Commentary
printer friendly version

Gilbert Zoning Conundrums
by Helen D. Gunderson, Gazette editor

August 18, 2004

The planning and zoning commission will meet at 7:00 p.m. tonight (Wednesday, August 18). There are only two agenda items. One is the open forum for visitors to bring up matters that are not on the agenda. The other is a proposed change in wording to the zoning ordinances to allow a veterinary clinic in a residential area. The latter is part of a much larger and complex picture.

City of Gilbert Acts Contrary to Its Comprehensive Plan
The power structure of the town seems intent on allowing veterinarian Dr. Tammy Kersting of the Companion Animal Clinic to build a new facility just west of the corner of Dunn and Second Street on the northeast corner of town. The clinic would be just north of the big white house where Garald and Phyllis Wirth live.

I can understand Dr. Kersting's plight and her desire to build a new facility. However, I am bamboozled by the way the city is handling the matter and disregarding the comprehensive plan for the community's growth. In that plan, the area north of the big white house, all the way to the cemetery, would be a mixed density residential area. From what I heard during the process of creating the plan, I understood mixed density residential to mean the area would be designated for single family homes, duplexes, apartments, townhouses, and the like. A recent review of the code book shows that there is a lot of latitude for other types of development to creep into the area. It is confusing that the zoning rules in the code book do not yet match the zoning definitions of the plan.

The plan took over four years of volunteer thought and involvement in meetings, and consultants were hired to help move the process along. Finally, in December 2003, the city council approved the document. During the planning phase, it seemed rather fishy how some of the things the planning and zoning commission decided, whether to delete some items or add others, were not reflected in the final draft. I have my suspicions about how that happened, considering that over the past few years, two of Gilbert's leaders, former mayor Bob Jaquis and former P and Z chair Yvonne Wannemuehler, had an inordinate amount of influence on the document, sometimes meeting with the consultants outside of public meetings. Bob is now a city council member, and Yvonne is the mayor. They both have a long history with the planning and zoning commission. Both were members of it. I believe Bob was the chair of the commission before he became mayor in January 2000. Yvonne then stepped up to be the chair. So it is especially befuddling why they are doing an about face regarding some key elements of the plan.

Puzzling Way to do Civic Business
It's also exasperating to figure out just what is going on nowadays. The agenda for the council meeting on Monday, August 16, included an item about changing the wording of the ordinances. But there was no clue in the wording of the agenda what aspect of the city code was involved. It was also interesting that the idea for the resolution seemed to come out of nowhere. We'll have to check at city hall and see if there is some documentation that will help us understand this.

The orthodox way to initiate an ordinance change is to have a public discussion about a problem or situation then conclude that a wise solution would entail a wording change. Such a discussion and resulting recommendation could come from the P and Z commission. However, when the P and Z commission discussed Dr. Kersting's plight earlier this summer, it tabled the matter and asked her to do some more research to find out what other properties might be available, then return at a future meeting for further talk. That second discussion has not happened.

The other orthodox public discussion could have occurred at a city council meeting. For instance, the council could have put the matter of Dr. Kersting's wishes to relocate on the agenda, discussed the matter publicly, then recommended that the wording of the ordinance be changed.

For the record, there has been at least once, if not two times when the council has discussed Dr. Kersting's situation when it was not on the agenda. That can be problematic. If a governing body is going to discuss a matter substantively, it needs to be on the agenda. That's part of the open meetings laws. However, even during those discussions, there was no talk of a wording change. And even when a hearing date on the wording change was approved at Monday night's meeting, no one at the council table said much about the basis and rationale for recommending that the change. But they forged ahead and set the date. It was odd, because the mayor said that the hearing would be contingent on the P and Z commission approving the recommendation. Sounds like the cart got before the horse.

Whether the discussion about the veterinary clinic's relocation and the decision to change the zoning ordinance came from the commission or council, the public could have visited the meeting and heard the basis and rationale for the decision. That's what the law requires: that such discussions take place publicly so that citizens can understand the reasoning behind a decision. I also believe the public has a right to hear and see how the elected leaders posture themselves when discussing an issue.

