302 N. Lakeside Drive
located in the Historical District
I have been looking at this property for years. During every election, political signs appear--they pop up all over the front of the lot. It is owned by builder, Hector Cabrera, who builds some really nice houses. I can't find the property in PAPA to confirm.located in the Historical District
It seems that Tim and Elizabeth Hulett want to build a 4,000+ sq. foot house on the property. Their agent is Brower Architectural Associates and Wes Blackman. Wes is the former Chair of the Planning & Zoning board who helped bring us The Lucerne. Blackman has re-applied to the P&Z after the visionary commission re-wrote the Ordinance freeing up all seven positions to stack the Board with "their" people. It has also been his dream to get back on the P&Z Board where he can "really make a difference" and utilize all of his professional qualifications as a city planner.
One neighbor said, "I have seen the plans for the proposed new construction and feel that a house of this size, bulk, and scale will be incompatible with the neighborhood, and will negatively impact the historic nature of the quaint Parrot Cove neighborhood as well as negatively effect the real estate and aesthetic value of my cottage home as well as the other homes in the neighborhood. Would it be possible for the architect to design something less daunting, and overwhelming to the neighborhood, but still desirable to the owner of the property?"
A house this large will dwarf both properties to the north and south of it blocking views and air flow. Most of the houses around the site are one story. It most definitely affects the house across the street, a bungalow built in the 1920's. This house, if allowed to be built per its present Plan, will diminish the value of several houses near it on N. Lakeside Drive not to mention the quality of life of those occupants living in the surrounding properties.
Our Plan says, The height of proposed buildings shall be visually compatible in comparison to or in relationship with the height of adjacent buildings. The relationship of the width of the building to the height of the front elevation shall be visually compatible with and in direct relationship to the width and height of the front elevation of adjacent or adjoining buildings within the district.
As we discuss the Land Development Regulations tonight, can we put in some protections for owners who won't have to live around massive structures built all around them--as an example a one story house of 1,700 sq. ft. next to a house of over 4,000 sq. ft. that will tower over them. And what about those townhouses that developers want to build in single family neighborhoods and our new Land Map showing that possibility?
We need some definite safeguards from planning board members who have friends or interests in projects that allow development to be intrusive. Recusing oneself because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality is not enough.
22 comments:
I always thought the items you cite in the above post are meant to not allow a three story next to a one story. There are many areas that have a larger number of one story houses and if that is the only criteria for keeping neighborhood homogenous, we have already failed.
You must keep in mind that our lots are narrow. That lot in particular has a great view and the owner should be allowed to take advantage of it. Going to two stories seems to be a no-brainer. A 2000 square foot foot-print is also not WAY too big for the area.
What WILL make a visual difference is the requirement of the first floor elevation to be so much higher than adjacent properties.
When you have to start the first floor 4 feet above the next door neighbor and you'd like high ceilings, it will tend to get daunting to the ones right next door.
Obviously a friend of a developer.
Restricting someone's right to build a private home on private property doesn't sound like a conservative republican ideal. Sounds like the government restricting a person's constitutional rights.
No one has the right to build whatever they please. This has nothing to do with restricting one's rights arbitrarily. Everyone's rights should be protected==all those in the surrounding houses as well as the Hulett's. Even Republicans know that.
There is a very large home one hose south of this lot. It is a large beautiful home. Are you saying that we should prevent this same type of home from going up on this lot?
I believe that the house directly to the south and to the north as well as across the street are one story houses. There are some two story houses on this street but it is primarily one story houses according to the back-up.
What I am saying is, protect everyone's rights, not just the person who wants to come in and build something a little out of character. Go by our LDR's, our Code and Comp Plan. If it fits into the criteria without waiver after waiver, then ok. It has to make sense for all.
There are many two story houses on North Lakeside. The new house that is one house south of this lot is a two story and the house one house north is a two story. As you proceed north in this same area I believe there are at least 4 other two story homes on both sides of the street. Mr. MacNamara's home is two story as are the homes across the street from him.
Yes, there are some 2 story homes on this street. Not arguing that. The houses directly surrounding the property and across the street, are small. If you were a property owner to the left or right of this new construction, would you just say, "c'est la vie" and not be concerned about your investment? There are probably ways of designing this that will make it compatible to all. No?
I'm out of this discussion because I believe it will be a one-sided discussion here.
Maybe a new city attorney will do a better job with the land development ordinances. Thank god the city attornyes contract wasn't renewed. Will it be the hr director next.
Can you help being stupid or were you just born that way, anony at 11:12?
What is stupid? The city attorney can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Thank goodness she will be gone after September. She is a stanton holdover. And the only reason they kept her around then is because she did what Stanton wanted. Why do oui think we have so many lawsuits that are just NOW being settled. And she doesn't return phone calls or emails.
