Suarez v. Grand Cnty.
| Decision Date | 31 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 20110102.,20110102. |
| Citation | 720 Utah Adv. Rep. 63,296 P.3d 688 |
| Parties | Michael K. SUAREZ, John S. Weisheit, Harold Shepherd, Jennifer P. Speers, Tara Collins, William Love, Sarah M. Fields, John C. Dohrenwend, Paul Janos, Steve Mulligan, and Barbara A. Morra, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. GRAND COUNTY, Utah and The Grand County Council, Defendants and Appellees, Cloudrock Land Company, LLC, Defendant–Intervenor and Appellee. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
J. Craig Smith, R. Christopher Preston, Salt Lake City, for appellants.
Craig J. Carlston, Logan, K. Andrew Fitzgerald, Moab, for appellees Grand County and Grand County Council.
Michael D. Zimmerman, Troy L. Booher, Wade R. Budge, Salt Lake City, for appellee Cloudrock Land Company, LLC.
INTRODUCTION
¶ 1 This appeal concerns a challenge by a group of citizens (Citizens) to an ordinance passed by the Grand County Council (Council) approving amendments concerning a Planned Unit Development (PUD) district. In the district court, Citizens claimed that the Council had acted administratively in adopting Ordinance 454 and, accordingly, that the matter should be remanded to the Grand County Board of Adjustments (Board) because the County Land Use, Development, and Management Act (CLUDMA) does not allow a person to challenge an administrative decision in a district court until that person has exhausted his administrative remedies.1 In the alternative, Citizens argued that Ordinance 454 should be set aside because the County acted illegally in adopting the ordinance. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Council and the developer, Cloudrock Land Company, LLC (Cloudrock).
¶ 2 We are required to consider (1) whether the Council acted in its legislative or administrative capacity when it adopted Ordinance 454 and (2) whether Ordinance 454 should be set aside based on Citizens' claim that the Council adopted the ordinance illegally. We conclude that the Council acted legislatively when it adopted Ordinance 454 because the ordinance is a new law of general applicability adopted after the Council weighed various policy considerations and because the ordinance has the formal nature of a legislative act. We also conclude that the Council did not act illegally in adopting Ordinance 454 and decline to set it aside.
¶ 3 On February 4, 2002, the Council adopted a resolution (2002 Resolution), approving a PUD rezoning for a nearly two-thousand-acre parcel of land, originally referred to as “Johnson's Up–on–Top Mesa” (Cloudrock Development). 2 This land is owned by Utah's School and Institutional Trust Lands Association (SITLA) and is located southeast of Moab in unincorporated Grand County. The 2002 Resolution also approved a preliminary phase 1 plat for forty-eight lodge units, a preliminary PUD master plan for the entire project, a use-on-review application for a wilderness lodge, and a special-exception application for the lodge accommodation unit size. The 2002 Resolution stated that the preliminary master plan was subject to a development agreement for the project (Original Agreement) between the County and Cloudrock's predecessor, Moab Mesa Land Company, LLC (Moab Mesa).
¶ 4 The Original Agreement provided as follows:
County and developer agree that each shall comply with the standards and procedures contemplated by the Grand County Land Use Code [(LUC)] and the General Plan, each as in effect as of the public hearing with the County Council dated April 2, 2001, with respect to all required development approvals of the uses, densities, and general configuration of the Project.3And it specified that Moab Mesa would be permitted to modify the development if the overall density of the project remained the same.
¶ 5 After the Council adopted the 2002 Resolution, Citizens appealed the Council's action to the Board, but this challenge was unsuccessful. Nonetheless, from 2002 to 2006, the Cloudrock Development was involved in litigation that stalled work on the development. During this time, Moab Mesa did not file a final plat for any phase of its development.
¶ 6 Cloudrock succeeded to Moab Mesa's interest in the development, and in October 2006, Cloudrock submitted an application to the Planning Commission in order to begin the process of amending approvals granted in the 2002 Resolution (Cloudrock Application).4 In December, the Planning Commission held a hearing to consider the Cloudrock Application. Notice for the public hearing regarding the application had previously been published twice in the Times Independent. This notice provided the date, time, and place of the public hearing and stated that “the Grand County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to hear public comment on the [Cloudrock] Amended Master Plan and Amended Preliminary Phase 1 Plat, a Planned Unit Development.” This notice also specified that Cloudrock was the applicant. Further, it described the property as “located on the Grand County/San Juan County border on the Johnson's up-on-top mesa,” and noted that “the proposed subdivision includes approximately 1900 acres of real property and 372.5 equivalent residential units (ERUs).”
