Palm Beach Post article
The City Manager Michael Bornstein, who takes direction from the majority commission, said city staffers are working on a presentation that will show what buildings would look like in the Lake and Lucerne corridor under existing regulations.
“We’re not doing a comparison,” Bornstein said. “We have to be careful not to in any way take one side or the other.”
22 comments:
Sure hope this is honest and he shows ten story buildings west of Dixie and 65 foot buildings east. Any bets?
Any bets it won't look like Mulvehill's graphic?
Do you think that it will be intellectually honest or political as expected?
I don't know. You make it out to be very simplistic. However I spoke with a supporter of the lower heights who thought the current ordinance approved by the commission, allows for 6 story buildings across the street from city hall (which is not true)
Then you throw the charter into the mess as it already allows for 10 stories West of Dixie.
I'm not saying it's complicated.... just confusing.
Sort of like the fallacy that "we have always been a low rise community".
The above intends to imply that we (those who think 65' is appropriate in a few places East of Federal Highway) somehow want Lake Worth to look like Downtown West Palm Beach or Ft. Lauderdale.
If your own people are confused, why isn't it appropriate for someone to try to clarify the proposition? He stated that he would try to give it in an unbiased way. Should he be required to run it past you first?
Who thinks it's going to be political? You?
You think the way someone brushes their teeth is political.
If it's in the best financial interest of the entire city and not a handful of petition gatherers whose objective is to keep the city run down and broke anyway, the city should move forward.
Unless your gang can provide a better plan for increasing revenue for the city than increasing utility rates they need to accept another bitter defeat.
There's always some lawsuits to file.
No. I'm not the smart azz here, anonymous. However, he, (since the commission is insisting that it gets its way here), needs to provide ALL SCENARIOS to the present Charter and the Charter amendment.
1. What could it look like now with 100 feet and 65 feet
2. What would it look like with 45 feet and 35 fedet if the referendum passes.
Only then will everyone get an understanding of it all and what low rise and high rise means in this instance.
Now to keep arguing that we are not a low rise city is absurd. We are if you just look around. However, your argument stands water if you take the present charter into effect that says 100 feet and 65 feet. To some people, 100 feet is not high. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it won't.
I haven't met one person who wants 65' in our downtown. In fact, they hate the lucerne condo. The other point that the insulting anony poster @11:07 made is that not allowing taller buildings will keep the city from generating more taxes for the city. NONE will go the city. Get it? All it will mean, possibly, is more street traffic that might help Amoroso's store.
"If it's in the best financial interest of the entire city . . ."
Maybe Mr/Ms Anonymous could clarify this assertion. It's pretty broad.
The objective of the petition gatherers was to get this item on the ballot. No one wants the city to be "run down and broke". Maybe you should start addressing the issue from the perspective of a grown up and not a petulant child.
"Our gang" redeveloped the beach with a revenue/PROFIT model that will benefit the city for many years to come, and not line the pocket of a developer while the city loses $500k per year for two decades.
"Our gang" lowered utility rates two years in a row.
If Mr Bornstein was unbiased, he would not be spending our tax dollars on many hours of staff time to come up with a rendering to convince people that 65' building will look great. I hope he also creates a rendering of what those building will look like with the variances and waivers to the zoning code that the commission will be pressured to grant.
Lynn, you wrote:
"Admitted, we do have a dozen at most taller buildings throughout the 6 square miles of our city. For the most part, these were built before we had rules in place. Thank God (ooops, forgot, you liberals don't like God) the EcoCentre built the set back on the roof or that building would be looming over everything down there. In stead, it is 4.5 stories to the eye, unusually attractive and different on the inside but the exterior of the building is ho hum.
We just don't want any MORE OF THEM, at least those who signed the petition said so."
Absurd? This is what YOU said, and I've been saying all along. Why aren't you talking about appropriateness? Is it appropriate to put a 6 story building next to and right on top of a one story building? Hell no! Therefore, was the Lucerne Building appropriate? Hell NO!
But why then would you disallow an appropriate building in the area where a few of the "dozen at most taller buildings" are located....namely East of Federal Hwy? As long as they are not on top of a single story home and had appropriate step backs and set backs?
Absurd, indeed.
Because some buildings in this city were allowed to be built taller than all of the others and before we had rules in place to address heights, is not a reason to continue the vertical growth.
If you allow heights, then eventually the entire downtown could grow taller under the proper scenarios. To tell the residents this is impossible is dishonest in spite of the few parcels we have right now that are developer ready for growth. All a developer has to do is buy up contiguous parcels to be able to build to our current LDR's.
So, Anonymous, are you saying that 45' buildings are not appropriate, but 65' buildings are appropriate?
Why do you have such a big problem with 45'? Not tall enough? What's the benefit to the additional two floors?
The Lucerne isn't the only building that is out of place. The Lofts on Lake near Lakeside are also out of scale next to one story buildings.
Until the LDRs are in place that the previous P&Z Board, City Commission, and HRPB agreed upon at the Jan 2012 meeting inappropriate building can be built with no setbacks and no step backs either. Look at the design for the new cheap rentals on 6th Ave south, this does not match the LDRs.
