HomeMy WebLinkAboutA017 - Letter from City Attorney to Developers' attorneys dated June 15, 1992 f
S
A AE
i i C ITY OF AMES , IOWA 5001
June 15 1992
Mr. Douglas A. Fulton Mr. William J. Lillis
Attorney at Law Attorney at Law
820 Liberty Building 820 Liberty Building
6th & Grand 6th & Grand
Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Des Moines, Iowa 50309
Re: Prairie View West
Gentlemen:
As I believe you know, there has been litigation pending with respect to the
development we generally refer to as Prairie View West. On the assumption
that you continue to represent the developers' interests in connection with
the construction now under way, I enclose for your information a chronology
of the litigation events that have transpired to this point.
Today, the Court ruled that it would give Mr. Woods one more week to answer
interrogatories and that after that, I could renew my Motion to Compel and
for a continuance if such relief still appeared to be warranted.
Trial in this matter is set for August 13th. Today, in talking with Mr.
Woods, he pointed out that construction is proceeding and indicated that
there was going to be a lot of trouble because of that.
Mr. Woods has never obtained a restraining order in connection with this
controversy. Indeed, since the end of March, there is really nothing more
that he could restrain the City from doing. That, as you know, was the
approximate date when building permits were issued. However, the purpose of
this is simply to provide information to you and your client so that if you
perceive any interest at risk that would warrant intervention in the litiga-
tion, you have an opportunity to do so.
Yours truly,
John R. Klaus
` City Attorney
515 Clark Avenue, P.O. Box 811
Ames, Iowa 50010
(515) 239-5146
JRK:gmw
cc: Brian O'Connell
Mayor and Council
AMES - THE CENTER OF IT ALL
WOODS VS. AMES - CHRONOLOGY
1. June 21, 1991 - Lawsuit after P & Z Commission, an advisory body,
continued to deliberate and voted after its meeting quorum had been
lost. - Roberts Rules of Order Point
2. July 12, 1991 - City answers, admits point on Roberts Rules, but
denies adverse effects" on plaintiff.
3. February 19, 1992 - Application for Leave to Amend and Amended
Petition filed.
4. February 24, 1992 - A telephonic trial scheduling conference was
held with office of Court Administrator, telephonically informed by
Court Administrator that the case will be set for "Leadoff" on
August 13, that August 3 is: a) close of discovery, b) dispositive
motions, and c) pleadings. (Confirmed by document March 1)
5. February 24, 1992 - Files a "Potential Witness List" -- cast of
hundreds -- includes at bottom an Associate Professor of L.A. who
could be an expert -- also every "builder, contractor or subcon-
tractor who has build . . ." in the subdivision could be experts.
6. February 24, 1992 - "application for Subpoena" -- cast of hundreds
- e.g. past and present owners -- "each and every realtor who has
participated in the sale of a lot, home or duplex . . .".
7. February 24, 1992 - City files resistance to Amendment.
8. February 24, 1992 - Plaintiff serves 31 interrogatories on Defen-
dant City.
9. March 2, 1992 - City responds to interrogatories -- Answers 22,
objects to 9.
10. March 11, 1992 - Court Administrator documents trial schedule.
11. March 26, 1992 - Court Ruling that "Application for Subpoena"
withdrawn.
12. March 26, 1992 - Court order sustains application for amendment.
13. March 30, 1992 - Court denies Plaintiff's "Motion to Produce which
City does not have in its case file, or remember seeing. There is
no request for production of documents from the Plaintiff.
14. March 30, 1992 - City answers the Amended Petition.
15. March 30, 1992 - City files notice of serving 16 interrogatories.
16. April 23, 1992 - Plaintiffs file second suit - Petition for Writ of
Cert.
17. April 29, 1992- City answers second suit.
18. May 6, 1992 - Plaintiff files second suit Petition that duplicates
first with addition of allegation plaintiffs will be irreparably
harmed unless the defendant is stayed from taking any further
action in this matter. (City had not answered that allegation
until today.)
