Friday, August 18, 2006

Update from 8/16 PZHRPB Meeting

I'd like to take the opportunity to share what happened at our last Wednesday night's meeting. It was a fairly light agenda, but some important items came from it. So, here are the highlights of what happened (this is not meant to be an official report):

  • We made some minor adjustments in the way that auto repair shops are regulating in our HIC-1 and HIC-2 zoning districts.
  • We recommended that the City Commission (actually re-affirmed our previous recommendation) increase the maximum density allowed in the Gateway zoning districts (along 6th Ave. S. and 10th Ave. N.) to 30 units to an acre. When the Commission heard this on second reading in December of last year, the Chairman of the CRA made a plea to the Commission that the maximum density be lowered to 20 units to an acre. Subsequently, the CRA realized that in order to create incentives for the redevelopment off both corridors a maximum density of 30 units to an acre would be a good idea. This word came to us in a letter from the CRA. So, on Wednesday we re-affirmed our original decision and sent to the Commission for their consideration. The CRA also requested that we look at establishing more opportunities for retail uses (beyond the restrictive list that is part of the ordinance now) - that will take more study and we will wait for staff to come up with some alternatives. We'll let you know when that discussion will take place.
  • We approved the site plan and community appearance request for Lago Valare - the project on the southwest corner of Palmway and Lake. This was after many rounds with staff, board and public comment. I have highlighted the progression of design related to this project in previous posts. This is how it finally came out - the vote was unanimous, with the public in attendance at the meeting giving appreciative comments. The big changes are the use of cast stone along much of the base of the building, reduction in tower height, elimination of the individual gables above the balconies and an entrance feature on the northern facade. It will make a nice addition to our downtown . Now we just have to find someway to deal with the properties immediately around this site - but perhaps this will inspire them.


The other item, that was not on our agenda, but was in our packet, was the group of recommendations from the Affordable Housing Task Force (AHTF). Vice Chairman Spinelli had asked for that to be included in our materials for discussion for this past meeting. I had missed the discussion at the previous meeting due to a scheduling conflict, so I wasn't entirely sure how to handle the review of the recommendations. We started at the end of our regular meeting in somewhat of a workshop format. Many, but not all, of the members of the AHTF were there in the audience but they really were not prepared (no fault of their own) to make a presentation. The atmosphere started to get very adversarial in tone with comments coming from Lisa Maxwell and Phil Spinelli of the PZHRPB. At that point, I suggested that we discuss the recommendations in more of a "roundtable" format and give the AHTF an opportunity to make a presentation which would show the basis for many of their recommendations. Hopefully, we will be able to do this in a constructive, non-adversarial way so that we are able to focus on what is best for the City. I will make that clear when we convene again.

The workshop meeting of the PZHRPB will be Wednesday the 23rd, 6 p.m. at the Suffleboard Court building. Hope to see you there.

"Political advertisement paid for and approved by Wes Blackman for Commissioner – District #3"

Monday, August 14, 2006

Reality and the Beach

Hysteria - "behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess"

FACTS:

18 acres of City owned beach property (I have heard up to 19 acres, but this is a conservative figure).

43,560 square feet to each acre.

18 acres X 43,560 square feet = 784,080 square feet of land area

Size of new building to contain ballroom and retail/restaurant space: 40,000 square feet (two stories)

Approximate size of that building's footprint: 20,000 square feet

Percentage ground coverage of that building to the overall site: 20,000/ 784,080 = 2.5 percent of total site area

Property to be leased (City retains ownership) for a period of 20 years.

"Political advertisement paid for and approved by Wes Blackman for Commissioner – District #3"

Tuesday, August 8, 2006

Highlights from Harvard Executive Education Course - Urban Housing and Mixed Use Development

*************WORK IN PROGRESS**************

I thought that this would be a good place to share some of the i
nformation brought back from the class I attended about two weeks ago. Haven't had the time until now to summarze my notes from session. The "teacher" was Johannes Van Tilburg, an architect/developer that is based in Santa Monica, CA and has a lot of Southern California experience in the design and development of urban/mixed use projects.

Now, I am not sure how best to the his as I have 24 pages of notes from the two day class - and the last of the second day was only regarding the presentation of our imaginary redevelopment project. I think what I will do is hit the highlights and give some description of the items I scanned that were part of the class materials. (If you could read my handwriting, I would just scan my notes and post them here) Add to that the fact that Mr. Van Tilburg jumped around a lot during the presentation of the material and you have somewhat of a jumble. And I will be inserting applicable Lake Worth materials as a comparison. Anyway, here it goes:
  • Transportation in Los Angeles is almost 60% single passenger vehicle. (According to the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Palm Beach County, about 84% of South Floridians travel alone in their work commute)
  • Los Angeles has something called "slug lanes" which are essentially a form of structured hitch hiking - people who want rides line up for rides with those who have room in their car - they are either dropped off by someone else or leave their car in a park and ride lot.
  • The new transit system in Los Angeles is justification for development approvals - without access to transit or, at a minimum a transit plan - a project will not received approval from thee locality (usually with state over-sight)
  • Air rights over transit station are more and more common - transit oriented development (TOD)
  • Sprawl (see picture below of the Continental US at night - remember to click to enlarge - if you are interested in seeing even more detail, you can go to National Geographic's website)
  • 76% of Los Angeles' residential development pattern is single family at an average density of 6 units an acre (Lake Worth's single family zoning district is designed to be a maximum of 7 units an acre, but is built out at less than that), 19% is multifamily and 5 % are rural estate. The Los Angeles range for density is 6 to 130 units to the acre. Given a density of 6 units to an acre, the need for land doubles every 40 years - amounting to 1.2 million acres a year (nationally). The current aveage L.A. commute time of 1.5 hours a day round trip to work amounts to 7 1/2 working weeks in the automobile (390 hours a year!).
  • According to the Lake Worth Comprehesive Plan (see existing land use chart) - 78% of the total resdential acreage within the City is single family - the remainder is made up of multifamily and hotel uses.
  • Mr. Van Tilburg then went into examples of how increasing the density can be accomodated in the existing urban lot configuration. He has promised electronic copies of these and I will let you know when I receive them.
  • University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research - Florida Population Projections - report
  • Wood frame construction (with some steel framing) is required in construction of buildings up to five stories - earthquake/seismic considerations.
  • City of Pasadena uses an "architectural approach" to project approval - adopted a mediterrean revival standard - red tile roofs, modelled after City Hall.
  • Concept of "Boulevard Buildings" - Paris and Amsterdam examples

WORK IN PROGRESS




"Political advertisement paid for and approved by Wes Blackman for Commissioner – District #3"

Monday, August 7, 2006

The Live Show with Jim Stafford on LakeWorthTalk.com

I made my first appearance on the Live Show last night. You can hear the re-run of the interview here. Check out the site too - Jim does a good job at hosting a nice forum for commenting on things Lake Worth.

