PROS vs. BAC Zoning at the Beach - RE-POST from 6/10/2010

Another local blogger, long known for her love of fiction, has uttered her distress at the fact that nothing has happened after the troops were summoned to knock on the doors of unsuspecting Lake Worth residents, and tell them that zoning was put in place by the Commission so that the beach would be over-commercialized.  Of course, residents were concerned with this prospect as presented to them - elimination of Public Recreation and Open Space (PROS) land use and zoning at the beach and replacing it with commercial uses could be used to create "small hotels."  The Comprehensive Plan has been changed and the Beach and Casino district is in place and no one, not even Commissioner Cara Jennings, is making an effort to change it.

The successful petition drive should have resulted in a total of three (3) ordinances being placed on the ballot for repeal so that the land reverted back to PROS.  It hasn't happened.

For a change, let's look at the facts and see why that may be so.  Initially, the change was made in order to rectify the fact that we have had commercial and non-recreational uses at the beach for years.  The city-owned beach property carried a future land use designation of PROS which permitted nothing but pubic recreation.  Here is the wording from the Comprehensive Plan regarding the PROS future land use designation.  Remember, in the State of Florida, the Comprehensive Plan is part of the Future Land Use element of the Comprehensive Plan and the State retains ultimate approval.  If Amendment 4 passes this November, ANY change to the Comprehensive Plan would be put to the voters. (If you are at all confused by what I am attempting to explain here, keep that in mind)

(Note that the crossed out part was the land-standing former language in the Comprehensive Plan.  The crossed-out version is what went up with the last adoption - still awaiting final approval by the Department of Community Affairs - it had no effect on the issue of commercialization at the beach.)
This is what the new language in the Comprehensive Plan for the Beach and Casino future land use designation is:

Notice that this language recognizes two areas and identifies the "Casino" area as one that will be used for a "combination of permitted private commercial and public uses." - essentially what exists there today and has for time in memorial.  Furthermore, it limits the total gross leasable area to a fixed amount - something that the PROS land use designation never did until now.

Another section of the recently amended Comprehensive Plan deals with that issue by placing the same Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limitation of .1 to all properties with the PROS future land use designation - all parks in the city are allowed to have a building with floor area to .1 of the total property size.  For example, if there is a one acre park, the largest building that could be built would be .1 times 43,560 - the number of square feet in an acre.  So, on that acre-sized park you could build a 4, 356 square foot building.  However, at the beach, the city's largest park, you are dealing with 19 acres, plus or minus.  So that would be .1 times 827,640 - the number of square feet in 19 acres.  Thus, in theory, you could build a structure that had a floor area of 82,764 square feet - it couldn't be used for private purposes, but you could have a building that large at the beach under a PROS future land use designation.  The same Floor Area Ratio is also permitted in the BAC future land use designation.  This is the language from the current City Commission adopted version of the Comprehensive Plan:

PROS Zoning

So let's look at the next level of regulation for any sort of physical development in a city park or the beach property - that is found in the zoning code.  Had the petition language been placed on the ballot and the repeal of the BAC zoning would have passed, the following language would govern development at the beach:

Notice that there is no provision for any other type of use other than parks and open air recreation.  The existing retailers and restaurants at the Casino building and pier would be non-conforming uses.  As such, they would be limited in the possibility for expansion of square footage.  Note that the current proposal on the table is that the city would add a second floor restaurant - that would be an expansion of a non-conforming use and, if you want to adhere to your zoning code, you couldn't allow it.  If you don't want to adhere to your own zoning code, which is a possibility with our anarchist crowd, then the city can do anything they want and should throw out all resolutions and ordinances tomorrow.

Note also that the setback permitted in the PROS zoning regulations is a VERY liberal 20 feet from all property lines - surely encroaching on the Coastal Construction Line.  That 80,000 plus square foot building allowed under this zoning district could cover as much land as it wanted to as well - there is no ground coverage limitation.

BAC Zoning

Above is the language as it sits today in the City of Lake Worth Zoning Code.  This would regulate development at the beach.  True, it was put forward at the same time, as were all these changes, as the City had a binding contract with Greater Bay as part of a public/private partnership.  While a factor, the real reason to adopt new future land use and zoning language and districts at the beach was that commercial uses were not allowed under PROS zoning.  If anything was going to change there, ever, something would have to be done to protect the property and the extent of development that would happen there.  That's where this BAC zoning code included things like limited retail square footage to a maximum of 7,200 square feet, not allowing for things like "small hotels" - do you see anything above that would lead you to believe that someone could build a small hotel there?  And you have the added protection of increased setbacks from the property line which reflect what is there and their relative importance.

Note too that there is a 45 foot setback required for public seating areas.  What are these things shown on the Michael Singer plan?

And when did we squeeze in a southern bathroom building that is about 50 ft. from the eastside of the the existing seawall?

The Point?

There was no reason to protest the change in the future land use and zoning designation at the beach. There was no reason for a petition drive and there is no need to put it on the ballot - that is unless you need something to rally around and keep residents concerned about the big bogey man that is about to take over your beach due to "over-commercialization."  It turns out now that the City will actually need the provisions in the BAC land use and zoning district in order to do what it wants to do - it might even have to change them to make them less stringent based upon some of the current plans that I have seen.

Of course this was used as campaign fodder and certain candidates (ehem) were singled out as being for "over-commercialization" of the beach.  The fact that no one cares any more that is on the dais is that to put it on the ballot would draw attention to the string of half-truths and gross exaggerations that were told at each doorstep.
It did keep the morale of the troops high too, but now that may be starting to backfire - you can only cry wolf for so long.