Loretta Sharpe wanted The Lucerne to go 75 feet. Actually she thought 80 feet was good. That particular parcel was unzoned when she was on the P&Z. She was part of the problem and made it a RPD which is NEVER done within the city especially our downtown. A developer's excuse to do spot zoning. Paxman was the only one who even mentioned height. Chair Wes Blackman had no concern--neither did Ramicico, Loretta Sharp, Herman Robinson or Wittman. It was the so called professionals that wanted to go around the charter.
ReplyDeleteOK... so the twilight zone remark was just to drive the point that you again make bay saying that we have ALWAYS been a low rise city. Again... if you repeat it often enough, it MUST be true.
ReplyDeleteForget my argument about the Gulfstream Skyscraper or any of the other 75 or so buildings in town above 35 feet tall.
I'M in the twilight zone.
Citing one person, especially Lorretta, does not a developer make. If you were to make a spectrum of Lake Worth, Lorretta would be at one end. You would be closer, but not at, the other end.
I have no idea what an RPD is, so you are much better versed at zoning abbreviations than I. If it means mixed use residential and commercial, then I have no problem with that zoning. I don't even have a problem with the height but nearby properties should have been at least 3 or 4 stories. Is it an ugly building? Well.... yes. That would be why I would be against it. Some people want to live in the middle of the action, the night life and be able to walk to restaurants.
Not my style, but good for them. Maybe THEY are in the twilight zone.
We have ALWAYS been a low rise city. There have been a few exceptions. That is the fact of the matter.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is strange how two people, both real estate brokers, can look at our city totally differently and for totally different reasons. Citing Loretta is because she is the only one who has made a public comment about the Charter and about the heights and wants people to be able to build to the max. She is also someone who was on the P&Z when it allowed townhouses with zero setbacks, etc. She, as a real estate broker, probably has many developer friends who just luv LW for whatever reason developers have and who hire lobbyists to roam around our city.
I like how it is now but a few high rises are not that bad, we need balance more than anything. often many realtors love to promote development, they want to sell, sell, sell. I just noticed today that I guess Tom Rammicio is a realtor now, I saw some for sale signs of house of his over on Lakeside. I had not idea he was a realtor now, he is quite the business man.
ReplyDeleteLynn, I was at the last commission meeting When Mrs. Sharpe asked how are you going to get around The Charter,that allows 65 feet East of
ReplyDeleteDixie and 100 feet west of Dixie.
I sound like a Question to me.
If I remember correctly Mrs.Sharpe was not even on the P&Z Board when the Lucerne was discussed and approved.
It was that Elizabeth from College Park who was on the planning board.
ReplyDeleteThe woman who hates anything and everything? That woman?
ReplyDeleteLoretta Sharpe was on P and Z when Lucerne was approved and was also a realtor for the Pier Group who had the exclusive to sell the condos.
ReplyDeleteWhen the density was "discussed" Ms. Sharpe said, "So we go from 29 to 80. OK." and that was the end of the P and Z consideration of violating the 40 units per acre in the downtown zoning since the Lucerne parcel was 0.72 acre.
John Paxman said, "I'm concerned about the height." and that was the end of that consideration by the P and Z even though the height was 75 feet at that time
Ms Sharpe resigned from the Pier Group to avoid the appearance of a conflict.
Elizabeth was on the CRA board.
Anon @ 3/13 6:27 Mrs. Sharpe was not on the P and Z board when the Lucerne was discussed and voted on.
ReplyDeleteThere never would have been discussion of the height the board knew the height allowed was 65 feet.
Sorry anonymous above. You are misinformed. Please check the audio.
ReplyDeleteThe Lucerne was discussed and voted on twice: once in Jan. 2003, again in Jan. 2004.
ReplyDeleteMs. Sharpe was on the board that aproved the illegal height of 75 feetin Jan. 2003.
An alert citizen, Mr. Laurence McNamara, filed a grievance against the Charter violation by approval of the 75' height east of Dixie and the developer was forced to go back to the drawing board and limit himself to 65,
Ms. Sharpe may have resigned from the P and Z before the 2004 approval.
This approval concerned the removal of the 82 public parking spaces only; the building itself was already approved and adjusted to conform to the Charter by that time.