"If it's in the best financial interest of the entire city and not a handful of petition gatherers whose objective is to keep the city run down and broke anyway, the city should move forward".
Okay,first of all ,these"handfull" of petition gatherers cannot sign thier own petitions. More than enough Lake Worth residents signed the petitions so that this issue could be voted on.You believe that all of these people who signed were too stupid to know what they were really signing.That they were all lied to. You believe that Lake Worth would be better off with increased heights downtown.Am I suppossed to believe that YOU are stupid and have been lied to by city staff and Commissioners because you believe something different than me?Pretty sad. Katie Mcgiveron
@10:40. heights across from City hall on the other side of Dixie DOES allow 65 feet right now in the Charter. On the City hall side 100 feet are allowed per the charter.
Laurel,
Now try to keep from twisting my words. In my humble opinion, a 45' can be just as inappropriate as a 65' building if proposed next to or surrounded by single story or even two story structures. We have professional planners to review those things.
We can's even get people to understand what "downtown" is.
If we can agree that East of Federal is NOT downtown, we may have gained some ground. It was a supporter of the measure that reduces maximum heights MORE than what the commission did, who thought their decision would allow 6 story buildings across from city hall and was surprised to hear that the commission had voted to reduce the maximum height "downtown" to 45' from 65'.
Yes, Lynn, the maximums are still in the charter, but just as likely to be approved as someone coming here to buy up and destroy historic homes.
I didn't make the comment about the handful of petition gatherers, but I was approached by someone telling me.... let's say... untruths about the proposition. I really think they thought they knew what they were talking about. I have no idea what they were telling others.
Not lies? We have always been a "low rise city". Really? The commission voted to raise the maximum heights from what they were? Really? If the city doesn't draw up a Mulvehillesque graphic showing nothing but 10 story buildings lining both sides of Lake and Lucerne out to the sidewalk West of Dixie, then THEY are lying? Really?
You are right Katie.... pretty sad.
I'd be interested more in what the people who live near the area East of Federal, like those in Bryant Park NA or Parrot Cove NA have to say. But we can't ask them for a consensus because we don't want them to be "political". What good is a neighborhood association if they can't get involved in something that concerns their neighborhood like this issue?
Simply put, if this issue passes, the city will DEFINITELY have LESS flexibility in allowing a good project that would be compatible with its surroundings EAST of FEDERAL HWY, than we do now. Is THAT a LIE?
The heights issue affects the entire city, not just that neighborhood. We already know what TRNA thinks (located on the west side of Dixie) as its president is supporting the referendum. However, he is one voice as you and I are. As previously stated, the NA's ARE political other than one or two exceptions such as ROLOH.
Give it a rest Lynn, March is right around the corner.. We will then know what the PEOPLE of this city want.
I don't plan on doing that, anonymous. Can't stand corruption.
Dear Anonymous,
I didn't twist your words. I simply asked you a few questions because I think your logic is convoluted.
In the Future Land Use Map (this accompanies the Comprehensive Plan) the area between Lake and Lucerne east of Federal is called "Downtown Mixed Use". In the Proposed Zoning Map (this accompanies the pending LDRs) this area is simply called "Downtown". So the city, the PAC, and an awful lot of residents all agree that this area is Downtown. I don't think you're going to gain any ground here.
Sounds like you haven't been in town for too long, so I'd like to welcome you to Lake Worth and maybe bring you up to speed. The maximum heights in the charter that you say are "just as likely to be approved as someone coming here to buy up and destroy historic homes" have already been approved and the condo built. Certainly you're familiar with the Lucerne Condominium.
The commission has not, and cannot, raise or lower maximum heights in the city. Only the voters can do that by charter. The commission is simply passing an ordinance (zoning code) that they can change at any time they wish. They cannot go higher than the maximum decreed by voters in the charter. I commend you for having so much faith in your elected officials that you trust them not approve inappropriate development. Not sure where you used to live, but it must have been delightful to have so much trust in politicians. In Lake Worth, many of us are a bit more jaded than you.
If you want to know how people feel about height limits, then consider that we collected over 1,700 signatures in less than four weeks. When a lot of voters were out of town. I had people calling me to bring the petition over for them to sign it. People walking their dogs and riding their bikes were stopping us in the street to sign. People don't necessarily need a neighborhood group to have their voices heard. This isn't a neighborhood issue, it's a city issue.
"Simply put, if this issue passes, the city will DEFINITELY have LESS flexibility in allowing a good project that would be compatible with its surroundings EAST of FEDERAL HWY, than we do now. Is THAT a LIE?"
That is not a lie. It IS opinion. it is falling into the developer trap. How naive can you get?
We are talking about 3 maybe 4 parcels of land that MIGHT be built on. We are not talking about a total build out as the propaganda showed when the petition was being passed around...
Perhaps; perhaps not. Anything is possible when the Charter allows it. Buying up several parcels to build a building 100 feet high is not impossible. Why do you think it is? You have to look at the worst case scenario when you talk about this stuff. Where there's a will, there's a way especially when a developer has the charter on his side. Because it has never happened before is NO argument.
Post a Comment