Springville Citizens for a Better Community v. City of Springville

• Decision Date: 19 March 1999
• Docket Number: I-X,D,No. 980028,980028
• Citation: 979 P.2d 332
• Parties: 365 Utah Adv. Rep. 23, 1999 UT 25 SPRINGVILLE CITIZENS FOR A BETTER COMMUNITY, including Leland and LaJean Davies, Keith and Joanne Haeffele, Michael and Linda Krau, Blaine and Shirley Robertson, Brian and Marsha Ryder, and Russel and Nancy Weiser, and High Line Ditch Water Users, including Bryan and Belinda Adams, Bert and Debra Bartholomew, Lynn and Maxine Bartholomew, Darrell and Dorothy Bickmore, Merlene Bona, Carl and Rebecca Burrows, Donald and Debra Bushman, Walter and Manita Fowler, David and Ruth Fuller, Donald and Laura Gage, Michael and LaRae Hill, Dale and Melba Jarman, Glendon and Leila C. Johnson, Linda Powers, Blaine and Shirley Robertson, Ronald and Utawna Witney, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. The CITY OF SPRINGVILLE, a municipality under Utah law (aka Springville City, a municipal corporation or Springville City, a municipality), Mayor Hal Wing, in his official capacity, and John and Jane Doesefendants and Appellees.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

Page 332

979 P.2d 332

365 Utah Adv. Rep. 23, 1999 UT 25

SPRINGVILLE CITIZENS FOR A BETTER COMMUNITY, including Leland and LaJean Davies, Keith and Joanne Haeffele, Michael and Linda Krau, Blaine and Shirley Robertson, Brian and Marsha Ryder, and Russel and Nancy Weiser, and High Line Ditch Water Users, including Bryan and Belinda Adams, Bert and Debra Bartholomew, Lynn and Maxine Bartholomew, Darrell and Dorothy Bickmore, Merlene Bona, Carl and Rebecca Burrows, Donald and Debra Bushman, Walter and Manita Fowler David and Ruth Fuller, Donald and Laura Gage, Michael and LaRae Hill, Dale and Melba Jarman, Glendon and Leila C Johnson, Linda Powers, Blaine and Shirley Robertson, Ronald and Utawna Witney, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. The CITY OF SPRINGVILLE, a municipality under Utah law (aka Springville City, a municipal corporation or Springville City, a municipality), Mayor Hal Wing, in his official capacity, and John and Jane Does I-XV, Defendants and Appellees.

No. 980028.

Supreme Court of Utah.

March 19, 1999.

Matthew Hilton, Springville, for plaintiffs.

Jody K. Burnett, Salt Lake City, for defendants.

RUSSON, Justice:

¶1 This action arises from a land use decision made by Springville City, granting T. Roger Peay approval to develop a Planned Unit Development ("P.U.D."). Plaintiffs, owners of property neighboring the P.U.D., filed suit against the City challenging the P.U.D.'s approval. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FACTS

¶2 Roger Peay sought approval to develop a P.U.D. in the foothills of Springville, Utah. To obtain approval, Peay had to follow the procedure outlined in the Springville City ordinances. See Springville City Code §§ 11-4-304, 11-4-202. These ordinances require P.U.D. applicants to submit numerous documents regarding the proposed development. A process then commences in which first the city planning commission and then the city council review the development plans, with each entity imposing modifications and conditions, if necessary, on those plans. The council is authorized to grant final P.U.D. approval, which is evidenced by the adoption of an ordinance amending the City's zoning map.

¶3 On July 11, 1995, Peay appeared before the planning commission seeking sketch plan approval for a thirty-three-acre, forty-eight-lot P.U.D. called Powerhouse Mountain Estates. Between July of 1995 and May of 1996, Peay attended five planning commission meetings and three city council meetings. At each meeting, Peay sought either sketch plan approval or preliminary approval for the P.U.D. On each occasion, the commission and the council imposed modifications on Peay's plans in order to meet the City's P.U.D. requirements. There was considerable public participation at these meetings, including input from those who are plaintiffs herein. Ultimately, the council rejected Peay's proposal.

¶4 On May 28, 1996, Peay started anew before the planning commission. In response to the previously expressed concerns of the council and the commission, the proposed P.U.D. now consisted of thirty-five lots, contained no "deep lots," provided for curbs and gutters on each side of the P.U.D. road and a sidewalk on the downhill side of the road, and provided for an entrance road forty-six feet wide and an interior road forty-one feet wide. The commission voted to give the P.U.D. sketch plan approval and to recommend approval of the preliminary plan.

¶5 Thereafter, on July 16, 1996, Peay sought city council approval for the P.U.D. After extended public comment, the council voted four to one to give the P.U.D. preliminary approval subject to twenty-nine conditions. On September 10, 1996, Peay then appeared before the planning commission seeking final approval for the P.U.D., which was now called Stonebury Estates. The commission reviewed the twenty-nine conditions and, contrary to the city code, voted to send the matter to the council without a recommendation, positive or negative.