19. May 6, 1992 - City moves for consolidation of two cases for trial .
20. May 26, 1992 - Plaintiffs resist consolidation.
21. Mary 26, 1992 - City files motion to compel discovery and for
continuance to allow completion of discovery under court ordered
schedule.
22. May 26, 1992 - Court orders consolidation.
23. June 4, 1992 - Court sets this June 15 hearing on motion to compel
discovery and for continuance.
t
' � 5
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR STORY COUITY CLERK
NT C
OF Atv'ES,14WA
RICHARD C. WOODS,
Plaintiff Case No. 34642-0691
V.
CITY OF AMES,
DEFENDANT
r.•
C;i
The above named Defendant is hereby notified that there is now
on file in the Office of the Clerk of the above Court a Petition
for Declaratory Ruling, a copy of which is attached hereto. The
Plaintiff in this matter is Richard C. Woods, pro se, 2125 Prairie
View East, Ames, Iowa 50010 .
You are further notified that unless within 20 days after
service of this Original Notice upon you, you serve and, within a
reasonable time thereafter file, a written special appearance,
motion or answer, in the Iowa District Court for Story County, at
the Courthouse in Nevada, Iowa, judgement by default will be
rendered against you for the relief demanded in the Petition.
�CL?-A.RJ O�a ( 4
J1
Clerk of the Above Court
Story County Courthouse
Nevada, Iowa 50201
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR STORY COUNTY
RICHARD C. WOODS,
Plaintiff Case No.
VS . PETITION FOR
CITY OF AMES, DECLARATORY RULING
Defendant
l
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Richard C. Woods, pro se, and for his
Petition for a Declaratory Ruling, states to the Court as follows :
1 . The Plaintiff is a home owner in the Prairie View Subdivision
in the City of Ames, Iowa.
2 . The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Ames met on
June 19, 1991 to consider a plan for the development of the west
half of the Prairie View Subdivision (a "C.D.P. " ) .
3 . Said C.D.P. , if approved by the City Council, would have an
adverse impact on the Plaintiff and his neighbors, the home owners
in the east half of the Prairie View Subdivision.
4 . The recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
would be likely to influence the decision of the City Council with
regard to its approval or disapproval of the C.D.P.
5 . At the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on June
19, 1991, before the issue of the C.D.P. on Prairie View West was
taken up on the agenda, one of the Commission members left the
meeting, leaving the Commission without a quorum.
6 . The issue of the absen4e of a quorum was raised immediately.
A
Page 2
7 . Despite the absence of a quorum, the Commission continued the
meeting, received testimony, and, after receiving testimony,
entertained motions for a recommendation on the C.D.P.
8 . Of the three remaining Commission members, one member was the
chairman, one member elected to abstain, and the other member
offered a motion to recommend against approval of the C.D.P.
9 . The chairman of the Commission declared that the motion
failed for lack of a second and ruled that the matter would go on
to the City Council without a recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
10 . That continuation of the meeting violated rule 43 of
Robert' s Rules of Order, which states in part, "whenever during the
meeting there is found not to be a quorum present, the only thing
to be done is to adjourn; though if no question is raised about it,
debate can be continued, but no vote taken, except to adjourn. "
11 . Whereas the issue of a quorum had been raised, the
Commission should have taken a vote to adjourn.
12 . That the Plaintiff and his neighbors are likely to be
adversely effected by the absence of a recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays the Court to enter a declaratory
ruling that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Ames
was in error by not adjourning upon finding that a quorum was not
present.
FURTHER, the Plaintiff prays the Court to enter a declaratory
ruling that, since a quorum was absent and continuation of the
Page 3
meeting was in error, therefore, the Commission has not properly
completed action on the C.D.P.