Thanks to those who asked some great questions - hope I responded adequately. If you want to follow up on any item, or a new topic, feel free to do so here. We really need to use all the tools that there are to encourage participation in our local government.

Thanks again - Jim Stafford - for the invite and thanks to all those that listened!

"Political advertisement paid for and approved by Wes Blackman for Commissioner – District #3"

Thursday, August 3, 2006

Assorted E-mail Conversations re: Beach Negotiations

I thought you might be interested in the following e-mail thread regarding the concern regarding the possibility of a hotel on the beach. This concern was raised after our first day of negotiations. Subsequently, one of the agreed upon terms was that no residential or hotel use be built on the beach. Here it is: (my responses in bold)
Hello Paul,

A few points that some of us believe should be addressed before a contract is decided upon. We consider these to be very important.

1. Is the drawing to scale? The developer said yes but that is not good enough. We need to be sure that the commission and the public see an accurate drawing before the commission is asked to make a decision.

2. The elevations of the building need to be written into the contract. "Two stories" stated verbally is not sufficient. How many feet in elevation?

3. I have sent a request to Wes, asking for clarification about the possible implications of a zoning change, specifically whether a hotel could then be built on the beach. Please make sure that this is addressed before a zoning change contingency is written into the contract.

Thank you,

Laurie Decker
Annabeth Karson




Hello Wes,

After the beach negotiation meeting today, a concern is being raised that a change in zoning could allow a hotel to be built on our beach. Please address the possible zoning changes that could allow this to happen. I hope you will agree that this needs to be discussed before a zoning change contingency is included in the contract with the developer.

Wes, please address the possibility of the developer building a hotel on our beach from the zoning perspective.

Thank you.
Annabeth Karson
Laurie Decker
Well, if we were to craft language that allowed hotels on the beach, that would be possible. Technically speaking. That would probably entail a land use plan change (reviewed by the State of Florida and also would entail a major change to our zoning regulations). I cringe at the thought. The concept of residential (I place hotels as a quasi-residential use) was completely ruled out after the last (circa 1998+ or -) attempt. It just would not happen politically (a prediction with 99.9% assurance) and I am sure that Palm Beach would have something to say about it too. And, nothing that happened today would indicate that was a possibility.

No one in their right mind, and I include myself in that group (please back me up on this!), would allow that to happen. Perhaps that is why nothing has been changed related to zoning on the beach in that the fear of such a prospect prevents any action that would allow something that we would actually want on the beach.

A cold day in H-E-double toothpicks comes to mind...

I repeat...nothing happened today that would indicate that was even a remote possibility.

Wes Blackman

How can the size of their ballroom work without a hotel? It can't. Partitioning to hold multiple weddings? That's ridiculous, don't you think? Why would we need a ballroom to hold 500-650 people? Can you imagine the traffic jam for events??? Will PB go for that?
ld

You would be surprised about the demand for covered, air conditioned space that can accommodate a large group of people. Add our location of the Atlantic Ocean beachfront and demand would increase, independent of a hotel. In our area, it really would not rely on a hotel to "feed" the need. Many times, instead of holding multiple events at the same time, partitioning allows for set up of another function while another is going on. I think, and this is based on some experience, that it would be a rare time when all four areas (if there are that many) are being used at the same time. You could always condition such a use so that operationally it could not have more than X (2,3, or 4) functions going on at the same time. You could also condition such an operation so that large events (singularly or collectively) occur only in the evening when the parking demand for beach related use is at it lowest.

When we as a City create a list of permitted uses for the beach, it could exclude hotels by not listing them as permitted uses. Also, there are many hotels in the area that don't have adequate ballroom facilities and may want to supplement their offerings with an off-site location such as a ballroom at the beach. It may also provide opportunities for revenue sharing with the City if the revenue gained from such a venue is beyond a certain amount.

Anything proposed there would have to meet the Countywide traffic performance standards - meaning a traffic study would have to be reviewed and approved by Palm Beach County. Again, the hours of operation would be looked at as it related to peak hour traffic and the projected peak hour demand for such a facility.

There have been many times that I have been a part of large Lake Worth related events that had to be held in West Palm Beach or unincorporated Palm Beach County since the City didn't have access or its own facilities to accommodate such numbers. The City could strike a deal for priority scheduling for events, etc. It really is not that far out as you may think.

If the primary source of traffic is "off island", I don't see Palm Beach having a great concern over the use of such a facility.

I think if you contemplate this a while, the prospect will seem more within the realm of the possible, without many harsh impacts.

We can discuss this more and I am sure we will, as a community, before it would come to pass. In the process, we would identify areas that might need additional controls. Please realize that we can only allow a hotel to built by including it as a permitted use or a conditional use. If it isn't there, no hotel.

I'd appreciate knowing your thoughts once you think about the prospect for a while.

Wes Blackman

Thanks for replying . . .
Also, there are many hotels in the area that don't have adequate ballroom facilities and may want to supplement their offerings with an off-site location such as a ballroom at the beach. It may also provide opportunities for revenue sharing with the City if the revenue gained from such a venue is beyond a certain amount.
We know this, Denise has researched it. But it's my understanding that the city is not asking for revenue sharing, only $500,000. I think this is a huge mistake that we'll regret for two decades, if this project comes to fruition.
LD

I also think that we aren't asking for much in return for use of the beach. And, there didn't seem to be any support from the negotiating team for any kind of escalating clause over time, which amazed me. (Ed note: There is a max CPIU increase of up to 5% after the first year)

Wes

Are you only amazed?? I'm on the verge of apoplexy, to quote Howard Cosell.
What on earth are they thinking?? Do you think we're going to walk away from millions? Could we (THEY) possibly be that desperate for a building?

