From a fellow urban planner friend of mine...

IN RESPONSE TO "RESPECTFUL PLANNING'S" BROCHURE, SOME RANDOM THOUGHTS:

·         "Provides community supported guidelines" -- What "community" are we talking about? If it passes, it will be imposed by a tiny minority within a City of 35,000 residents.

·         'Increases tax base without burdening City services" -- No evidence whatsoever for this claim. How does reducing building height in the City's core "increase the tax base"? It seems to me that the height limit reduces existing property values and eliminated the possibility of increased assessable property in the future, therefore reducing the existing & future "tax base".

·         What additional "infrastructure" would be required for a 65' bldg that would not also be required for a 45' bldg? The city is already built out. Its "infrastructure" is in place. What is meant by "infrastructure"--streets, water, sewer, parks, etc.? How much redevelopment potential is actually affected by this referendum? It's only a few square blocks in a city of 7 square miles. The area affected by the height limit is a tiny portion of the City & the redevelopment potential of this area is even smaller, since a large portion is in a National Register-listed Historic District. How much new demand could this small area possibly place on city infrastructure and services? Furthermore, the City has "concurrency" requirements mandated by State law & its own LDRs. By law, no development order can be issued if levels of service for key "infrastructure" cannot be provided when needed to service the new development. Concurrency requires the developer, not the City,  to assure provision of necessary public facilities.  This rhetoric may apply in theory to development of agricultural land in the far western or rural areas of the County, not to urban infill as in LW. From a truly regional perspective, greater density/intensity should be encouraged in LW, not discouraged.

·         "Promotes  reinvestment in historic & vacant properties" -- How does a height limit "promote" reinvestment in any way?  It is clearly intended to discourage investment within the affect area. Vacant properties are less likely to be built on if they are made less economically attractive.

·         "Protects the Gulfstream" -- Yes, we all "love" the Gulfstream & would like to see it functioning as a hotel. But the proposed height limits make redevelopment of the Gulfstream less likely because it seriously reduces development capacity (i.e., land value) on the adjacent properties along Lakeside Ave. These lots are an integral part of the "Gulfstream" property. Let's get real. The Gulfstream may be an iconic property, but it is not economically designed for "modern" standards. If it were, it would have been restored already. The historic hotel itself has now been vacant for a decade and has had several owners with different redevelopment concepts. The historic building has not been redeveloped because it is not economically feasible to do so as a "stand-alone" property. The old hotel exceeded the standards of the 1920s when guests arrived by railroad, but its small rooms, lack of parking, poorly laid out interior spaces, bad support service areas, lack of a ballroom, etc. pose major challengers if you want it to function profitably as a modern hotel. The old building can probably be converted to an ACLF or similar group home, but the City will lose the substantial economic benefits (and jobs) of a "destination" hotel. It needs a linkage to the adjacent property to offset the economic limitations of a 90-year old building. Don’t be fooled -- despite their protestations, the "Respectful Planning" proponents are no friends of the Gulfstream & some have actively tried to thwart its restoration as a functioning resort hotel.

·         "Allows a boutique hotel" -- A meaningless statement. What exactly is a "boutique" hotel? Where exactly would it be built within the height limit area? Is one of the characteristics of a "boutique" hotel that it is no taller than 45'? Who devised that rather convenient rule?

·         "Does not limit development in Commerce Park" -- An irrelevant & gratuitous statement since the Referendum does not extend to Commerce Park.

·         Supported by "residents" in the Master Plan Process ." -- Completely untrue and patently dishonest. Height limits city-wide were discussed as part of the Master Plan Process (you may recall that as the multi-year process that squandered $1.2-million in public funds). The Referendum proposal for height limits in the City Core was never discussed in any way and would undoubtedly have been rejected if it had been proposed. The Comp Plan (and the LDRs to implement it) actually limit all development in LW to 30' -- including the area subject to the Referendum. This height limit can only be exceeded if the developer provides "community benefits", the nature of which are currently being defined in the draft LDRs. Rather than arising organically from the Master Planning process, Respectful Planning represents a dishonest effort by a dissident minority who were not willing to accept the recommendations of those who did participate in a tiresome public process. In deciding to ignore the Master Plan Process and impose its minority views, "Respectful Planning" is being absolutely "disrespectful" to the community.

·         "1700 voters signed the petition" -- So what? What were they told? With that logic, why have a referendum at all? It's less than 5% of the of the City's population of 35,000.

·         "Low rise trend of coastal communities" -- I'm not aware of any such "trend" in coastal communities. some are "low rise"; others are very high rise & everything in between. Each community has its own vision. Perhaps It should also be kept in  mind that LW is not actually a "coastal community", unless you mean the Intra-Coastal. Our oceanfront "coast" is limited to the length of the LW Beach Park. The communities cited by "Respectful Planning" to justify height limits in LW's Core Area are communities with actual developable oceanfront coastlines -- most have the word "Beach" in their names. Many of these are struggling with redevelopment, where true high rise condominiums and hotels are replacing existing signal family neighborhoods. That is not LW's problem. At most, we have had a few new low rise (3-story max) townhouses. The unstated bogeyman here is always the Lucerne Condo -- an anomaly that Respectful Planning would like to present as the norm that immanently threatens the lifestyle they seek to protect. There are now plenty of alternative protections in place (historic districts; 30' max height city wide; "community benefit" plan) to prevent a repeat of that mistake.

·         "Reflects urban planning ideals of bldg height to roadway width"  -- Source? Yes, there may be some architectural principles that may apply, but how do they apply to this situation? There has been no discussion of what these standards may be or how they would be violated by a max. 65'/6-story building in LW's core area.

·         "Prevents incompatible developer variances and incentives"  -- A meaningless statement. The referendum does not prohibit variances or incentives. It just imposes a limit on building height. There is no way a developer can get  a "variance" or provide an incentive to exceed the existing height limits or the new height limits demanded by the Comp Plan & the Master Plan Process 'Respectful Planning" is so fond of citing.

·         "Compatible with existing predominate low rise buildings"  -- This is one of the most dishonest statements made by Respectful Planning. It is completely and objectively untrue of the blocks at the eastern end of Downtown near the bridge surrounding the Gulfstream -- the City's historic "Hotel Zone". The buildings there historically and in fact exceed the 45' limit. Some even exceed the existing 65' limit imposed in the 1990s. Since they ignore historical and practical facts about LW's existing development patterns, "Respectful Planning" arguments do not seem to be particularly "respectful" of truth.

·         The Comp Plan currently has a 30' limit throughout the City. This seems to be a far more restrictive requirement than this Referendum. This additional height limit is redundant & unnecessary.

·         The referendum did not address the fact that the LW Charter already has height limits imposed by a prior referendum in the 1990s (100' west of Dixie; 65' east of Dixie). If the Referendum passes, this will only be changed in the narrow corridor between 2d Avenue North & 1st Avenue South. The rest of the City will have higher height limits (although still subject to the 30' limit in the Comp Plan). However, we will end up with two inconsistent height limits in the Charter. Why does "Respectful Planning"  assume that the its height limit automatically trumps the older one? Both express the "vision" of the community. More confusion abounds.