Displaying 26 - 50 of 236

 Name Meeting Date Choose Which Item Your Comment Corresponds With Comments to be read into record
Sam Winikoff04/04/2023Item A

Mayor and Commissioners,

The 6th Avenue South and Federal Corridor of our city has long suffered from some of the grossest disinvestment in this City. Now is the time for the Commission to show that it cares about an equitable quality of life the residents who live in that part of the City. Why is Pineapple Beach the only neighborhood without a park? Why does 6th Avenue lack any pedestrian or cyclist friendly right of way? Why do we not have enough parking for all the people who already live in Pineapple Beach and Downtown Jewell? What is the CIty's plan for lifting up the south side of our town up and making Lake Worth Beach a welcoming and safe place for all to live? We must invest in the southern part of our City and preserve the integrity of our current land development regulations.

Marilu machin04/04/2023Item A

I am opposed to the City Commission approving development of Micro-Communal Housing Units in Lake Worth Beach. These types of projects are not a solution to the affordable housing crisis facing our city, they are an opportunity for greedy landlords to take advantage of working class families and individuals struggling to make ends meet. It creates questionable living conditions, health, safety and crime concerns. It will worsen the parking situation for other residents and business owners. I am asking you to not accept any proposal that comes before you that lacks the proper safeguard. These projects are not in character with our current neighborhoods and will have a negative impact in our community.

Please do not support this project.

Marilu Machin
27 Harbor Drive

Paul Romano02/21/2023Item A

Mayor, Commissioners, and City Staff,

Lake Worth Beach needs to protect its single family zoning for all its residents. We should be working to lift all our neighborhoods up and make them all healthy and dignified places to live.


The Romano Family
124 Vassar Drive Lake Worth Beach 33460
District 3

Alexander Schultz04/04/2023Item A

Please read my May 2, 2019 letter at the meeting:

May 2, 2019

Mayor Pam Triolo

City of Lake Worth

Re: Lake Worth Senior Housing Crisis

Dear Mayor Triolo,

Attached is my April 23, 2019, letter to you. In that letter I highlighted the housing crisis that Seniors in Lake Worth are facing, and encouraged support for another senior Section 202 high rise similar to Lake Worth Towers. We have Seniors born in this country over 60 years ago, some of whom are Veterans, who are facing homelessness after being forced out of a job, having worked 40 years and now on Social Security. The City of West Palm is aggressively pursuing Senior housing projects, yet we do not even have any discussion here in Lake Worth. In fact, some of the development projects here may be forcing Seniors out of their homes. I encourage Lake Worth and Palm Beach County to make every effort at providing more affordable Senior housing here in Lake Worth.

I am retired and have only some much time and resources as an individual to assist Seniors here in Lake Worth to obtain affordable housing. It is time that Lake Worth and Palm Beach County take action here in Lake Worth to make more affordable housing available to Seniors.

Very truly yours,
Alexander Schultz 612 2nd Ave South
CC: Palm Beach Post, Sun Sentinel, Coastal Observer, Channels 5, 12, 25, 29
City of Lake Worth Commission
Lake Worth CRA, Executive Director
Palm Beach County Housing Authority
Palm Beach County Commission

Wallace Anderson04/04/2023Item A

At best, the Micro Communal Housing Unit concept seems to me like a further degradation of living standards for our community's working class. I fear the goal here is to predate upon those most vulnerable and in need of safe affordable housing by offering them a quick cheap and easy fix, and only providing a newfound low for bare minimums in human accommodation. While temporary housing has a place in a healthy community, I am highly doubtful it will be provided by the profit motive. This seems like a recipe for disaster for those trying to build a stable family community in the neighborhood.

Alonso Rodriguez04/04/2023Item A

Lake Worth Beach City Commissioners & Staff,

Our family is very blessed to live in a part of our City with ample parking, very little litter, great walkability, and all the things that allow for a healthy environment for everyone.

All our residents deserve to live like this regardless of what neighborhood they are in. This is why I ask you to please not allow Micro Units outside of our core commercial zones and without all the requirements necessary to make these equitable places to live like parks, walkable corridors, and robust employment opportunities. 

We also need to protect our existing workforce housing. Micro Communal Units should not be allowed at the expense our existing workforce housing.

Matt Portilla04/04/2023Item A

Good Day Commissioners,

Matt Portilla, 1301 Cochran Drive

Please do not fall into the trap of believing that a political operative, landlord, and lobbyist masquerading as a 'government affairs official' is here to improve the community with rebranded flop houses. Our low income residents deserve on-suite bathrooms. The FHA has Minimum Property Standards and all of our housing should comply.