Amorphous Issues
I could probably write my way around the back 40 and not be able to explain what's going on and the significance of a minor change in wording. The matter is complex, and our elected leaders have not been transparent about what is happening. So it's no wonder that I can't state in 100 words or less what is happening.

By the way, the same would be true about another matter that was discussed Monday night at the council meeting. A person could tell a long tale about the dilemma that has surfaced on Main Street. The new owner of the Gilbert Car Wash has forged ahead with redesigning the facility and nearby business owners are concerned about the loss of parking spaces on Main Street. The council discussion showed that the mayor and local building inspector had not been on the same page. It also showed that the city needs to give serious consideration to defining how such decisions are made, approval is granted, and educating the public about the process. I recommend the city have a web site and a booklet about some of these procedures.

Back to the issue about changing the wording of the zoning ordinance. I suspect the right hand in Gilbert's government doesn't know what the left hand is doing on the issue. In talking on the phone with P and Z chairperson, Steve Knudsen, last weekend, he was not aware of the agenda item for the council meeting that involved changing the wording for the zoning ordinances. And at the Monday night council meeting, the mayor was not sure when P and Z would meet again. But lo and behold, the meeting will be on the 18th, just two days after the council met.

If She Builds It, Will More Follow
In listening closely to little tell-tale remarks at recent council meetings, it sounds like our civic leaders don't mind opening the northeast area to other development that might follow a veterinary clinic.

Based on my understanding of the comprehensive plan and what is healthy for the community, the best area for the city to move in terms of a commercial area would be to the southeast with a gradual phasing from a residential area along Gretten into a commercial area south of the high school ball fields and the new middle school. Gretten and Mathews Drive would both be gateways to Gilbert. A second alternative that fits the plan, but not as well, would be to have that kind of development west of town.

Helping a Friend in Need
I understand that Dr. Kersting, who many people simply call Tammy, is extremely popular with local people and visitors from far and wide who bring their pets to her for veterinary services. Who wouldn't want to help Tammy stay in Gilbert? She and her successful practices are an important part of the community.

However, is a short-term fix of allowing her to relocate in an area that is meant to be residential  wise? The comprehensive plan that was four years in the making was adopted as recently as last December. Now with the first request to vary from that plan surfaces, it seems as though the city leaders are willing to ignore the plan ...or at least be an advocate for pushing ahead at full speed in an unorthodox way.

Will the city be as accommodating for someone else who wants to weave around the guidelines of the plan? For the city to help one party (i.e. Tammy) because the leaders like her, then not helping someone else because the city doesn't favor them could be disastrous. The city has already been sued once in recent years. The case was filed by a family engaged in a housing development because, in their perception, the city had treated them unfavorably.

What's Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander
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.

Actually, I have to admit that there has been some slowness on the part of the city in dealing with Tammy. It seems like it was back in June when the topic was casually brought up during general discussion of a council meeting. If the council wanted to act both swiftly and with a fair process, then why didn't it immediately refer it to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Then by now, P and Z could have had not only a preliminary discussion with Tammy but also a follow-up. It could have made a proposal. But due to laxity somewhere along the line, the council seems to feel it now must rev up its engines and race ahead. But racing ahead on this kind of important issue without thorough discussion, can only lead (as Bob Jaquis said about a hurried response to Troy Buchman) to problems in the future when other people want to purchase and develop land nearby the proposed site for relocating the veterinary clinic.

The Neighborhood
Some people who live in the neighborhood of the envisioned site are happy with the idea. However, it's a very quiet neighborhood, and the idea of barking dogs does not settle well with some of the residents. But there are other factors, too. One is the increased traffic. Another is the change in ambience that will come with having a commercial enterprise in the area. And there is the fear that the clinic will set the precedent for further businesses in the area, jeopardizing the residential feel of the place..