I happen to live in the out-skirts of Apoplexy, a large and thriving metropolis within my being. Perhaps exposure has diluted its affect over time. LOL - where did that come from?

I do not understand the mind set of those that represent our fair City. Somehow, we always must have our hat in our hand, two cents in our pocket and are pressed to the wall for last minute decisions. Plus, we never adequately realize the assets that we posses that others would either only dream of or beg for. To hear Paul Boyer talk today, he was interested in just getting one check for one amount ($500,000) and not looking for complications, like formulas or revenue sharing clauses.

You would be hard pressed to find a municipality with 18 acres of property with essentially dual water frontage, in Florida or the east coast, period. We should be in the cat bird's seat, but we are just looking for table scraps. And to think this is a 30 + year odyssey further perplexes the already perplexed.

Are you planning to mention these issues to Paul or the attorney? Or Corey? Or to ask them what their rationale is for being so poverty-minded?

I hope to have the opportunity. (I did bring this up during the second day of discussions)

Wes


And if you know about the potential overflow of events from the area hotels, you should also know the prices they charge for venues that don't open onto the Atlantic.
Denise has claculated a conservative estimate of revenues that a ballroom that size could generate and it's huge.
Of course, we probably won't make them show us their financials for the next twenty years, so they can continue to mislead us about how much they're making. Not our business, right? Don't ask for too much or they might walk away from the sweetest deal that ever fell into their laps.
And as developers go, they don't seem to be too crafty. It's terribly embarrassing that they're besting us at the negotiation table.

Hi Wes,
Thanks for the quick response. I appreciate your opinion that the political will to allow a hotel on the beach does not exist at this time. However our question was about the zoning. You write that allowing a hotel would entail "major" changes to the zoning. Would these major changes necessarily be more "major" than needed to allow the current beach proposal?
The rest of the beach has hotels or condo buildings on it, so why would the State of Florida not approve the change? And why would Palm Beach have anything to say, especially considering their beach has hotels as well?
With the wrong city commission, we can never be sure that the concept of a hotel could not come back. I thought the concept of a 50,000 sq ft structure on the beach was also completely ruled out after the "last attempt". So much for that.
Does a hotel require the same zoning as residential? (Can you build a hotel in a multi-family neighborhood?) Or does a hotel require commercial designation?
I am glad to know that the idea makes you cringe. Our question, however, is about the zoning:
Would the zoning changes that would allow for the current beach proposal also allow for a hotel on the beach?
Hope this can be answered with something akin to a yes or no, and why.
Thanks again.
Annabeth

Would the zoning changes that would allow for the current beach proposal also allow for a hotel on the beach?

NO

Would these major changes necessarily be more "major" than needed to allow the current beach proposal?

YES

The rest of the beach has hotels or condo buildings on it, so why would the State of Florida not approve the change?

Because they would require an analysis regarding the need for essentially converting our "Preservation, Recreation and Open Space" district into a quasi commercial/residential zoning district that would require a modification to the future land use designation which underlies the property. It would be perceived that we are taking out land that was predominantly used for public recreational purposes and initiating a change which would allow a substantial (not ancillary) quasi-commercial use. I am not saying that this is impossible - the sun "could" rise in the West tomorrow, but the probability of that is extremely remote. I consider such a notion (allowing hotel uses on the beach) in that category. They may also have issues regarding the intensification of development allowed on the beach which is in a coastal high hazard area.

As with any question like this, this is an opinion of what is possible or probable. It is only my opinion and much of my opinion is also based upon on what I see and perceive as the public and political will not to have a hotel at our beach.

Does a hotel require the same zoning as residential? (Can you build a hotel in a multi-family neighborhood?) Or does a hotel require commercial designation?

Hotels are treated in both ways in terms of what zoning districts in which they are allowed. There are what I refer as quasi-commercial uses, but also have a multi-family residential quality to them. Many times they would be permitted through a permitted by "special use " approval, which involves meeting a higher standard(s) than other uses permitted by right within the same zoning district. I could walk you through our zoning regulations and show you how hotels/motels are regulated in both our commercial and multi-family residential districts if you want.

I thought the concept of a 50,000 sq ft structure on the beach was also completely ruled out after the "last attempt".

There are currently no regulations within our PROS zoning district that allow for any use other than open air recreational uses. In order to accommodate anything different out there than what is there we need to establish regulations that deal with the proportion of the site that can be covered by impermeable surface (ground coverage) and by building (building coverage), setbacks, proportion of the site that can dedicated to any use other than recreational use, etc. If this has been a twinkle in the eyes of Lake Worth for over 30 years, you would think that somewhere along the line these changes would have been made to the zoning regulations that relate to this property. The fact that those changes haven't been made tell a lot about the difficulty of doing anything there - politically - than what is there now.

Again, my opinion.

Wes Blackman


There should be a whole series of reporting requirements (audited financials) that could be used as a basis for revenue sharing. Also, part of our sharing should be an almost "right of first refusal" on the use of those facilities. We should take the stand that this is essentially ours, but when we are not using it, other people can use it.

I will mention this, but as moderator it is a bit out of an impartial and functional role.

Wes

Thank you for all the comments. The clarification is appreciated.

Annabeth

"Political advertisement paid for and approved by Wes Blackman for Commissioner – District #3"


I'm back!

Had a great time in Boston. Got to spend some time with my Dad early on, saw a cousin in the Boston area (had a lobster fest there, yummmmmmy) and then the rest of the time I stayed in Cambridge. I attended a class on Urban Housing and Mixed Use Development for two days. About 14 people in the class, from all over the country - one from Louisiana and he had some interesting input regarding the Katrina rebuilding effort.