Thank you

michael merry04/04/2023Item A

As a resident and home owner of 501 S L street. I strongly disagree with the consideration of a workforce apartments at 707 6th Ave. Boarding housing is to assist people in getting better and bettering their lives. This area is already littered with prostitution, drugs, and theft. To pile humans into an apartment with no kitchen and no bathroom is a sub quality life that will not allow an induvial to reach their potential. This area is also next to a school zone with slowed traffic, and our children present. Every day for the school the cars line up down 6th street right in front of 707 to pick up the children, where possibly will more cars fit into this consideration?

Tom Johnson02/21/2023Item A

I am opposed to the creation of Micro Communal Housing units within the our city. I am afraid that they will displace current renters and lower the quality of life in our town. As proposed, they will have inadequate parking and will provide an opportunity for landlords to take advantage of struggling working-class individuals and families. This looks less like affordable housing and more like storage. I urge the Commission to reject any proposal to build Micro-Communal/Tenement Housing in Lake Worth Beach.

Panagioti Tsolkas02/21/2023Item A

Good Evening,

You are each great elected officials with your own strengths who have made some great policy decisions. On development you have struggled and that is largely because of the input you get from staff. If you move this RFP forward tonight it will be among one of the worst decisions you have made as a commission.

Why would a City who is in desperate need of additional space to function, to expand the essential services you give to your residents, to build affordable housing decide to sell property for private develepment? This project is going in the total wrong direction. Keep the land, stop destroying historic buildings, build truly affordable housing that we are in absolute desperate need for. Name the project after yourselves if you like.

You have a huge opporutnity here to keep land in public ownership and keep our downtown low rise, affordable and for the residents. Please reject this RFP and rethink this project.

Sam Goodstein03/21/203Item A

Special places are not always made by being practical. Continue to guide the CRA in your own vision of keeping our character downtown.

The Lucerne, though we are used to it, still sticks out in like a sore thumb. Don't solicit something else that does not match the character of the area. The TPA came back with interesting things, but neither 1) placemaking or 2) in character with the historic area.

Developing small lots builds on the town's character, and the transition to residential neighborhoods. Two stories, with maybe a third set back. Lower parking requirements-to support density. Moreover, address parking with a citizen board not a politically pressured process.

On the city being a landlord, we already are, and we can get better at it. If they are sold low to developers to insure their profitability as housing, doesn't that guarantee that they will be out of affordability in a matter of time? Flip flip flip, we have seen it many times. Keeping the land public. Trying new things, and risking failing, is Okay.

Don't let fear of getting it wrong make you not create something new.

Lastly, don't be in a hurry. You bear great responsibilities and haste is no virtue here.

Cara Jennings02/21/2023Item A

Good Evening Mayor and Commissioners,

The scope and impact of the RFP before you deserves your time and attention, thank you for being thoughtful in the re-thinking of how we do development in Lake Worth. Residents in Lake Worth have worked hard to preserve the historic fabric of our community and it has paid off as we continue to attract new investment, people and diverse cultures to our City.

This RFP needs significant changes to reflect the voice of what Lake Worth residents have asked for - low rise, historic, energy efficient forward thinking low density development. I understand this is not what the planners, City Manager and CRA staff think is best for Lake Worth. The input of residents has been consistent on this development and now is the time to ensure the RFP reflects that input.

Please consider the following changes to ensure we do not end up with another over-sized, incompatible development in our beloved historic downtown.

1. KEEP IT LOW RISE - the public has said time and again they want 2-3 story buildings. It is unwanted and inapropriate to increase the height beyond that.

2. Split up the plan and make multiple RFP's. If you lump all of these properties together we are guaranteed to get an over-sized development that impacts our historic feel.

2. Save as many historic structures as possible. It is surprising to see staff recommend demolition/removal of historic publicly owned structures while demanding residents keep their historic buildings up to the strict historic neighborhood codes.

3. Where and how can the maximum affordable housing be incorporated. Has the City considered keeping these properties under city ownership and ensuring affordable housing is built? That would be a true accomplishment for each of you as elected officials. We own the land, why always turn it over to private ownership when you could make the best and highest use of it as public land for greenspace, incubator businesses and truly affordable housing?

Thank you for your consideration.