Respectfully submitted,
1
Richard C. Woods
2125 Prairie View East
Ames, Iowa 50010
515-277-8789 (office)
515-233-1037 (home)
Rj
h
H � u
k �
r " g
N M y p pC. n Cu N a)
C �2w c @O c ��an
' ar
{ ' i 'S r co _•� w aHi caOOJ
tf .5I�f,t G}1•1,l�-'.xt':f;'t•.)'.'a W a r�`-°.f,.x�+S t4Y,�fi}SkY Y%?irI.•:_.- _`'� UtsOo .WY.`b.W°nra.rCz:[Wc1+:~3a t]CL'O,nC cC.'°-C.Nu'C y.p,n s..L�V'O y ao-•cC_ti 0.V C c'ym W'...'O O:C..`•-L•W�'uy.�i0�.y p>..T).nYF 7.. M.SOU.•taO.n..y O.a-�-QaFO.r~,C'N+•-v a:•1)u O"N.a>"�ro+Qn.�'-a�Ovf,O s'.y'od 4;E4'';aG0O cO a'C)Q'ao))°.a. OG:>..�aC'i.L.�•,y L 1�a.�O a C.,�l�!!a.. wpa,a1•j.[F-'+H.i_�Cr..N:...a V C) Ca
O ° . J QUL j° H V�•I�uj C.s+N,7y''+wpO.O 7...aoaC A M,V°VFI«.ii•s,a"Eu5''.'�F Q[�a'T'4},L S:.f{Ey°,rE°~1!,C:H y.sa
1+'_xd7C E.Eo.F°Fs`�F>F.G.o�ua•f'.E'�..„y r°dr,i„d.:U dd E dY o.''m`a`d';.r o
c6 O E R O
Z. y c, o
k W b CO ,� a.F-•G,y.o c F�^°rc.'
Cc
`F•)c
GC ON cr o o .o °Q•O O c�. ' qC � N
in .O
in t U aU) a yaH
) cc u -°O aa Y4~ . a) C.w c. c x a -0 m V.
N a
= by- C U ca
¢ t . y [ k wo %E-O•O v o N
w . E v � O"O O O
o ) a) c Z y �
In +y y
OGv n a v
an ° ° m a): ° m )
5 m Al 4,
Ec c.P...V"us•G_-E CL'.i Yc..-�t.E.c`_s-r^C•c.>E�Ed=m a
y��L.••E'-Ev:r"-�,�Ay.
_
N..
T
_.o
Acic o .o cC
u C v, a m o O a yu br.
O O bAa o a v� ai o c COa nO .L a M Y ? CbP > a a
fi mI O a v.oa) a ° rJ
W CD co QbO+ y� / �
En Oa)` c6 T- cr U
i Ua CuQj cu O
> a) 41cu o E 0 ro
) =C a) J . r ° n w
a 'L a N Ytn H i a i o aC ° c cCL to U v n a m. ca cg - R(.O a cC U
.
ii
vt�tf.t
wc
t
a ? }
Zf cg.a
�4t': ...p , ;••' a i�C>.at�r~"'.'ia'v :a3•.fl['''ZUsOy1."+Yd4a')1 mFHi'TH1 >, w•QEO GAa., I +Vq')
b°+ b CO! Ec6 .tRo W�aa '.OrL.-+L+ .'�y7: .�•C.y.''.'''Waa3'3. 'CyhcWLo'"vuO iGO"v�iaO>r, '`CpoyW,Anlc
-Ci
n
In O 0 � a. f '
C p a .p
:j O >Y•6, c o
UU °
(DDPa) O a) ° a(U)) ♦ C voH o a)' . b{
W a4 o y a yc_0p>N/).N a . >,m O c0 � v r � It
y E7 n'.qc
•.C�ca a a) a `: M WEn U a) cE y rs
G ." • ca+ O a yti ,, 9aO H cy tn c6 � b CIS
u cis a X. o o
� aW � � 8 a � U 01ya) -0 . . I mW O O— c .
