MaryEllen "Mel" Healy and Vinnie Cerniglia perform three songs from last Friday's High Noon in Lake Worth Internet radio show. They performed during the Mango Grove Neighborhood Association Art Stroll yesterday. It was great to have them in the studio and I think that you will enjoy these selections.
Thanks to Mel and Vinnie for stopping by and lighting up our day!
Check out their blogspot page.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Sunday, February 10, 2013
This is the current wording in Article IV of the City's Charter...
This relates to height of buildings in the city and it was approved by a referendum in the mid 1990s. This will remain intact regardless of what happens with the height referendum on the March 2013 ballot. The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations were never changed to reflect these limits - especially west of Dixie Hwy. East of Dixie Hwy, the allowable height in the downtown area has been 65 feet for a long time - although the maximum height was lowered in the Comprehensive Plan to 45 feet between Dixie and Federal, along Lake and Lucerne Avenues.
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)
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Palm Beach Post Wrong – Setting the Record Straight | City of West Palm Beach
Refreshing to see a municipality stand up for their side of the story through a web presence and use of social media. I found this from a post by the city on FaceBook. Click title for link
Click here for the latest from our friends at Earth First!
Things seem a little unsettled at their LW HQ.
Friday, February 8, 2013
Mango Groves Neighborhood Association Art Stroll 02/08 by High Noon in Lake Worth | Blog Talk Radio
MANGO GROVES NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION presents a FREE event:
MANGO GROVES ART STROLL at COCONUT WALK
200 Block of North “L” Street
Lake Worth 33460
DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 2013 SUNDAY NOON-5pm
Mango Groves Neighborhood Association kicks off the new year with the 1st Annual Mango Groves Art Stroll at Coconut Walk, a newly renovated, exquisitely European townhome complex on L St., just one block north of downtown Lucerne and Lake Avenue. Twenty artists from South Florida will show their art in the secluded bricked courtyard of the Coconut Walk residences. Pets welcome.
In addition to sculptors, jewelry, paintings, and photography, there will be informal modeling by Trash Fashions (all recycled, including handbags, made of bicycle inner tubes), also clothes by London Edge, seen on on Worth Avenue. Javier Del Sol, Master Storyteller will be telling stories for the children and adults at 3:00p.m., There will be a Pop-Up Café with food and drinks to benefit the LW Recreation Board, Cookies by The Palm Beach Cookie, as well as many unique gifts for Valentine’s Day. Music will be provided by Mel and Vinnie, Lake Worth favorites! This is a great family day, and wonderful for art lovers who wish to find original art at affordable prices as well as some great gifts.
Coconut Walk, the scene of this event is on the 200 block of N. L Street, has been in the news recently. Three of its newest homeowners found their home through the NSP2 program. Mango Groves Neighborhood with its unique and eclectic cottages, is notable for being within walking to the hub of all things downtown. Lake Worth is home to a growing number of talented artists, and musicians, many who live in Mango Groves. We welcome all to take a stroll and come see.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Why Boynton Beach Is Staking Its Claim In Kinetic Art | WLRN
What one of our competitors is up to related to art events. Click title for link. From the article:
The city of Boynton Beach sees kinetic art as a way to carve out a niche for itself in South Florida's competitive art event market. That's according to Debby Coles-Dobay, who is the art in public places administrator for the city.
"We looked at the art fairs that are typical out there,” explained Coles-Dobay, “from Basel to ArtiGras to Sunfest and the other ones in between, and said, you know, we don't want to be another, 'me too.'"
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.
· "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.
The Greater Bay site plan for the beach...
The key feature of this plan was moving the Casino building to the center of the property, opening up a view of the ocean from the bridge. It would also consolidate the required parking through use of a parking deck, providing two levels of parking at the building. This would have adequately addressed ADA access issues and off-street loading space for merchants, restaurants and events at the building. It also would have eliminated the existing pool building and better integrated the pool into the overall site plan.
This unrealized site plan cost the city $2.4 million and led to the current operational problems at the NEW beach - since what we have there NOW is a reaction to what was proposed here. None of the best ideas of this plan made it to the current version due to political prejudice and as a way to keep things "as they were", even though in the final result things ended up not being the same.
A not-so-startling revelation at the joint Planning and Zoning, Historic Resource Preservation Board meeting (2/6)
As part of the continued review of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), both the Planning and Zoning Board and the Historic Resource Preservation Board met last night to review the draft permitted use table and the proposed Article 4: Development Standards. As we delved through the various aspects of the code, we landed on the following provision which requires commercial projects to provide space for off-street loading. Staff introduced this as being carried over from the code as it currently exists. This means that this requirement is in full force and effect, as represented below:
Let the record show...
Section 23.4-9. Off-street loading regulations.I inquired, since the city enforces this requirement on others, whether the city complied with this requirement as it relates to the beach redevelopment project? Upon review of the wording above, staff responded with a simple "no."
a) Minimum loading space requirements. Minimum loading space requirements shall be as follows:
1. Every hospital, institution, hotel, commercial and industrial building or similar use, having a floor area in excess of ten thousand (10,000) square feet requiring the receipt or distribution by vehicle of materials and merchandise, shall have at least one (1) permanently maintained off-street loading space for each ten thousand (10,000) square feet of gross floor area or fraction thereof.
2. Retail operations, wholesale operations and industrial operations, with gross floor area of less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet, shall provide sufficient space (not necessarily a full berth) so as not to hinder the free movements of vehicles and pedestrians over a sidewalk, street or alley.
b) Access. Each space shall have direct access to a paved alley or street.
c) Size. Each space shall have a minimum length of twenty-five (25) feet, minimum width of twelve (12) feet, and a minimum clearance height of fourteen (14) feet.
Let the record show...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![Dr. W. H. Cotton’s ode: “Oh, My Lake Worth, Florida!” [circa 1920].](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUL75cv6zJQFjX15ojOIIz9AjnbqH4asHJTYSDhnGnYr7rJZRha1NcNTirj2xPcId158vkz5Hw-wXgOfrlztj8Zr8jLFFCfuEN6PyV44ZlpMRmJ68xbtFL9vzxNiG7xDs_HJvm/s1600/LakeWorthPioneers.JPG)