Jill Karlin02/21/2023Item A

The character of our city, our brand,"20th Century South Florida Beach Vernacular Architecture", is our most precious resource, which you can preserve with the choices you make. Many of us who were born in the middle/end of last century, as well as young people, long for the simplicity of those times, expressed throughout our city in its vernacular architecture. People who come to Lake Worth Beach are often smitten with this kind of nostalgia. Amassing lots on South L and M Street project for block-like architecture expressed in the plans put forth is contrary to what we all love. Instead perhaps parcelling the lots individually to keep the integrity of The Old Town Historic Neighborhood. Could we break up the mass into the original individual lots and open bids to many. Can we task staff with implementing guidelines that emphasize our character and sustainability based on the newest findings for coastal communities. We can give families, businesses and developers the chance to participate/live/work in our city. Please respect the concerns of those who helped to get you elected, and do the right thing for our adorable city, which will enhance our pocketbook for future generations.

Diane Brown03/21/203Item A

We would like to see multiple RFP’s so have multiple buildings with diverse styles to fit in with old town better. It should have lower capital requirements.
Multiple RFP’s will help keep the charm of old town area. Awe. Also would encourage you to save the 2 Lake Ave properties. Grants may be possible to preserve historic buildings and do energy improvements.

Richard Stowe02/21/2023Item A

The recently demolished Old Town historic structures were defined by their lot sizes. The City doesn't need another L & M RFP. The best way to preserve the authenticity of the Old Town Local Historic District is to issue an RFP for each of the properties. It's best to have a diversity of architectural styles on the vacant parcels. Secondary dwellings should be incorporated into lots with existing buildings. Some call that incremental development. The new buildings should be two stories in order to minimize parking demand and maximize opportunities for native landscaping.
Be sure to lovingly restore all the historic buildings. Refrain from using common commercial materials such as laminate (or plastic) flooring. Apply for energy efficiency improvement and historic preservation grants (the filing period is from April 1st to June 1st.) Tap Ramon Trias to quickly apply for those State historic grants. If the carport and garage are removed at 501 Lake Avenue, the Art Deco building has a potential space for a beautiful patio. 501 could house an upscale retail store, restaurant, or local, organic grocery store with a deli.
The Concrete Masonry structure that housed Havana Hideout at 509 Lake is in good structural condition. Save it. Improve Its functionality and visual appeal. It could be the City's visitor's center or host outdoor dining with live jazz behind the small building. I implore you to take a vote to cancel the existing demolition order.
Create a new 50 foot lot between the structures at 501 and 509. Five years ago, Apple began renovation of the Tower Theatre, which sits on a 50 by 153 foot lot, Today its Apple's flagship LA store. You can design & build great places in small spaces.

Cliff Kohlmeyer03/21/203Item A

Dear Mayor and Commissioners

Re: Discussion on Solicitation for L & M Streets Property Development.

Thank you for engaging Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council to get citizens’ input. As its final report states:

“At the core of the public sentiment towards the redevelopment of the properties ….is the desire for a smaller, incremental infill development consistent with the historic scale and character of the area.”

I agree with this, and with Dana Little’s statement in his January 24th presentation that Sustainability Bonuses and TDR’s are not appropriate for this sensitive project. The next step will be drafting an RFP, and based on past experience I believe this should be written by an experienced design firm such as Dover Kohl or Treasure Coast.

These are valuable parcels that cost the taxpayers roughly $4.6M to acquire, and are worth even more today. It would be a mistake to sell us out by stating in the RFP that variances and bonuses are available, before negotiations have even begun. Additionally,

- The contributing historic structures that remain must be saved;
- Small to medium-sized local contractors should be encouraged; and
- Except for Lake Ave, building height greater than 2 stories is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhoods.
- Disaggregate; no monolithic structures

Treasure Coast’s recommendations are consistent with public opinion, now we must hand the project over to an equally qualified design firm to write the RFP.


Cliff Kohlmeyer
503 1st Ave S., LWB

William Munro02/21/2023Item A

THere should be individual RFPs for each of the 6 remaining historic buildings on the L /M - Lake to S 1st Avenue block. We do not need another mess like the Element people who wanted to build a totally inappropriate glass monolith that had only 2500 sf of commercial space.

Catherine Kohlmeyer03/21/203Item A

Please do not include any possibility of sustainability credits or Transfer Development Rights in this RFP - a strategy recommended by Treasure Coast. Sustainability credits are not appropriate for a development in a sensitive historic district.
Please make the criteria for the RFP very clear. The Treasure Coast recommendation and the City plan on the CRA website both talk about retaining the historic character of Lake Worth. It is hard for me to match these stated values with what actually happens. To avoid another mistake, the commission could make the criteria very clear and detailed, not include avenues to waive such criteria, and then give the task of preparing the RFP(s) directly to a qualified entity such as Dover Kohl.

