Opinion
Case No. 20070189-CA.
Filed March 6, 2008. Not For Official Publication
Appeal from the Fourth District, Provo Department, 050403514, The Honorable James R. Taylor.
E. Craig Smay, Salt Lake City, for Appellant.
Jody K. Burnett, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Before Judges Greenwood, Bench, and McHugh.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
R.T. R.H., LLC (RT/RH) appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Lehi City (Lehi). We affirm.
This court granted RT/RH's petition for a rehearing and, therefore, withdrew its prior opinion, R.T. R.H., LLC v. Lehi City, 2007 UT App 308U (mem.) (per curiam), which affirmed the trial court's dismissal due to improper briefing.
When reviewing a municipality's land use decision, we "presume that [the] decision . . . is valid" and "determine only whether or not the decision . . . is arbitrary, capricious, or illegal." Utah Code Ann. § 10-9a-801(3)(a) (Supp. 2005); accord Bradley v. Payson City Corp., 2003 UT 16, ¶¶ 9-10, 70 P.3d 47 ("This court has long recognized that municipal land use decisions should be upheld unless those decisions are arbitrary and capricious or otherwise illegal."). A land use decision involving the exercise of legislative discretion will not be found arbitrary or capricious so long as the decision is "reasonably debatable." Utah Code Ann. § 10-9a-801(3)(b); accord Bradley, 2003 UT 16, ¶¶ 9-10, 14 ("When a municipality makes a land use decision as a function of its legislative powers, we have held that such a decision is not arbitrary and capricious so long as the grounds for the decision are reasonably debatable." (internal quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, "[i]f there is a record [of the city's land use decision], the district court's [and by extension this court's] review is limited to the record provided by the land use authority. . . ." Utah Code Ann. § 10-9a-801(8)(a)(i).
Section 10-9a-801 was amended in 2007. Because the relevant events occurred before these amendments, we cite to the earlier version.
In this case, the parties agree that Lehi's decision to amend its general plan so that six adjoining parcels received the same MDR designation involved the exercise of legislative discretion. The parties also agree that there is a record of the decision. RT/RH's sole argument on appeal is that "the record . . . disclose[s] no comprehensible basis for the decision" and therefore the decision cannot meet the reasonably debatable threshold. We disagree; the record demonstrates Lehi had ample support for its decision.
Throughout this decision, "Medium Density Residential" will be abbreviated "MDR" and "High Density Residential" will be abbreviated "HDR."
Notably, RT/RH does not ask this court to reverse Lehi's zoning decision. Instead, RT/RH argues this court should re-designate its parcel from MDR to HDR. This argument is curious given the fact that RT/RH's property has never been classified as HDR and, in fact, Lehi has repeatedly refused to provide RT/RH's parcel with that designation.
Lehi had received several requests for zoning amendments, all relating to the same area where RT/RH's property is located. Given the frequent requests for amendments and some inconsistent zoning in the area, Lehi decided "it was appropriate to look at this entire area . . . [and] determine what the most appropriate land use was." A traffic study supported development at either MDR or HDR, and Lehi proposed uniformly designating the entire area as MDR.
RT/RH and its predecessors filed two such requests, both of which sought reclassification of its parcel as HDR. Both requests were denied.
There is some question about whether the traffic study analyzed MDR or HDR use. The study's language indicates MDR, but its calculations assume twelve residences per acre, which is consistent with HDR. This inconsistency is one of RT/RH's main sources of contention. However, the fact that the study arguably supported high-density use in no way bound Lehi to that higher designation. See Bradley v. Payson City Corp., 2003 UT 16, ¶ 24, 70 P.3d 47 ("[T]he selection of one method of solving the problem in preference to another is entirely within the discretion of the [city]." (internal quotation marks omitted) (second alteration in original)).
We reject RT/RH's argument that Lehi should have designated the entire area as HDR because a few of the parcels already had projects consistent with that higher designation. This very argument was raised during the public hearings and was implicitly rejected by the city. More importantly, RT/RH has failed to demonstrate that Lehi's MDR designation was arbitrary and capricious.
Lehi's Planning Commission (the Planning Commission) then considered the proposal and held a public meeting on March 23, 2006. RT/RH's principal, Roy Hunick, and sixteen others participated in the meeting and addressed numerous issues including animal ownership, traffic, property maintenance, and bus stops. Several participants spoke in favor of MDR; others, including RT/RH's principal, argued against MDR. The Planning Commission heard all of the comments and arguments and voted six to one in favor of recommending MDR. Approximately one month later, Lehi's City Counsel (the City Counsel) considered the Planning Commission's recommendation. On April 25, 2006, the City Counsel held a second public meeting, in which RT/RH's principal and other members of the public again participated. After the public meeting, the City Counsel voted to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendations and amend the General Plan Land Use Map so that the area would be designated uniformly as MDR.
Based on this undisputed record, we affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment. The public debates before the Planning Commission and the City Counsel convince us that Lehi's decision was "reasonably debatable." See Bradley, 2003 UT 16, ¶¶ 28-29 ("[W]e are satisfied that Payson City's consideration of public comments as a justification for its zoning decision reflects a reasonable judgment that properly took into account citizens' concerns."). Even without the public debates, Lehi's decision was supported by the frequent requests for zoning amendments, the previously inconsistent zoning designations, the traffic study, and the Planning Commission's recommendation.
RT/RH's appeal asks this court to substitute its judgment for that of Lehi. This we will not do. We "do not . . . weigh the evidence anew or substitute our judgment for that of the municipality." Springville Citizens for a Better Cmty. v. City of Springville, 1999 UT 25, ¶ 24, 979 P.2d 332. Accordingly, the trial court's grant of summary judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Pamela T. Greenwood, Presiding Judge, Russell W. Bench, Judge.