Kading Props. v. City of Indianola

• Decision Date: 30 March 2022
• Docket Number: 21-0642
• Parties: KADING PROPERTIES, LLC, an Iowa Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF INDIANOLA, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Iowa Court of Appeals

KADING PROPERTIES, LLC, an Iowa Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF INDIANOLA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 21-0642

Court of Appeals of Iowa

March 30, 2022

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Richard B Clogg, Judge.

Plaintiff landowner appeals from the district court's annulment of a writ of certiorari following the city council's rejection of two site plans for property development.

Christopher R. Pose of Lillis O'Malley Law Firm, Des Moines, for appellant.

Hugh J. Cain, Brent L. Hinders, and Daniel J. Johnston (until withdrawal) of Hopkins & Huebner, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee.

Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ.

GREER JUDGE.

Following the Indianola City Council's (Council) rejection of site plans^[1] for two lots to develop housing, the project developer, Kading Properties (Kading), petitioned for a writ of certiorari. for two lots to develop housing, Kading petitioned for a writ of certiorari. The district court annulled the writ after a hearing. On appeal, Kading argues the writ should have been sustained because the Council acted illegally by not justifying its rejection of the site plans acting arbitrarily and capriciously in making its decision using factors not provided by the applicable city code, and encroaching on powers reserved for the board of adjustment by Iowa Code section 414.7 (2020). The Council contends that although it did not state its reasons for the denial of the site plans, it was not legally required to do so. Further, it argues it did not act arbitrarily or capriciously as its decision was supported by substantial evidence, including the public comments. And finally, because the Council was ensuring the site plan was compliant with the city requirements, not providing for special uses or exceptions it did not usurp the responsibilities of the board of adjustment. We address these competing theories once we summarize the background that developed before this appeal.

Background Facts and Prior Proceedings.

Kading owns two lots of land in Indianola, Iowa-Cavitt Creek I and Cavitt Creek II. Both are zoned R-3 for mixed residential development allowing for four to sixteen dwelling units per acre. The area was approved as a subdivision for proposed development. Because each lot exceeded one acre, the city required review and a recommendation to the Council of any site plan by the planning and zoning commission (P&Z).^[2] Kading submitted its initial site plans to develop the lots as Cavitt Creek Condominiums I and II. At first, Cavitt Creek I was planned to have 9.6 dwelling units per acre and Cavitt Creek II to have 8.2 units per acre. P&Z recommended rejection of each site plan, but approval of the final plats; at a September 2019 meeting, the Council voted and agreed with the P&Z recommendation. Not to be deterred, within a month Kading submitted a second proposal, this time with 6.8 dwelling units per acre in Cavitt Creek I (or seventeen total units) and 7.7 dwelling units per acre in Cavitt Creek II (equaling 119 total units).

After reviewing the second proposal, the P&Z staff recommended approval of both site plans. At its meeting, however, P&Z voted to recommend approval of Cavitt I, pending a traffic impact study, and to reject Cavitt II. The bases for the denial of the Cavitt II site plan were:

1. The development did not provide a minimal effect upon adjacent properties and existing developments; and,

2. The proposed improvements were not designed and located within the property in such manner as not to unduly diminish or impair the use and enjoyment of adjoining property.

(Citations omitted.)

In the lead-up to the Council's decision, several residents of the area expressed concerns about the development plan. They worried about overcrowding the nearby schools, worsening preexisting traffic problems at peak commute times, and a lack of on-street parking to accommodate the increase in residents and their guests.^[3] Many said that there was need for a park or green space rather than new condominiums. Some worried about water drainage in their backyards. One adjacent property owner worried that, because there was no fence planned between her agricultural land and the proposed development, she would be subject to liability if people began coming onto her land, which included a large pond. When Kading completed the traffic study, the city engineer evaluated the results, which showed that even with the development, the streets would maintain the acceptable "A" level of service. But, traffic was expected to increase noticeably (from 2000 cars per day to 3300). The engineer noted that the street was used more heavily than it was planned to be and, as a result, recommended potential improvements including reanalyzing the traffic control for intersections, improving auxiliary lanes, and installing a high visibility crosswalk.