OU � «t Y
N ° v
ca O b0HH t
a} ^ u y
•�'_.
oCtcEdc,
.•p 5 E O E O ¢i O 0 -' U b0 a 0 0) a a C
O'vly°,, �' a)•-C� Y U Y O
N a)'Cd
¢Y`'I'am)+a°-y`t.-t• '.4i`94'`'; ];c- awymwaC ZpL,r,°..,, v••.30
C�+) Gwo0U. Crn.cCa°i 'yO: aibn
N�b�•^4c;i..O>'m �aC-'.CLCo. N1�> hEn)"wyavnW .G?'W"�r�erCj:.+�c>�qn•ro,.sWaCc��.:''.EEvO�K^
4-•1
f o
U3 vp yn
a > H° O bAn oCU ro p p S.
° p
ca0 aO-0;e 0^ 0 co
oU0
i- oa ° o0, 0 5, EC ~ aNWa Uu •^ a 0 O C.] z
O n ° H o o a ca
' w O O > M UX
O p O . p 0 pa Wya C :": O
� O a) O Y Ov u b , 00.
:z CL => y " [ Q E
rrn y Y oacdi cc
. OLH 'A O bn A
� 1) C u � OO
b0 ° " �
aO ubn p0) tq �
bn cn qi o w M
° o�
En r a CL 7. 1 va �°. cnEn
c�coc.Oai.
+� C_-
—=_-.'�ti[v
.,kamH amro 6o � � H: vr❑°AAro�me'
c3�
.--.—
CITY OF AMES , IOWA 5001
June 21, 1991
The Honorable Larry R. Curtis, Mayor,
and Members of the City Council
for the City of Ames, Iowa
Re: Mr. Woods' Suit for Declaratory Judgment
Prairie View Departure of Quorum
Dear Mayor Curtis and Council Members:
You have received a copy of a lawsuit filed by Mr. Woods seeking a declarato-
ry judgment as to a matter of Robert's Rules of Order as it pertains to the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
It was not absolutely clear to me what was happening when I received a phone
call advising that a quorum was no longer present because someone had left
the meeting. At that time, however, I remembered the rule that business
continues after a quorum is established, even though it may become
diminished. However, I did not recall the further detail that if the absence
of a quorum is raised, then the body must adjourn. Mr. Woods' point is well
taken. However, as a practical matter, it does not seem to make much
difference. The Commission has, under City Code, 30 days from when it
receives a CDP to makes its recommendation. After that, the City Council may
act. Considering the June 19th meeting date as the date that the plan was
received by the Commission, the Commission has until July 20th to make a
recommendation. After that, the Council make act as it sees fit without
recommendation of the Commission.
Yours truly,
OJohn R. teas
City Attorney
515 Clark Avenue, P.O. Box 811
Ames, Iowa 50010
(515) 239-5146
JRK:gmw
cc: Richard C. Woods
Sandra McJimsey
AMES - THE CENTER OF IT ALL
AMES
CITY OF AMES IOWA 50010
—7zJune 21, 1991
The Honorable Larry R. Curtis, Mayor,
and Members of the City Council
for the City of Ames, Iowa
Re: Prairie View Second Addition
Dear Mayor Curtis and Council Members:
As you may know, the Planning and Zoning Commission enacted no motion with
respect to the CDP for Prairie View Second Addition during its meting of
June 19th.
Section 23.6 of the Ames Municipal Code provides that the City Council may
approve a CDP after 30 days from receipt of the plan by the Commission, if
the Commission has failed to act.
Considering the June 19th meeting as the date when the Commission
received the CDP, the Council may not act until after July 20th, unless the
Commission makes a recommendation sooner.
Yours truly,
John R. Klaus
City Attorney
515 Clark Avenue, P.O. Box 811
Ames, Iowa 50010
(515) 239-5146
JRK:gmw
cc: Bill Lillis
AMES — THE CENTER OF IT ALL