The class was facilitated by Johannes Van Tilberg of Van Tilberg, Banvard & Soderbergh, AIA - he is based in Santa Monica and is both architect and developer. I have plenty of examples of his work (some of which was built on 50 x 150 lots - they could almost be air-lifted from California to Lake Worth!) and will be putting them in an electronic format - posting them here. Unfortunately, Blogger is having trouble right now with the uploading of photos, so as soon as that is resolved you'll be able to see some examples.

One of the class projects was to split into four groups and go around Cambridge and scout out a potential site for redevelopment. We then made a presentation on feasibility, issues and a financial pro-forma. The amazing part of that was that three of the four groups independently chose the same site - a Harvard-owned parking lot on Church Street. We all had different approaches. Educational and entertaining. Cambridge is notoriously difficult when reviewing and considering projects for approval - that is the main reason nothing is being built or redeveloped. Harvard Square is a great student. younger crowd retail area and the empahsis is definitely pedestrian.

They enjoyed my stories of Lake Worth and I showed them this website for them to get an idea of the types of projects that we are seeing here. By the way, the three story townhouse is a model that is being used around the USA. We are definitely not alone.

I really can't wait to upload some of the images here, but will have to wait until the Blogger issue is fixed. That is also delaying another post regarding one of our mixed-use projects on the corner of Lake Worth Road and Boutwell Road - that and I do have to work for a living - my dogs need food!

I did get back yesterday afternoon, but had a scheduling conflict so I was unable to attend most of the PZHRPB meeting - started it, but had to leave after the presentation on the pier. I understand that the Board approved a very nice law office project just to the north of the CVS building - two story with parking, for the most part, concealed and underneath the second floor.

That's all for now. More is on the way, just wanted you to know that all is well and you will be hearing more soon.

Oh, and Delta redeemed themselves on the way back. No problems at all.

"Political advertisement paid for and approved by Wes Blackman for Commissioner – District #3"

Friday, July 28, 2006

Where am I? Still in Lake Worth, I think!


Wow. We made it through the week - what with the negotiations on the beach (which finished a day early - thank you very much), the special City Commission meeting regarding the City's negotiating team recommendation and then the Master Plan meeting - the last two over-lapping each other last night.

I'll be reviewing the week in more detail, but for know I want to tell you a little story about Delta airlines and Orbitz. This all transpired this morning.

If things had gone as planned, I would be in western Massachusetts with my father right now. My flight to Boston was scheduled to leave PBIA around 11:30 a.m. and a cab ride around 10 or so seemed about right. But, there was something I couldn't shake regarding my flight arrangements. So, I went to Orbitz (how I bought the ticket) and they said that I was leaving SATURDAY - not FRIDAY. Now even in my foggy state of mind I could figure out something was wrong. I had e-mailed myself the itinerary, with a copy to my Dad and it said Friday - that was only from this past Wednesday. Someone had changed my reservations between then and this morning.

I won't bore you with all the gory details, but between Orbitz (who said they notified me by e-mail, which they didn't) and Delta (who cancelled the flight and re-booked me on a 6 a.m. Saturday morning flight - they even had me "checked-in" and suggested I go to the airport to change my flight if I wanted), we finally got to the point where I am now leaving around noon on Saturday. This is unfortunate in that I will have less time with my father, but I can still make my class (Urban Housing - Mixed Use Development) that begins on Monday. It did give me some time to catch up on things today that would've had to wait until I got back, so it wasn't a total loss.

By the way, Delta did call me about an hour and a half before my originally scheduled flight and told me it was cancelled. Which would have been about the time that I was in the cab heading for the airport ("My bags are packed, they're ready to go, the taxi's waiting, he's blowing his horn"). No offer to compensate, etc. Just beware and check many times before you plan on taking a flight, especially with Delta. I hear that they are canceling flights when they are not full and putting you on the next available flight (like 6 a.m. on a Saturday) to ensure that they have a full plane. Saves on gas expense, I guess.

Anyway, more on what happened Lake Worth-wise once I have some quiet time up north.

Oh, the Commission did move on the beach with Greater Bay - more on that later too.

Just a few words:
Trust, but verify. - Ronald Reagan

Never thought I'd be quoting him.

"Political advertisement paid for and approved by Wes Blackman for Commissioner – District #3"

Update - Lago Valare S/W corner of Palm Way and Lake



I'd like to give you an up-date on this project. I have posted twice before on this and now I really think we are getting somewhere. I'd like your opinion too.

In between everything else going on this week, we had time to meet with the developer and architect on Wednesday. The two versions here are the result
of a lot of work on the behalf of staff and the applicant's architect. They will present these at our meeting on August 2nd for information only. They will appear on the PZHRPB agenda for a final decision at our August 16th meeting.

I happen to prefer Option 1 (above) - the one with the more plain roof
treatment along Palm Way. The vertical treatment along the northern (Lake Avenue) facade designates the entry to the building and helps with breaking up the facade with a little more visual interest. I think the gable roofs over the other balconies are not needed.


"Political advertisement paid for and approved by Wes Blackman for Commissioner – District #3"

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Agreed Upon Business Terms - Beach Negotiations

Per the following resolution by the City Commisssion made July 19th (early morning):

"Give direction to staff to resume negotiations only if the Greater Bay Company can provide the information required in the RFP and the Letter of Intent no later than Thursday, July 20th at 5 p.m. in the City Manager’s office. Once received, negotiations to resume with a moderator preferably, the Planning and Zoning Board Chair that was made available in a public observance format beginning no later than Monday, July 24th at 10 a.m. and concluding Wednesday, July 26th at 12 noon and meet Thursday, July 27th at 4 p.m. at City Hall. Additional resources attorney to be provided and meet July 31st to vote or back to the Commission.”
Mr. Boyer confirmed that Greater Bay Group, LLC met the deadline and submitted an updated packet to the City Manager’s office at 4:30 p.m. Thursday afternoon, July 20th.
I presided as moderator of the negotiation sessions. This was on a completely volunteer basis and I played the functional role of keeping everyone on track and focused to the task at hand. It should be made clear that I was not part of the neogtiating team for the City and tried as best as I could to be a neutral entity. From time to time, I would ask for clarification or question items if they were inconsistent with what we heard before - in general, just running the meeting.