Jill Karlin03/07/203Item A

Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best. To keep the integrity of our brand, "20th Century South Florida Beach Vernacular Architecture", break up the chunk, the amassed properties at L and M Street into individual parcels and let lots of individuals and developers have a chance to participate and start creating a business hub and homes in keeping with the style of architecture of Old Town.

Sam Goodstein03/07/203Item B
JIM FINNEGAN03/07/203Item B






Amy Ferriter03/07/203Item B

In December 2021, the Commission approved a six figure contract with TCRPC to undertake a comprehensive study of the downtown, specifically the L&M properties and to garner public input as to the appropriate future for the area.

The TCRPC held an inclusive multi-day charente in April 2022 and had conversations with downtown stakeholders, interviews with the Mayor and Commissioners and made presentations to relevant advisory boards.

An initial draft master plan was developed. It included various development scenarios - including financial feasibility analyses. These were based on the exhaustive input and suggestions from the public.

On January 24, 2023, a final draft Downtown Master Plan was presented to the City and the general public. The Plan includes the development program and financial proforma of the various scenarios. At the same meeting, the Commission accepted the proposal from and requested that staff recommend the best solution for solicitation of L&M’s development.

The RFP before you tonight takes into consideration the complexity of the project and the concerns in meeting the City’s code and financial requirements.

As a neighboring homeowner, I urge you to move forward with this project. The derelict properties have been extremely unsafe and an attractant to criminal behavior.

Please listen to the experts we hired and move forward with making this area safe and productive.

Donna Kerner03/07/203Item B

I have concerns with the CRA’s sample RFP and Treasure Coast report:

- The 4 Evaluation Criteria need to be more specific and reflect the community concerns that were raised in the public Charrette.

- Phase I, Item 7 (p. 79) indicates developers can purchase the 11 CRA-owned lots for $2M. How was this amount derived since $4.5M of public funds were spent purchasing the properties?

- Phase II, Item 4 (p. 80) would allow developers to take advantage of incentives that would give higher building heights and densities than granted in the base zoning. These include: "planned development incentives," "sustainability bonus" incentives, and "transfer of development rights" incentives. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council consultant suggested that these incentives not be applied as did the City Commission who spoke out against applying them.

- Phase II, Item 10 (p. 80) This item states that a single developer who proposes a project for all 11 parcels will be preferred over developers that propose projects for individual or smaller number of parcels. This is the opposite of what is needed. Best planning practices, especially in historic districts, recommend against aggregation of parcels, noting that having different developers produces a greater variety of approaches and appearances, which is more compatible with the existing historic structures and more likely to enhance the distinctive character and visual integrity of our downtown.

Catherine Kohlmeyer03/07/203Item B
Suki DeJong03/07/203Item B

I am against approving this RFP without addressing ALL of the following concerns. Especially, since at the January 24th presentation by Treasure Coast, it was said the Sustainability bonuses were not appropriate for this project. We do not need to be paying developers for our valuable downtown property. When are we going to realize that we have a beautiful city without giving it away to developers?

These are my concerns:

- The Evaluation Criteria (see quotes in attached Word file) are very general and hence very subjective. They should be clear and specific and reflect the wishes of the community as raised in the public Charrette.

- The makeup of the RFP Evaluation Committee is not specified (very vague). How is the public assured that their goals will be represented?

- Phase I, Item 7 (p. 79 of packet) indicates developers can purchase the 11 CRA-owned lots for $2M. Approximately $4.5M of public funds were spent purchasing the properties. Why should taxpayers subsidize the developers by $2.5M?

- Phase II, Item 4 (p. 80) would allow developers to take advantage of a number of incentives that would give higher building heights and densities than granted in the base zoning. These are the "planned development incentives," "sustainability bonus" incentives, and "transfer of development rights" incentives. Significantly the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council consultant suggested against applying these incentives for this area. The City Commission also spoke out against applying these incentives in this area.

- Phase II, Item 10. (p. 80) This item states that a developer who proposes a project for all 11 parcels will be preferred over developers that propose projects for individual or smaller number of parcels. This is the opposite of what is needed. Best planning practices, especially in historic districts, recommend *against* aggregation of parcels, noting that having a number of different developers produces a greater variety of approaches and appearances, which is more compatible with the existing historic structures and more likely to enhance the distinctive character of our downtown. This is all the more important given the recent reduction in the number of historic structures in the downtown.

Thank you for your consideration of my concerns.

 Name Meeting Date Choose Which Item Your Comment Corresponds With Comments to be read into record

Comments are closed.

Close Search Window