One major nearby player is Beyer Properties, who owns the Gilbert Apartments. There are four brick four-plexes along First Street, within a half a block of the proposed clinic site. There is a fifth building at the corner of Mathews Drive and Dunn Street. The owner does an excellent, considerate job of managing the place. Many people are familiar with the apartments. In fact this is where I have lived for 11 years. It may seem surprising to people who own their homes, but we have a sense of community here just as there would be in other areas of town. We don't know everybody, but many of us have been here awhile and feel connected. Another couple in my building has been here seven years. A woman in the next apartment building has been there some 30 years. And a brother and sister in another building have been there perhaps 10 years. I suspect that they are like me and like the apartments and the quiet neighborhood. So did the 30-something couple who outgrew their apartment next door where they lived for three years with two pre-school sons before buying a house on School Street this summer. Also, I often meet people who lived here years ago who speak highly of the apartments and the management.

A person who owns and manages apartments doesn't engender the kind of loyal following that a pet doctor does. People tend to love their dogs and cats and would naturally feel a close bond or at least an allegiance to their veterinarian. It is no wonder that Tammy would have strong supporters who would be defensive if someone challenged the proposal for her to relocate.

But whether a business person is popular in the eyes of his or her clientele should not be a factor in how a government body treats them. If the city is hurries to help Tammy relocate in an area that is meant to be mixed density residential, what impact will that on have on the owner of the Gilbert apartments. By the way, his name is Kevin Beyer, and I highly respect him. You couldn't ask for a better landlord. He has made major investments in purchasing the buildings and making improvements. In addition, he made an investment to pave the street early in the 1990s. He is a people person with a gentle yet firm style. He wants this to be a quiet respectable neighborhood, and it is.

The cost of buying a home in central Iowa is sky-rocketing, even in Gilbert. I've known at least one couple who moved to nearby small town because they could not afford a home here. I have also heard my friends who moved to School Street tell tales about the high cost of the  homes they considered buying, whether in Roland, rural Ames, or Gilbert.

Not everyone who needs or wants to live in Gilbert can afford to buy a house here. Some of us who could afford a house, actually like apartment living. There is a lot going for it.

It was clear, when the comprehensive plan was discussed, that Gilbert needs good alternative housing. The Gilbert apartments fill that need, at least partially. And many people hold the place in high esteem.

Am I biased. Yes. In part, my perspective is one of wanting to ensure that the superb quality of life in this neighborhood is maintained.

A Desire for Fairness
My perspective is also one of wanting fairness. And that means not catering to one popular business woman while perhaps jeopardizing a business man who has made a major investment in these apartments.

I also want fairness in government. I want to know that the time I invested as a council member (January 2000 to April 2002)  in the comprehensive planning process, and that many other people invested, was not in vain. I want decisions to be made in public ways that honor the spirit of the open meetings laws. I want clarity and above board behavior in government. I don't want puzzling and befuddling government.

Rubber Hits the Road
This is a time when the rubber hits the road for Gilbert in terms of planning and zoning issues. Perhaps for the last four years, the P and Z commission and council had the luxury of discussing a comprehensive plan in a conceptual way without much development pressure. But now, things are beginning to hop with new businesses on Main Street and at least one new land owner bordering the town. It is not easy to be a conscientious commission or council member, and I  respect that our leaders are willing to serve. The key, though, is that they need to serve in wholistic ways that are fair to the people they deal with and that honor the spirit of the open meetings laws ... because by doing the latter, they are fair to the public. And we are their employers.

Not the Last Word
I have hurriedly thrown these thoughts together. Perhaps that is not the best idea. But the notice of the P and Z meeting had not been posted until yesterday. Most likely, I will go back through this and do some editing. I may also have more to say either as a way of explaining the complexity of what is going on or offering further opinion. But since I started this piece at about the midnight hour and have been up all night but now hear the birds chirping their morning songs, I better close and get some sleep. It will be important to be wide awake at the P and Z meeting. I hope other people can start attending commission and council meetings because lots of us need to be awake during these challenging times in Gilbert's growth. I also hope the city leaders begin doing a better job of communicating with and educating the public about what they are doing.

Enough said.

Follow-up report on the P and Z meeting.

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