The City Commission will meet at 4 p.m. Thursday, July 27 at City Hall to consider these agreed upon business terms.
The following is the wording of the document that was initialed by both parties after our two day public observance negotiating session:

CITY OF LAKE WORTH

BEACH & CASINO

Greater Bay Construction

AGREED UPON BUSINESS TERMS

The following are general terms proposed between the City of Lake Worth, Florida (“City”) and Greater Bay Group LLC (“Developer”), that will need to be finalized and serve as a basis for agreement(s) (to include the AIA document A121 CMc – 2003 with associated 201 General Conditions modified as appropriate to accommodate the specifics of the Project as hereinafter defined) between the parties for design, permitting, construction and lease/management of the Beach & Casino project.

The Project is generally defined as the demolition of all site and building improvements (except the swimming pool tank and pier/restaurant) and reconstruction of driveways and parking, landscaping, underground utilities, beachside promenade/boardwalk, park improvements, parking platform, and “Casino” building consisting of approximately 40,000 square feet of net leasable space on two floors, plus an outdoor café of approximately 800 square feet and three retail bays adjacent to the lifeguard building of approximately 2,970 square feet (“Project”). The Project is illustrated by the conceptual site plan prepared by The Architectural Group and dated July 6, 2006 together with the conceptual floor plans prepared by The Architectural Group and dated July 20, 2006 together with the Developers phasing plan for construction dated July 21, 2006.

Management shall include marketing; leasing; customer and tenant relations; landscape maintenance; building maintenance; parking lot and lighting maintenance, repair and replacement of damaged, destroyed or worn out landscaping, building elements, parking and all site improvement; site security, etc.

Developer’s Obligations

  • Engage the services of design professionals and specialty consultants as needed to design the Project as conceptualized
  • Engage the services of a management company or companies to provide lease-up and on-going management services for the Project (subject to the City’s right to approve the management companies to be engaged by the Developer)
  • Secure all Project financing (except that which will be provided by the City through the County bond funds, the FRDAP Grant, and the Beach reserve fund) for which the Developer will be solely responsible and will be secured by an assignment of the Ground Lease between the City and Developer, and during the construction period an assignment of the Development Agreement between the City and Developer, assignment of contractor agreements, and assignment of tenant leases / rents
  • Complete design drawings sufficient for permitting and construction of the Project
  • Ensure that design and construction of the building and site improvements is of quality that will facilitate a life span of at least 50-years
  • Secure all permits and pay all agency fees necessary to construct the Project
  • Construct the Project in accordance with the conceptual plans, construction phasing plan (to allow for continued use and safety of the Project during construction) and schedule, and except for construction zones, ensure that the property is always open to the public for beach access, existing tenants in the “Casino” building can continue to do business, and the County’s park to the immediate north is always accessible to the public
  • Provide construction surety (payment and performance bond, AIA 312 Form acceptable) in an amount and type acceptable to the City, with the City as obligee.
  • Pay debt on any and all loans secured for Project financing, with the City having an ability, but not obligation, to participate along with the lender in curing any default by the Developer.
  • Conduct Project lease-up for the “Casino” building; collect tenant rents; manage and maintain all elements of the building and improvements around the building
  • Market concessions, enter into agreements with concessionaires, managed concessionaires and collect fees
    • A description of the parameters of concessions (including how this will be managed and who will manage) will be provided at a later date, and will include:
      • Where on-site they will be allowed
      • Type and number of concessions
      • Proposed fee structure
  • Engage the services of an events/festivals coordinator; manage regular events and festivals on the Project (while never precluding public access to the beach or County park to the north) including the provision of security and clean-up
    • A description of the parameters of events/festivals will be provided at a later date, and will be consistent with Ordinances and Policies of the City, and will include:
      • Where on-site they will be allowed
      • Frequency of festivals
      • Proposed fee structure

The City shall also have the right to hold events and festivals to be coordinated with the Developer, and collect revenues derived therefrom.

  • Manage and maintain all parking improvements (including meters, parking spaces, etc.), collect parking fees, address parked vehicles that have not paid fees or time limit has expired by ticketing or towing
  • Manage and maintain all site improvements including landscaping, park pavilions, recreational areas and improvements, boardwalk/promenade open to the public with no fees
    • Need park area management plan
  • Maintain a reserve for replacement in the Project operating budget in accordance with industry standard.
  • Pay the City an annual lease payment of $500,000 with an annual increase based on an acceptable consumer price index (CPIU) commencing on year 2 of lease payments with an annual cap of 5% per annum.
  • Provide the City sufficient guarantee that the Project will be managed and maintained to an acceptable standard. This guarantee could be in the form of a surety in an amount equal to the budget for maintenance and replacement reserve, establishment of a maintenance and replacement reserve, a default provision in the agreement, or other mechanism acceptable to the Parties, to be finalized by legal counsel.
  • Turn all site and building improvements over to the City in a condition satisfactory to the City, and pay the City the unexpended replacement reserve budgeted for the last year of the lease term.
  • Establish a permit parking area with sufficient and agreed upon spaces for permit holders, which areas shall not be improved upon with County bond funds.
  • Manage and maintain all pool improvements including locker room, pool equipment, pool deck, life guards, security, etc., collect user fees for swimming pool. Management and maintenance shall be conducted at a standard consistent with the balance of the Project. The City shall also have the right to hold events at the pool to be coordinated with the Developer, the City to retain any associated revenues.

