City of Gilbert Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 18, 2004
a report by Helen Gunderson
Gilbert resident and editor of the Gilbert Gazette

printer friendly PDF file

THE BASICS

Commission members present: chairperson Steve Knudsen, Elaine Cox, Kurt Jensen, Frank Rydl. Dick DeMoss, Merrill Swanson, and Robert Thompson were absent.

Visitors present included: Kevin Beyer (owner of the Gilbert apartments) and his two children, Helen Gunderson (resident of Gilbert and editor of the Gilbert Gazette), Bob Jaquis (member of the Gilbert city council), and Randy Thompson (owner of a Main Street business).

The meeting began at about 7:00 p.m. Only one item was discussed. It was a proposal to change the wording of the city code so that the list of facilities that would qualify for a special use permit in R3 zones would include veterinary clinics. The proposal is part of a larger process of allowing local veterinarian Dr. Tammy Kersting to build a new clinic in an area in the northeast part of town on farmland within the city limits that she would purchase from Gene Upstill.

THE CONTEXT

In December 2003, the city approved the comprehensive plan that had been in the making for over four years. In it, the area northeast of town that Gene owns is designated to be residential. The area is currently zoned as R1 (single family residential). The comprehensive plan calls for it to be R3 which is residential. However, the city has not made updated the codes. In the current code, an R3 area allows many kinds of non-commercial facilities and includes a list of facilities that can qualify for special use permits.

The Gilbert council has once, if not twice, talked informally about Tammy’s desire to build a new facility on Gene’s land. In neither case was the topic on the agenda. An item was included on the council agenda for Monday, August 16, to approve a resolution to change the wording of the ordinance. The agenda did not specify what aspect of the ordinance was under consideration. (I.E. some one from the public, reading the agenda, would not have known what was going to be discussed). For the record, the council did not discuss at prior meetings any change in the wording of the ordinance.

When Tammy met with the Planning and Zoning Commission earlier this summer, the commission did not recommend any change in wording. The commission tabled the discussion of Tammy’s request, asked her to do more research about available land, and asked her to report back at the next meeting.

Also, during that previous P and Z meeting, Mayor Yvonne Wannemuehler sat next to Tammy in the front row, and it is my perception that the Mayor was inappropriately advocating on behalf of Tammy, a private business person. Also, when I asked at city hall if someone had petitioned for a change in the ordinance, city administrator John Lloyd said that no one from the public (i.e. Tammy or Gene) had submitted a request but that the Mayor had initiated the process and asked the city attorney, Frank Feilmeyer, to write the proposed ordinance. This is another instance in which I perceive that the Mayor was inappropriately advocating on behalf of Tammy, a private business person.

SUMMARY OF THE MEETING

There was considerable conversation. Visitor Kevin Beyer spoke about the affect that a veterinary clinic would have on the neighborhood where the apartments he owns are located.

Helen Gunderson also spoke about the effect on the neighborhood. She also expressed concerns about the process by which the matter had been handled, how the proposed ordinance had been initiated, and how having a veterinary clinic in the area seemed contrary to the vision set forth in the comprehensive plan.

Bob Jaquis occasionally spoke. One time, he went into the city office and brought out a zoning map to show the group.

Late in the meeting, Helen talked about increased traffic in the area. Frank and Elaine responded. Steve acknowledged that the change in wording does open the door for other development. Helen asked if the commission knows of towns who have a zoning designation that is somewhere between R1 (single family homes) that is fairly well protected from non-residential enterprises and R2, R3, and R4 (multi-family housing) that is open to many kinds of commercial facilities. Frank said that many towns are moving toward allowing such things as a corner store in a residential area. Helen talked about how it would be ideal, if the area northeast of town were to be developed, that there be a well-planned village concept.

Then there were nearly two minutes in which the commission dealt with forming a motion. That period of time mainly included some mumblings about how to proceed and a lot of silence. Finally, Steve asked Bob for his advice. Bob came forward to the council table, and stood by Steve.

The following is a transcript of what was said.

Bob: I don’t know what you have in front of you.