¶6 In a letter to the city attorney dated September 19, 1996, Peay detailed the specific actions he had taken in response to the ¶7 On October 1, 1996, Peay sought final approval from the council for what he called the "first phase" of the P.U.D., which consisted of seventeen of the thirty-five lots. After a detailed discussion of each of the conditions imposed, the council voted to meet with Peay for a work session, the purpose of which was to evaluate Peay's compliance with the conditions.

twenty-nine conditions. On September 30, 1996, the city attorney submitted to the mayor and the city council his review of Peay's compliance with the conditions. He opined that Peay had not complied with many aspects of the conditions and that final approval should therefore be withheld.

¶8 Prior to the work session, at the council's request, Peay responded in writing to the city attorney's concerns and conclusions regarding the twenty-nine conditions. Thereafter, with this information before it, the council concluded that sixteen conditions had been met entirely, seven conditions had been met partially or were ready to be met, and six conditions required council action. These six conditions were the focus of the work session.

¶9 On October 15, 1996, the council then voted to adopt nine additional conditions, which modified some of the previous twenty-nine conditions. Among other things, these additional conditions (1) allowed the thirty-five-lot P.U.D. to be developed in phases, (2) allowed four of the lots to have less than 20,000 square feet but not less than 17,000 square feet, (3) required Peay to cover the highline ditch through the entire development, and (4) provided that the homeowners' association would own the spring protection area as a common area. Peay agreed to comply with all nine conditions. The council, however, did not refer these additional conditions to the commission for its review, recommendation, or approval, as mandated by the city code.

¶10 At a council meeting on November 5, 1996, Peay sought final approval for the seventeen lots comprising the first phase of the P.U.D. After more discussion of the conditions, the council voted to give the first phase "tentative final approval." Then, on November 11, 1996, the council adopted ordinance 19-96, which amended the City's zoning map and gave final approval to the first phase of the P.U.D. This ordinance specifically required compliance with "approved plans, plats, documents, conditions of approval and agreements." Peay ultimately complied with all the conditions imposed by the council.

¶11 Plaintiffs thereafter commenced this action against the City in district court, challenging the council's approval of the P.U.D. pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 10-9-1001, which states:

Any person adversely affected by any decision made in the exercise of the provisions of this chapter may file a petition for review of the decision with the district court within 30 days after the local decision is rendered.

The courts shall:

(a) presume that land use decisions and regulations are valid; and

(b) determine only whether or not the decision is arbitrary, capricious, or illegal.

Utah Code Ann. § 10-9-1001(2) & (3) (1996) (emphasis added).

¶12 Plaintiffs alleged that the City's approval of the P.U.D. was arbitrary, capricious, and illegal because the City failed to strictly follow its own ordinances, which, under the City's own code, were mandatory. Plaintiffs also alleged violations of state statutory requirements and of the state and federal constitutions. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages.

¶13 After conducting discovery, the City moved for summary judgment. The district court held that the City had substantially complied with the ordinances governing approval of the P.U.D. and, on that basis, granted the City's motion for summary judgment. This appeal followed.

¶14 On appeal, plaintiffs argue that summary judgment was improper because the City's decision to approve the P.U.D. was arbitrary, capricious, and illegal. ¹ According ¶15 In addition, plaintiffs contend that the City violated City Code § 11-5-7(4), which states that the "Planning Commission shall not approve any preliminary plat for any subdivision" unless the irrigation company or persons entitled to use the irrigation ditches "certify that the drawing [showing the location of all irrigation ditches] is a true and accurate representation." (Emphasis added.) Plaintiffs argue that this ordinance was violated when such a certification had not been made prior to the commission's granting the P.U.D. preliminary approval or considering its final approval.

                to plaintiffs, the decision was illegal because the City failed to comply strictly with several of the ordinances governing P.U.D. approval, many of which include the terms "shall" and "must."   Plaintiffs emphasize that under the City's own statutory standard of interpretation, the "[w]ords 'shall' and 'must' are always mandatory."   Springville City Code § 11-10-101(4).  Plaintiffs claim that a number of such mandatory procedures outlined as subsections of City Code § 11-4-202 were not satisfied by the City, as well as several other mandatory requirements concerning P.U.D. improvements and documentation under City Code §§ 11-4-301 to -308
                

¶16 Plaintiffs further assert that the City ran afoul of City Code § 11-5-9, which provides, "The Planning Commission shall review the final plat, final engineering drawings and documents, and shall act to approve the plan [or] disapprove the plan," and Utah Code Ann. § 10-9-204(5), which states, "The planning commission shall ... (5) recommend approval or denial of subdivision applications as provided in this chapter." (Emphasis added.) Plaintiffs argue that the commission violated this ordinance and statute when, after reviewing the plans...