City’s Obligations

  • Enter into an interlocal agreement with Palm Beach County for the $5M of tax exempt bond funds for the project, Developer to be reimbursed monthly by the City predicated its upon receipt of payment by the County as expenses are incurred.
  • Contribute $1.2m from the City Beach Reserve fund on a reimbursement basis by the City Commission as expended by the Developer.
  • Facilitate contribution of $200,000 from the Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program for renovation of the pool area, to be reimbursed in accordance with State regulations.
  • Sign permit applications as the property owner and/or provide consent forms necessary for the Developer to obtain construction permits
  • Provide lifeguard service on the beach, and at the pool if approved by separate contract and paid for by the Developer
  • Sell parking permits with City to retain all associated income.
  • Require that when the lessee of the pier restaurant conducts exterior improvements to the restaurant building it be of an architectural style and quality consistent with the Casino building

Additional Terms

  • Agreements are contingent on third party funding obligations as set forth above, and receipt of any required zoning changes as to permitted use required to generate sufficient revenues to support the Project. Permissible uses shall be agreed upon by the City. The parties agree, however that in no event shall a hotel or residential dwellings of any type or nature be regarded as permissible uses.
  • Developer shall protect turtle nesting at the Project in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.
  • Developer shall not dredge any sands from the ocean associated with the Project.

"Political advertisement paid for and approved by Wes Blackman for Commissioner – District #3"

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Letter from Ed Schaerer and Response:

July 19, 2006 submittal to City officials, (revised comments as of 7/22/06)

To: All City Commissioners of the City of Lake Worth

And members of the Planning & Zoning Board.

From: Ed Schaerer / Resident of L.W. for over 43 years

209 S. Palmway, Lake Worth, Fl. 33460

Regarding: Present Fiscal State of City Government, Fiscal Responsibilities and Development Issues.

Dear District Commissioners and Planning & Zoning Members,

First of all, please allow me to thank each and every one of you for your personal time and sacrifice that you have decided to give to the City of Lake Worth. It should be obvious that your decision to become involved in city government was to better our community. With that in mind, I would like to address the following issues and respectfully ask that each and every one of you kindly acknowledge my letter to you, so I can at least confirm delivery was made to your attention. If you care to respond back to me with your own personal opinion or views as well that would certainly be welcomed.

Foremost, I am very concerned as to the present financial state of our City and its current level of effectiveness administratively, as well as the ability to meet its monetary obligations in order to operate as a municipality and fund the various City departments.

This combined with a great many other issues, has me in dismay how and why the City is taking such an unusual and detrimental approach to what would appear to be many lost chances to make a positive change for the “Greater Good” of the City. Certainly we can all agree as to the importance of managing funds received from our current tax base is essential. And if we are having trouble meeting our fiscal responsibilities or recognize that more money is needed to pay for required city services, we need to be thinking positively how we can expand the tax base while improving our City at the same time.

With that being said, it is imperative that City officials remain open to finding new and resourceful ways to help the City grow in a positive direction. Naturally this will require substantial planning and community acceptance for change. Acceptance of CHANGE is without a doubt the most important and fundamental requirement needed to move forward. Yet, change is so often resisted by the uninformed masses, and cannot see the wisdom of a project or understanding of the goal. Without the acceptance of change even a municipality will fall into stagnation and will not be able to survive.

An example of one of my concerns to bring to your attention is the recent and sudden surprise decision of the City to reject what seemed to be a valid multi-family development opportunity that was to be built on 4 th Avenue North and Federal Hwy. I ask you, what is the City’s real agenda or position on growth, and why was the developer of this project apparently given so much encouragement to go forward for such a long period of time and not given the final approval needed to develop this site? Assuredly the developer must have spent a considerable amount of money over this period of time only to suffer a financial loss. How does the city benefit from this action? And is the city taking into consideration the financial losses born by the developer, as well as the possibility of legal recourse taken against the City?

I simply don’t understand the reasoning to mislead or defeat those who are coming to our City with investment dollars in one hand and plans in the other, who could be improving the community. Do we want change or not?

What is the underlying problem here, how can we solve it, and is this the kind of message that we are going to be continuing to send out to the people who try to do business in the City of Lake Worth. Over the years, I have spoken with countless numbers of people who had an interest to bring their money and ideas to Lake Worth. Some were interested in just buying a home and living here and others were contractors and developers looking for renovation and new growth opportunities. And it is with some shame that I tell you, how the City has been unfair an inept in a great many cases in dealing with these people. When will the time come for the City to recognize these inefficiencies and begin to take corrective actions that will hold in place? As a result of the City’s questionable to poor service over the years to the public, and with the uncertain and constantly changing interpretation of policy procedures and continuing staffing problems, have given the City of Lake Worth the bad reputation that it deserves.

Again, I ask you. Is there any individual on this Commission or Planning & Zoning Board that honestly feels as though our City has a good reputation to do business with or is “User Friendly” when it comes to most any aspect related to real estate. Such as the issuance of permits, inspections, code enforcement, planning and zoning issues or community development. And how is the public at large supposed to be able to deal with the real enigma or black hole of the “Historical Preservation” issue.

Although there is a list of definitions that explains what qualifies to be a Historic building, however to the best of my knowledge and research, there are no defined guidelines or clarity as to what the administrative procedures for Historical Preservation really are. Therefore, how are we as residents, or contractors and developers supposed to deal with the “Historic Preservation” factor when it comes to demolition, relocation or preservation?

Dealing with the “Historic Preservation” aspect as it is, seems to be a major stumbling block for many residents who simply want to get permits to make needed repairs. But sometimes can be required to do more work and spend more money than what was intended, or forced to use certain mandatory materials. Some just give up shaking their heads in dismay and others find that their request for permit was turned down completely while trying to make minor upgrades or renovations to their home. Owners must get the approval of a certain City employee or individual, and based on who ever that person is at the time, may or may not have an opinion favorable to the resident and the requested change. Most anything to do with the word “Historical” in it, means there is a whole lot of political and administrative confusion and red tape. And as the city staff positions are constantly changing, with no new clear guidelines to give the owner, it is left to who ever the City employee is, that sits in the chair at that time to give his / her interpation. This is unfair and unacceptable.

There are many even more extenuating circumstances and some very serious and litigious issues that come before us now. This “Historic Preservation” factor combined with other City procedure can have an enormous impact. Take for example when Planning & Zoning Board Members cast their vote as to the acceptance or denial of any given proposed development.

The consequence of the Planning & Zoning Boards decision to approve or deny a project will seriously affect the real value and marketability of residential and commercial real estate.

By the City taking a position to limit the rights of use and disposition of people’s real property, and to do so unfairly or without appropriate policies in place, is likely to have severe financial and legal repercussions.