¶ 7 In January 2007, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Cloudrock Application, subject to certain conditions, including that Cloudrock make specified changes to the Original Agreement. After receiving the Planning Commission's recommendation, the Council published notice of a hearing regarding the Cloudrock Application. As with the notice for the public hearing held by the Planning Commission, this notice was published in the Times Independent; provided the date, time, and place of the public hearing; specified that Cloudrock was the applicant; and described the property and its location. Additionally, it stated that “the Grand County Council will hold a public hearing to hear public comment on the [Cloudrock] Amended Master Plan and Amended Preliminary Phase 1 Plat, a Planned Unit Development.”
¶ 8 At the hearing, several people, including some Citizens, spoke against the proposed changes. Citizens also submitted written objections to the County Council, both individually and through counsel. Among other things, Citizens argued that approval of the Cloudrock Application would be illegal because approval for Cloudrock's preliminary phase 1 plat had lapsed, and that the preliminary plat was therefore void.
¶ 9 Subsequently, Cloudrock submitted its Amended Agreement, which incorporated the changes suggested by the Planning Commission. The Council then met to consider Cloudrock's Application, including its Amended Agreement and Amended Preliminary Plat. After a motion to approve the Cloudrock Application failed, the Council voted to table the matter until a subsequent meeting.
¶ 10 At a second meeting, the Council voted 4–3 to adopt Ordinance 454, which approves the Amended Agreement, Amended Master Plan, and Amended Preliminary Plat. Specifically, Ordinance 454 explains that Cloudrock had “submitted for county approval a proposed amendment to the [Cloudrock] Preliminary PUD and the Amended and Restated ... Development Agreement ..., which is incorporated herein by reference, including all exhibits thereto.” And it states that Cloudrock “and its predecessor have diligently pursued the subject Planned Unit Development and related approvals since their approval and the Grand County Council finds that such efforts constitute good cause for purpose of extending the preliminary plat approval period.” Thus, the ordinance declares that the Council “does hereby approve the ... Preliminary PUD and Master Plan as proposed, and the Amended and Restated ... Development Agreement.”
¶ 11 Ordinance 454 also directs Cloudrock to “perfect the record with regard to Use on Review concerning changes to the Wilderness Lodge and Special Exception regarding road design variations and to include all items as exhibits to the ordinance.” Additionally, Ordinance 454 outlines changes relative to the original approval of the PUD master plan, including a 67.5 percent reduction in lodging units and a 64 percent increase in mesa residential units. It acknowledges that, although the overall size of the PUD remained the same, the boundaries had changed since the original approval due to “the correction of de minimis survey errors and land trades.”
¶ 12 The Amended Agreement, approved by and incorporated in Ordinance 454, states that “[t]he Parties desire to amend and restate in its entirety the Development Agreement regarding the use and development of the Property and to incorporate the modifications to the [PUD] Development Agreement under the approved PUD Amendment.” The Amended Agreement contained several exhibits, including a legal description of the property, the Amended Master Plan, the Amended Preliminary Plat, and the Cloudrock Code. The Amended Master Plan and Amended Preliminary Plat involve maps of the Cloudrock Development. The Cloudrock Code states that it It “contains specific provisions that define (1) dimensional standards with respect to minimum lot area, setbacks, lot width and height; (2) road design standards; and (3) architectural standards, but does not otherwise modify the Grand County Land Use Code.” It also provides that “[t]here shall be two levels of deviation from the requirements of this code: [w]arrants and [v]ariances.” Finally, it defines five types of zones that will be contained in the Cloudrock Development and then provides a Regulating Plan, which is a series of maps assigning the zones within the master plan.
¶ 13 Following the Council's adoption of Ordinance 454, Citizens filed an appeal of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kuchcinski v. Box Elder Cnty.
...we sometimes use "municipality" as an umbrella term for political subdivisions of the state. See Suarez v. Grand Cty. , 2012 UT 72, ¶ 67, 296 P.3d 688 (using the term "municipalities" and "government bodies" interchangeably while discussing state actors’ obligations under the due process cl......
- State v. Verde
-
Kranendonk v. Gregory & Swapp, PLLC
...as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Suarez v. Grand County, 2012 UT 72, ¶ 18, 296 P.3d 688 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). And while a plaintiff facing summary judgment “is entitled to all favorable inferences, [sh......
-
Conilyn Judge v. Saltz Plastic Surgery, PC
...as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Suarez v. Grand County, 2012 UT 72, ¶ 18, 296 P.3d 688 (omission in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). While a plaintiff facing summary judgment “is entitled to all favora......