At a January 2020 Council meeting, city staff presented the site proposal. Kading's counsel also had a chance to speak. Then, members of the community, including current Kading property residents and those who lived around the Cavitt Creek area, were given the opportunity to offer opinions. Many of the same concerns were voiced about the changing density in the area. Indianola Code of Ordinances section 166.07(3) set out the process for the Council's review of a site plan:

An electronic file of the plan with all changes recommended by [P&Z], if any, shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development. Upon recommendation from [P&Z] to the Council, the applicant's plan will be put on the agenda for the next regularly scheduled Council meeting, for final approval or disapproval by the Council. If the Council rejects the plan, they will advise the owner or developer of any changes which are desired or that should have consideration before approval will be given. The applicant shall then submit the revised original for certification by the Council. [P&Z] and the Council, in approving or disapproving any site plan and in making recommendations for alterations or amendments to the site plan as presented, shall be governed by the general policies as set out by this chapter in Section 166.05 and the purpose of this chapter as set out in Section 166.01.

At the end of the meeting, the Council members did not discuss amongst themselves or ask questions about any issues with the site plan. Instead, they simply held their vote. Both site plans were denied on a vote of five to one. At no time did the Council ever advise Kading of the reasons for the denial or what recommendations for alterations or amendments might be considered in any revised site plan.

Kading petitioned to the district court for a writ of certiorari, and the court issued a writ. After a hearing on the merits, the court annulled the writ. Kading timely appealed from that ruling.

Standard of Review.

Certiorari actions are appropriate "when an 'inferior tribunal, board, or officer' exceeded its jurisdiction or otherwise acted illegally in executing judicial functions." Ames 2304, LLC v. City of Ames, 924 N.W.2d 863, 867 (Iowa 2019) (citation omitted). "We have broadly defined 'judicial functions' for certiorari purposes to include cases where, as here, the challenged action takes place after required notice and an opportunity to be heard." Montgomery v. Bremer Cnty. Bd. of Sup'rs, 299 N.W.2d 687, 692 (Iowa 1980). Here, no party disputes that certiorari is the appropriate means to review the Council's actions. We review the district court's ruling for correction of errors at law and, if substantial evidence exists in the record to support them, we are typically bound by its findings of fact. Osage Conservation Club v. Bd. of Sup'rs, 611 N.W.2d 294, 296 (Iowa 2000). Our review of the interpretation of ordinances, like of statutes, is also for correction of errors at law. Hogg v. City Council, No. 20-1175, 2021 WL 5475586, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 23, 2021).

Analysis.

A. Was the Council required to make findings supporting the rejection of the site plans or offer modifications as the ordinance references?

At the onset, Kading argues the district court should have sustained its writ of certiorari because the Council acted illegally by not giving any recommendations for modifications when it rejected the site plans. Kading directs us to the language in the city code that states: "If the Council rejects the plan, they will advise the owner or developer of any changes which are desired or that should have consideration before approval will be given." Indianola, Iowa Code of Ordinances § 166.07(3) (emphasis added). To support its argument of illegality, Kading labels the Council's review of the site plans as a "quasi-judicial" proceeding, requiring specific findings of fact. See Montgomery, 299 N.W.2d at 694 (discussing the need for findings of fact when a function is or is not quasi-judicial). The Council argues it was exercising a "legislative" function and the public meeting only allowed citizens an opportunity to express opinions in support of or opposition to the site plans. See id. at 693 (finding the county hearing on the rezoning was for the purpose "to aid the Board [of Supervisors] in gathering information to discharge the legislative function"). The district court agreed with the Council. And our supreme court concurs. See Kane, 537 N.W.2d at 722 ("The city's code provides the council may approve, approve with modification, or disapprove a revised site development plan by resolution after recommendation from the city planning commission. This process is a part of the mechanics for enforcing the city's zoning code; it is an administrative device whereby the city exercises oversight and control."). The comment-argument format...