For example, say you are an owner of a property, or lets say there is a group of (6) six property owners that are all contiguous to each other and each one has signed a legally binding contracts to sell their properties to a Developer. There are now several millions of dollars in the assemblage that is promised to pay and the transfer of title ownership is in the wings of the Boards final decision. Let’s also assume that (2) old houses in this group may or may not have any real Historical significance but the project happens to be in a Historic neighborhood. The two questionable older houses have managed to be relocated to a new location regardless of their Historical relevancy. And let’s just say there were about twenty very good reasons why this would be a beneficial project for the City to approve.

The Developer then appeals directly to the neighborhood residents in good faith and meets openly as to the building a luxury product. And at the same time is working diligently with City Planners and other officials to try and ascertain what is actually required to meet all areas of compliance, such as building setbacks, landscaping, present approved zoning, building height, parking and so on. During which time the Developer asks the City for very specific guidelines as to what will be acceptable in order to get an approval.

Think about this very carefully. The Developer works with City Planners and other officials to try and determine what is required to meet all areas of compliance, and asks for very specific guidelines as to what will be acceptable in order to get an approval.

Lets further assume in this scenario that the city does not adequately give the Developer clear and decisive guidelines on how to proceed or what the City is willing to accept in order to be approved for development.

Subsequently, a regular public meeting and Planning & Zoning forum is held to address issues with this developers project. And as it is normally the case of most well thought out projects and opportunities to enhance the community one way or another for the “Greater Good.” This means change. Yes, that’s right it’s that bad word again for the negative thinking people, CHANGE. And once again as a result of human nature, with any kind of change often comes the mob.

The public meeting room will then fill with a much larger group of the nay- sayers who are opposing change in general. And the topic is rarely an important issue or factor for this group. The main thing is they want to stop it what ever it is, because things will never be the same again if we make that change. And of course this will be the group that will speak out the loudest and block the view of what others are trying see that might very well be a good improvement for the City in a great number of ways.

Although the Commissioners and Board Members who are present might understand the good business sense and positive attributes of the proposed project, they underscore the greater good of the project by looking into the audience and start doing the simple math of how many people are here that oppose the project and are speaking the loudest, versus how many people are here that promote it. Now the Board Members and elected Commissioners start thinking about what is the path of least resistance for that particular moment in time, and how it might be political suicide to deny the now angry mob. Will the City Officials walk out of the meeting with the cheers of the mob behind them, counting up in their minds the false votes for the next election? Or will they look carefully and responsibly at the project that has been placed before them, considering the many ramifications and need to make the overall best decision as to the greatest benefit and highest and best use for the City of Lake Worth. What the outcome of this similar to life scenario will be is yet to be seen.

However, it would indeed be a very sad state of affairs if the City officials and powers that be, were to base their decision making process based solely on the number of people who show up in a public forum to resist change. And that we need for our City leaders to take into consideration the majority of people who did vote for you but do not have the time to attend public meetings. Don’t forget that these are the people who have placed their trust and confidence in you to make the right choices and decisions on their behalf. We need your sound judgment and a good fiscal policy that makes dollars as well good sense for the City of Lake Worth.

I respectfully submit to the City Commissioners as well as the Planning & Zoning Board Members to weigh carefully as to what is the “Greater Good” for the whole City, and in favor of positive change and fiscal responsibility.

You are currently faced with such a decision, whereas a proposed new high- end luxury condominium development project of which the likes the City of Lake Worth has never seen before, is in your hands for approval or denial. This proposed project located on 3rd Avenue S. of Palmway & Lakeside, is now being targeted with a lot of negativity. I am directly impacted by this development, as I would literally look out of my front door and across the street and would see a very big CHANGE.

This change does not scare me, or have me complaining that I would have to look up a little higher to the see blue sky. And I really don’t care what color the building will be painted. As far as the height goes, why not build it to the already approved 60-foot height that is established in our present zoning. I also do not believe the wind currents will be diminished and will continue to flow with the tropical breezes. Instead of living in a problematic rental based neighborhood, it will become one of a more owner based. And perhaps this change will bring back more pride of living in the area. The present power poles and overhead electric lines scheduled to go underground will certainly not be missed. (Revised comments here) (Although I just discovered at the last P&Z meeting on 7/19/06 there was a current moratorium on alleyways and abandonment of such, and apparently this was also new information to the developer, and this is after many meetings with staff and with several department heads. So, this is in my opinion another prime example of leading developers down a path of deception. Otherwise I would encourage the alleyway abandonment as long as access was not denied in any form to surrounding residents.) Look how many other alleyways have been approved for abandonment in the past. I also believe that living so close to such a new landmark building will positively affect and increase my homes market value. And I will be very happy to see the extra landscaping on the west side of Palmway and have hopes that it too will slow down the fast traffic coming down Palmway.

In closing, please consider this letter as my request for you to act on my behalf to make positive changes that will help make our City a better place to live and work. And definitely to approve the permit and plans to build the luxury condominium project south for Palmway and Lakeside.

Sincerely,

Ed Schaerer


My response:

Dear Mr. Schaerer:

Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful letter. I met you just briefly before the Planning and Zoning Board meeting last Wednesday night. Unfortunately, I was unable to start the meeting due to a professional scheduling conflict. I am not sure if you know this, but I am a professional urban planner and have been one for 23 years, 17 years of which have been in Palm Beach County. I have lived in Lake Worth for 12 years and currently live on Columbia Drive in College Park. I have also been on the board for 8 years and in my 5th year as Chairman.

I did eventually make it back to the meeting, but only after the alley issue concerning the proposed development at Third Avenue and South Palmway had been discussed. If you stayed for that presentation, you know that the Board made a unanimous recommendation to the City Commission to deny the alley abandonment and relocation request.

As a way to disseminate information, I have started a "blog". You can find it by clicking on the following: wesblackman.blogspot.com In it, I address many of the issues identified in your letter. There is a lengthy discussion of the Board's recent denial of the townhouse project in the 300 block of North Federal Hwy and there is a summary of the meeting where we informally discussed the project you reference later in your letter. I encourage you to review what I have said about our situation and the failings of the process.

