A few observations from Tuesday night's (8/6) City Commission meeting re the LDRs

If you were present on Tuesday night, or if you watch the videos that I have posted, you know that there were indeed moments of high drama. Being constructive, I am offering suggestions, aside from violating state law, on how to avoid or minimize that drama in the future. If I could sum it up in a few words, I would point to adherence to procedure and the integrity of audio records of meetings - especially those held outside of city hall.

First of all, the first reading of the land development regulation (LDR) ordinances took place at the July 16th meeting. Here are the minutes of that meeting that were approved at the 8/6 meeting. I thought it was interesting that Commissioner McVoy pointed out that since he was absent from that meeting, that he couldn't vote for the approval of those minutes.

Note that the only person that commented on this item was Mr. Timm. It would be unusual to have an agenda item that he doesn't comment on. I was in Michigan, but I know that from others who were in attendance that there were many of the same people there at this meeting that the Commission heard from last night but chose to remain silent at this meeting. The reason to have a first reading of an ordinance is to identify anything that requires revision prior to the second reading. If there are a lot of changes, sometimes local governments cancel the scheduled second reading and incorporate those changes in a new ordinance. I believe that some of the histrionics that we witnessed this past Tuesday night could have been at least more muted had the opportunity to speak at first reading had been utilized by this "highly aggrieved" - at least by testimony on Tuesday night - group of people. No one spoke. Commissioner McVoy was, conveniently (?), absent.  All other facts were known at the time regarding HB 537 and the height referendum not being part of the LDRs.

I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that when the Historic Resource Preservation Board made its final recommendation on the LDRs, the recommendation was made to an empty house. Another opportunity missed by this "aggrieved" group of people.

Much is made of the "Tri Meeting" that took place on January 26, 2012 between the City Commission, Planning and Zoning Board and the Historic Resource Preservation Board. It is claimed by members of this "aggrieved" group that consensus was reached at this meeting, held at the golf course. These are sections of the code that we were reviewing at the time and some background graphics that were provided by staff.

This is the section of the code that included some of the area - east of Federal - as prepared by staff which reflected the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation - a uniform 45 feet east of Federal, with public benefits.

This is the graphic representation that was part of the packet.

So what was included in the staff back-up for this meeting was the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation which was different than the opinion of others present at this 'Tri Meeting." This from the staff report that represents this fact:

I don't remember coming to this much ballyhooed "consensus" at this meeting. There were some things that the three groups didn't agree upon at this meeting. I believe that height east of Federal is one of them.

This is what doesn't help. This is part of the "minutes" from this "work session" where we were to determine "consensus" on what we were agreeing to allow in the downtown.

Many were under the assumption that this meeting was being recorded and staff had gone through IT to make sure we had a audio record of the meeting. The meeting was held at the golf course clubhouse. I remember microphones being there. It turns out that as staff went to review the meeting - somehow no audio was available. Things that make you go hmmmm.

So let's not get too carried away about the light of "consensus" breaking through the clouds at this meeting. There is no way to know for sure, but it is an easy thing to point to be some people who wish the results had been different.

Just sayin'. Moral of the story: Make sure you take advantage of first reading opportunities to comment and be sure of the technology you are employing to record a meeting.