Steve: Well, this was just in the packet that we got.

Bob: This is a proposal to change the ordinance in this manner — what’s on here. And it will go for three readings before the council. It will have a public hearing on this proposed change to the ordinance.

Elaine: So our recommendation would be to have the city council discuss this and bring it open for discussion to the public? Is that what our recommendation should be?

Bob: I guess you would recommend whether you accept this proposed change or not. And if not, if you wanted to suggest other things. Because as it stands this is probably, like I said, I haven’t seen this before, but this was written by the attorney, and so this is probably what he would propose as the change to the ordinance. Ah.

Helen: You hadn’t seen this, and yet you voted on it the other night?

Bob: We didn’t vote on this, Helen. The council hasn’t. We voted to set a public hearing for this ordinance.

Helen: The resolution that you approved said that that ordinance was on file.

Bob: There it is.

Helen: But you didn’t know about it when you voted on it — on the resolution?

Bob: The ordinance we approved is setting a date for the hearing. And what the council has done is not a part of this meeting nor for discussion at this meeting. So anyway.

Helen: Thank you.

Bob: You’re welcome. You’ve been asked to approve this change to the ordinance is probably what they are wanting. And it will go forward, this piece, you probably find it reads mostly the same as what’s already there except for a small piece. That’s my feeling. And again, it will go for a public hearing before the council and then there will be three readings of it before it becomes part of the city code. That’s how the procedure works.

Frank makes motion to recommend adoption of the ordinance. The motion is unanimously approved.

MY PERCEPTION

My perception is that the core city leaders are skirting the spirit of Iowa's open meetings laws in their process to help Dr. Kersting relocate. They are inappropriately advocating on behalf of a private business owner.

Bob Jaquis' response, as reported in the transcription, is another example of how he misuses his authority. His response is also folly. If as he said, "What the council has done is not a part of this meeting nor for discussion at this meeting," then why was a meeting of the P and Z commission called to discuss a singular item, and that singular item had been generated by the mayor with a hearing date on it approved at the last council meeting with no prior directive by the commission. If Bob was right, then commission should not have been discussing the matter before it first heard a report from Dr. Kersting and came to its own conclusions, via public discourse, about what action to take. I believe that Bob was wrong, rude, out of order, and in tandem with the mayor to hurry the proposed change in wording of the ordinance.

I believe that the P and Z commissioners are well-intended civic volunteers. However, I do not think the city has been proactive in fostering a strong committee that has its own sense of volition. The commission appears to meet only when called together by Yvonne and Bob. It would seem better for the commission to meet monthly, identify work to be done (including taking care of loose ends from the comprehensive plan), and take the initiative on planning and zoning issues rather than to appear as though it is a rubber stamp.

INCONSISTENT TREATMENT

As I said in a piece I wrote earlier this week about the discussion at the council meeting regarding the proposed ordinance change:

City administrator John Lloyd informed the council at one of its recent meetings that Troy Buchman, who now lives on Stumbo Circle, was interested in purchasing the house at the corner of Mathews Drive and George Washington Carver. Yes, the place is about a half mile west of other homes, but it is within the Gilbert city limits. John said that Troy wanted to know if the city would require him to hook up to city utilities (i.e. water and sewer).

It was telling when council member Bob Jaquis said something to the effect that the city should not make a hurried decision, because to hurry could lead to problems in the future when other people wanted to buy property next to Troy's.

There are parallels between Troy's question and Tammy's desire to relocate. Number one, both situations are part of the larger picture of how Gilbert develops and should be considered wholistically. Number two, once a precedent is set, there will most likely be other people that want to develop nearby property. Number three, to make a hurried, Band-Aid decision could lead to future problems.

So why does Bob admonish against making a hurried decision for Troy while speediness seems to be the operative word when it comes to helping Tammy relocate. Yes, one situation is a single home while the other is a major, popular business that employs many people. However, a hurried decision in either case could lead to future problems.

Enough said. 

Illustrated aerial photo showing affected area along with commentary about the zoning issues.