You are absolutely correct - the City needs to have standard and decipherable regulations so that the development community and the residents know what to expect and what is expected of them as we proceed through the development review process - particularly as it relates to matters involving Historic Preservation. I have outlined a whole series of revisions and updates to our Historic Districts - they are listed on my "blog" and I recently shared these with the City Commission as part of an update on the Board's activities.

Unfortunately, we are left in the role of Cassandra in that we are able to predict the future but seemingly can do nothing about it due to budget constraints. We need a full staff of competent and well-trained professionals in the Community Development Department - and a full staff for a City of our size would include a director, an urban designer, two planners dedicated to review of projects and two planners dedicated to addressing long term issues (studies, up-dates to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, etc.). The prospects of having such a staff are dim at best in the near to mid-term which is a travesty given the critical period that Lake Worth is in as it relates to its physical development.

You might be aware that the City has undertaken a substantial effort as it relates to the development of a Master Plan, which really will take the form of changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. These are now coming to fruition and a major joint meeting of the City Commission, Planning and Zoning Board, CRA and members of the Stakeholders Advisory Committee will be held at 5:30 p.m. at the Golf Course Club House this coming Thursday, July 27th. I would encourage your attendance at that meeting if at all possible. However, having all the most up-to-date regulations that reflect citizen input is like buying a new car without wheels or tires if you don't have the appropriate number of staff to administer the regulations.

With your permission, if you could send me the electronic copy of your letter, I would like to include it in my 'blog" for others to see along with this response. If you chose not to, I understand - but I do think it would be helpful as many people use it as a reliable source of information. The issues you raise are improtant ones.

Again, thanks for your letter. I would be interested if you have heard from anyone else.

Wes Blackman

And in response to my response:

Dear Mr. Wes Blackman,
Thank you very much for taking the time to respond back to me. So far you are the only person who has been courteous enough or has found the time to respond. So, thank you again for acknowledging me with your e-mail, as well as for your service and expertise that you definitely bring to the City. It is obvious, that you are more keenly aware of the City's problems than I am, and I wish you encouragement in turning the tides of our City affairs that are in such disorder.
Whenever possible, I would like to try an add a positive statement or an idea or two that might be helpful to solving the many problems, rather than just making a complaint. Perhaps I might be able to attend more of the upcoming meetings, and see if I might be able to make a contribution in this area.
Attached please find a copy of my last e-mail response which was recently sent to the City Manager and City Commissioners along with a slight revision of the letter that I handed to you last week. It will be interesting to see if anyone else is willing to communicate with me.
I apologize for sounding negative, but I must say I thought there was some grandstanding going on at the last P& Z meeting by the Board, that may have been fueled on from the nay-sayers who were in attendance and resistant to any kind of change. And I believe that certain comments made by members of the Board that were directed to Mr. David Keir, were totally inappropriate. Perhaps a review of the minutes might enlighten you, or others who might consider what form might be taken to show a more unbiased or constructive way to try and work with those individuals who are bringing development projects forward.
Of course not all projects or development ideas are good for the City, however I believe we should at least be respectful to those individuals who are bringing forth ideas and plans to our City Fathers for review.
Best of luck in your efforts and uphill climb to make the City of Lake Worth a better place to live and do business with.
Respectfully,
Ed Schaerer

This just in from Darrin Engle, urban designer:

"Just FYI – Ed Schaerer owns both 209 and 222 South Palmway. 222 South Palmway is one of the properties that makes up The Palms development. At a previous board meeting he spoke as a concerned citizen in favor of The Palms. This was after the public was told that anybody speaking that had financial interest in the development needed to say that, he didn’t. James Hoffman was exposed that night by Herman Robinson, after he admitted involvement. I believe Ed feels he can go under the radar because he does not appear to be part of the development team. According to the county tax appraiser, he still owns 222 South Palmway, it is not one of the properties recently purchased by James Hoffman (226 & 230 S. Palmway) or Brian Swerdlow of Northbrook, Illinois (227 S. Lakeside). The remaining properties are owned James Petric (218 S. Palmway) and 100 Third Avenue LLC (possibly James M. Hopkins, Jr. and Sr.)."


"Political advertisement paid for and approved by Wes Blackman for Commissioner – District #3"

Monday, July 24, 2006

Meeting – Lake Worth Beach Negotiations

Meeting – Lake Worth Beach Negotiations

July 24, 2006 – 10:00 a.m.

City Hall Conference Room

Preliminary Agenda:

  1. Introductions
    1. City Negotiating Team
    2. Greater Bay Group, LLC Negotiating Team
  2. Motion from City Commission meeting of July 18, 2006: ”Give direction to staff to resume negotiations only if the Greater Bay Company can provide the information required in the RFP and the Letter of Intent no later than Thursday, July 20th at 5 p.m. in the City Manager’s office. Once received, negotiations to resume with a moderator preferably, the Planning and Zoning Board Chair that was made available in a public observance format beginning no later than Monday, July 24th at 10 a.m. and concluding Wednesday, July 26th at 12 noon and meet Thursday, July 27th at 4 p.m. at City Hall. Additional resources attorney to be provided and meet July 31st to vote or back to the Commission.”
    1. Greater Bay Group, LLC met the deadline and submitted an updated packet to the City Manager’s office at 4:30 p.m. Thursday afternoon, July 20th. – Confirm.
  3. Role of Moderator
    1. Appointed per above resolution, serving on a volunteer basis
    2. Facilitator of proceedings – negotiations to be conducted by parties
    3. Public Observance Format
  4. Setting of Time Limits
    1. Goals

i. To cover all topics

ii. If an impasse is reached, we agree to disagree and move on to next topic

iii. Those items that remain unresolved will be identified in a report by the City’s negotiation team at the City Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday at 4 p.m.

    1. Identification of Topics
    2. Decide on end of meeting, breaks - Monday and Tuesday.
    3. Wednesday deadline 12 p.m.
    4. Estimated Time per Item
  1. Setting of Agenda

"Political advertisement paid for and approved by Wes Blackman for Commissioner – District #3"