Anderson v. City of Issaquah

Washington Court of Appeals · 1993 · Property

PropertyLand useZoningVaguenessDesign reviewdue processvoid for vaguenessland use certification

Facts

Anderson applied for land use certification to build a 6,800-square-foot commercial building on commercially zoned property in Issaquah. The application stalled before the Issaquah Development Commission, which evaluated the design under IMC 16.16.060 provisions requiring compatibility, harmony, appropriate proportions, harmonious colors, and avoidance of monotony. Across several hearings, commissioners objected to the building based on their sense that it did not fit the image or feeling of Gilman Boulevard and suggested general changes such as adding modulation, brick, fountains, benches, or looking at other buildings on the street. The Commission ultimately denied the application for aesthetic reasons tied to the character of Gilman Boulevard, and the City Council affirmed.

Issue

Whether Issaquah's building design provisions in IMC 16.16.060 are unconstitutionally vague because they fail to provide meaningful, objective guidance to applicants and decisionmakers and allow arbitrary enforcement. Also, whether the City's affirmative defenses on cross-appeal barred Anderson's action.

Rule

A land-use design ordinance violates due process when its terms are so vague that persons of common intelligence must guess at their meaning and application, and when the ordinance lacks workable, ascertainable standards that confine official discretion. In land-use cases, courts examine both the face of the ordinance and its application; procedural rights of appeal do not cure a design ordinance that provides no meaningful standards and allows ad hoc, subjective enforcement.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Spokane, a municipal code requires new storefronts in a commercial corridor to be "inviting," "tasteful," and "in keeping with the spirit of the district." When Elena Park applies to build a small retail building, the review board denies her application because the facade does not convey the right "personality" for the street.

If Elena challenges the ordinance under due process, what is the strongest argument for invalidating the denial?

Explanation. The majority held that design regulations violate due process when persons of common intelligence must guess at their meaning and when the law provides no workable, ascertainable standards to confine official discretion. Terms like "inviting," "tasteful," and "spirit of the district," standing alone, are analogous to the invalid standards in the case because they provide no meaningful guidance to applicants, officials, or courts and permit ad hoc enforcement based on personal feelings.