Reflections on last Tuesday's (3/3) City Commission meeting...

Last week was really busy for me as you can probably tell since there hasn't been a lot of original content on here for a while. In between the other things that make up my life, I was able to listen to the 4 hour+ City Commission meeting. I finished the second half of it yesterday. Today, I'll catch the audio of the hastily called Wednesday meeting regarding the design criteria agent/Michael Singer proposal, etc. If you haven't had a chance to listen to the regular meeting on Tuesday, click the title for a direct link.

The important things that jumped out for me were some items brought to light under general public comment, the City Attorney contract, change in order of City Commission agendas, Commissioner Jennings bringing back the Gulfstream appeal and Mayor Clemens' comments at the end of the meeting.

There were some people that spoke during public comment on unagendaed items that related to the Sunset property. Apparently, our long factional nightmare is not over. There is a movement afoot to down-zone the property to SF-7. In doing so, I guess people have a hard time understanding the ramifications of the Bert J. Harris Act on takings. They might want to bone up on the law and learn how such an action could result in a textbook case allowing the owners of the property to retire comfortably in Fiji on the taxpayers' dime. One of the more vocal cheerleaders for such an action indicated that the four acre property, if zoned SF-7, would allow for 28 new units plus the historic house already on the property making for a total of 29 single family dwellings. This man thought that represented some sort of compromise and that the developer would be satisfied with his return on their investment.

This is where Colonel Half-Truth went completely wrong. Each acre has 43,560 square feet. The minimum lot size in the SF-7 zoning district is 7,500 square feet. Each lot can contain only one dwelling unit - the reason why it is called "single family" zoning. The minimum frontage for the lot is 75 ft and each lot has to be accessed by a dedicated public road right-of-way. Given the geometry of the parcel, the space needed for road right-of-way and space for a turn-around, and especially if you have to preserve the historic (of which 2/3 of which was built in 1980) house on the property in its current location, you would actually end up with somewhere between 12 to 16 lots. I understand there has been a graphic prepared a long time ago which shows such a layout that would meet code requirements. As soon as I get it, I'll post it here. In the meantime, it's important to note that the number of units possible under SF-7 zoning is not as simple as multiplying 7 units times the number of acres. I am sure that experts will be pointing this out in a court of law should this gentleman's desires come to pass.

As I have commented many times before, the annexation, land use plan change and rezoning was a complicated issue and resulted in a split recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board and a 3-2 approval at the City Commission level. I won't go into all the details now, but you can search this blog for the word "Sunset" (upper left hand corner) and you will retrieve relevant posts on the subject.

There was also an item on the agenda concerning the order of public comment and the ability to reconsider previous items. I am glad to report that public comment will now be heard after every item on the Public Hearing, New Business and Unfinished Business sections of the agenda. I still think we need the ability to comment on consent items - if a comment slip is submitted on a consent item, it should automatically be pulled. But, that wasn't discussed as a possibility. They also changed that a Commissioner doesn't have to be on the prevailing side to bring back an item for reconsideration. Commissioner Jennings brought up that people could just vote for an item so that they could bring it back in the future at the next meeting. (Funny, because she may have just done that related to the Gulfstream matter) These changes should go into effect at their next regular meeting. A change previously made will also begin at the next regular meeting - that being Commissioner Comments coming after Presentations.

Regarding the City Attorney contract, I have many mixed feelings. I had a lot of interaction with Larry Karns as City Attorney during my term on the Planning and Zoning, Historic Resource Preservation, Nuisance Abatement and Sign Appeals Board - yes, it is all those things. As chair of the Board, I never really felt that Mr. Karns was engaged in what was transpiring in the meetings. As we know, land use and zoning issues are legally sensitive actions and I thought, at times, that it might have been better off not to have him attend as his presence gave the impression that we actually had legal representation during the meeting. After leaving the Board in December 2006, I have come to think of Mr. Karns as sort of a "Columbo" character. You would never expect him to come up with the "goods" on behalf of the city, yet he prevailed in most, if not all, of the major actions leveled against the city. I also thought that he could have done a lot more in publicly communicating the status of cases before the Commission and the public. I do agree, as was mentioned in the meeting by Commissioner Lowe and Mayor Clemens, that, on the whole, he acted at the direction of the various City Commission's which he served. Remember, the City Attorney reports to the City Commission - not the City Manager.

Of those that commented and of those Commissioners that voted to curtail the contract with Mr. Karn, the sentiment that kept being expressed was that the new City Attorney should represent the new composition of the Commission, be more progressive and act to promote "social justice" - this by looking out for the citizens. They also thought our new attorney should be more "environmental" in focus than the current.

The new City Attorney will be an important choice for our community. In fact, I am not so sure that it shouldn't be a law firm instead of one individual. And, we need to realize, that while environmental and social justice activism may be a good thing - is it something upon which we are willing to spend our limited resources? Does it make sense that Lake Worth lead the charge and start taking cases to the highest courts in the state and the nation? Or, do we want a City attorney with a more defensive rather than one with an activist bent? These are all things that need to be discussed prior to signing a new contract with whoever is chosen.

Again, I wish Mr. Karns well, but the bottom line is that while successful defending the city against legal actions, he could have been much more proactive in the way of advising various boards and the City Commission. One of the events that I attended this week was with a group of local professional planners. Many of them know of my involvement in Lake Worth and they without fail pointed out the firing the City Attorney was another example of turmoil in Lake Worth. Perception is reality for some people. Let's hope there is, in the end, a productive purpose and we take advantage of the opportunity for a new perspective.

By the way, Commissioners Jennings and Mulvehill, respectively, made and seconded a motion to terminate the contract in 30 days. They eventually agreed to change the motion to terminate in 90 days. The vote was 3-2 with Mayor Clemens and Commissioner Lowe dissenting.

Commissioner Jennings brought back the Gulfstream appeal under new business. She said she was hoping that she wouldn't have to do this, but found out that someone in Public Works (John Lamb) didn't see the plan after the changes were made base on his initial comments and concerns. Rachel Bach explained that the city contracts for engineering services to review the matters she identifed and the applicant satisfied the city's consultant that they concerns had been addressed. It apparently didn't make it back around for a final o.k. to public works. Rachel Bach also brought up that by the time this application went through, everyone in the city staff was to have been trained and have access to the HTE system. As of now, neither has happened and until it does, things like this may happen. Commissioner Jennings - concerned about process since it wasn't something she was in favor of to begin with - wanted to be sure that in the future, the process would be addressed. And she still thinks there is some issue with the easement in the alley - how many times do we have to go into this anyway???

Finally, among his closing remarks, Mayor Clemens talked about all of the internal improvements that have happened over the past two years and thanked City Manager Baldwin for contributing to that. What changes are these that he is talking about? Why can't we residents see and experience them when we deal with the city? Do you think that he believes his own story?