The City attorney does NOT answer to you. Can you even imagine answering every complainer's e-mail of phone calls...it would be a full-time job in this city.
I think what we need in LW are people who not so insecure that they are willing to allow our City to grow, improve, and move into the future, and stop holding us back clinging to the past. Hey Lynn, news flash... 1950 is over. Sure, 1950's houses are cute, but try living in one, they suck! 2 bedroom, 1 bath, 900 square feet. Try raising a family in that. Try inviting more 1 guest over without having to congregate single file in the kitchen. Let's move on.
The reason why we develop a Comp Plan is to avoid the BS of which you speak. NO one is living in the past and NO one is insecure. Why do you take a debatable topic and turn it around to a personal attack? We are developing LDR's and moving forward after 10 years or so of hold-ups from past commissions and P&Z boards. We could move on if politics would stay in check and everyone not believing that they are the "experts" or the only ones qualified to develop a Plan that we want.
You should do a poll on how long it will take to find a new city attorney.
Lynn, As you stated "Wes is the former Chair of the Planning & Zoning board who helped bring us The Lucerne."
Thank you Wes then for having the vision in working on behalf of the city to bring The Lucerne to our downtown. Because of The Lucerne we have a defining center to our downtown. A symbol that higher density belongs in our downtown, not only for those that prefer that lifestyle, but also for the businesses that rely on those living there for steady daily business.
Lynn, you also made the observation that, "A house this large will dwarf both properties to the north and south of it blocking views and air flow." As one of the few "dwarfs" in LW I know that no one is guaranteed "a view or air flow". I can assure you that I know that firsthand. Whenever I'm in a croweded environment like a sporting event and something exciting happens and everone stands up around me, there goes my view. When I'm walking down the sidewalk on a crowded day like The Street Painting Festival, down where I'm at there's no breeze. It dosen't mean I'm going to miss the event, it just means I have to live with the fact that I'm not going to always have what I'd like unless I plan ahead. Today what I do in those cases like a sports event or concert is get my seat on the rail with no seats directly in front of my seat. In the case of a crowded hot day, I'll just have to wait until the crowds lighten up and then go enjoy myself.
Lastly you said that "the house, if allowed to be built per its present Plan, will diminish the value of several houses near it on N. Lakeside Drive." Lynn you know better than that, property values are determined by surrounding property values. A new $750K home next door will enhance the neighbors property value when it comes time to sell and you know that.
Greg, there is no guarantee that a property will rise in value after a big building is built next to it. The standard has now been changed for that area.
The Lucerne--well you bought there Greg. You and a handful of people can tout it all you want. Wes and that P&Z made a horrendous decision that ended up screwing the city in various ways. And YOU know that.
Next, of course you defend this because it is the Huletts...a vested interest for sure.
The only way to raise the tax base is to develop property located outside of the CRA tiff areas. Forget about building townhouses or condos up and down Lake and Lucerne. They cost more to provide services than they add to the city coffers.
Lynn, what do you think of the homes on S Lakeside?
There are some very beautiful, large homes that have been built there, which indeed raise the value of all the other properties.
It is inevitable that waterfront lots and those close to the water will attract higher end buyers who have the means to build higher end homes.
This is true for all towns up and down the coast.
And it is happening in LW - slowly, but it is happening.
With the news that the extremist majority no longer controls the Commission, many, many people are taking a closer look at living in Lake Worth.
This is a good thing. Gentrification of the coastal properties is simply a rule of real estate.
We should all welcome it!
Again-
Our Plan says, The height of proposed buildings shall be visually compatible in comparison to or in relationship with the height of adjacent buildings. The relationship of the width of the building to the height of the front elevation shall be visually compatible with and in direct relationship to the width and height of the front elevation of adjacent or adjoining buildings within the district.
There needs to be balance, dropping a ginormous house in a historic neighborhood, like Parrot Cove diminishes the uniqueness and quality of the neighborhood.
The huge house two down from this lot, which was built in the boom time, is an eye sore and was put up with variance give aways galore. But that is the problem once you let one in, its hard to say no to another and after a number of years there goes the neighborhood.
Why do we have to give away, and provide variance after variance to every developer? I'm happy for someone to build a big, new home on the golf course, but it should be done with proper set backs from the homes, which are much smaller, to the north and south and should be designed such that it fits in. Yes there are lots of two story homes on LakeView, but they should be built like the one two doors down, huge, overpowering, with a minimal setback.
This is why we need community members on the P&Z board and not just realtors, developers and the like (who all have a conflict of interest).
And what about those townhouses that developers want to build in single family neighborhoods and our new Land Map showing that possibility?
Lynn, what does this mean, can you expand on this?
As far as Sunset goes, I can't speak to the issue as I am part of the Mitigation.
I will say that zoning is ALL political.
Post a Comment