Anderson v. City of Issaquah
851 P.2d 744 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A land use ordinance regulating building design based on subjective aesthetic criteria, such as requiring 'harmony,' 'compatibility,' or 'interesting' design, is unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause if it fails to provide clear, objective standards for applicants and decision-makers.
Facts:
- M. Bruce Anderson owned property on Gilman Boulevard in Issaquah, Washington, an area with a mix of architectural styles including a Victorian house, gas stations, a bank, and an auto repair shop.
- In 1988, Anderson applied for a land use certification to construct a 6,800-square-foot commercial retail building on the property.
- Anderson's initial design was a 'modern' style structure with an off-white stucco facade and a blue metal roof.
- The Issaquah Development Commission was tasked with enforcing the City's land use code, which required buildings to be 'compatible' with adjacent structures, encouraged 'harmony in texture, lines, and masses,' and mandated that colors be 'harmonious' and that 'monotony of design' be avoided.
- Over three meetings, the Commission provided Anderson with subjective and conflicting feedback, stating the design 'did not fit with the concept of the surrounding area' and lacked the proper 'feeling' for Issaquah.
- Commissioners suggested Anderson 'drive up and down Gilman and look at both good and bad examples of what has been done with flat facades' to understand their unwritten expectations.
- In response to the feedback, Anderson revised the plans multiple times, changing the roofing material to tile, altering the colors, and adding brick and overhangs to the facade.
- Despite the revisions, the Development Commission denied Anderson's application, concluding he had not been 'sufficiently responsive' to its concerns about the building's architecture in relation to the 'unique character' of the area.
Procedural Posture:
- The Issaquah Development Commission denied Anderson's application for a land use certification.
- Anderson, as appellant, appealed the Commission's decision to the Issaquah City Council.
- The Issaquah City Council affirmed the Development Commission's decision.
- Anderson filed a complaint in King County Superior Court (trial court) challenging the City's decision.
- The Superior Court dismissed Anderson's complaint, upholding the City's action.
- Anderson, as appellant, appealed the Superior Court's judgment to the Washington Court of Appeals. The City of Issaquah, as appellee, cross-appealed on procedural grounds.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a municipal land use ordinance that requires building designs to be 'harmonious,' 'interesting,' and 'compatible' with the surrounding area, without providing objective standards for these terms, violate the due process clause because it is unconstitutionally vague?
Opinions:
Majority - Kennedy, J.
Yes, the municipal land use ordinance violates the due process clause because it is unconstitutionally vague. A statute is void for vagueness if people of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. The court found that the terms used in the Issaquah Municipal Code—such as 'harmonious,' 'compatible,' 'interesting,' and 'appropriate proportions'—are not technical terms with a settled industry meaning nor do they have a common law definition. This lack of objective standards forced both the applicant and the Development Commission to rely on their own subjective 'feelings,' which led to arbitrary and discretionary enforcement. The commissioners' vague feedback and their instruction for Anderson to simply observe 'good and bad' examples on the street demonstrated the absence of any ascertainable standards. The court rejected the City's argument that procedural safeguards like appeals could cure the ordinance's vagueness, reasoning that without objective criteria, a reviewing court has no basis to determine whether a decision was proper. Therefore, the ordinance's reliance on subjective aesthetic judgments without workable guidelines is a deprivation of due process.
Analysis:
This decision significantly impacts municipal land use regulation by affirming that aesthetic standards, while permissible, must be articulated with objective and clear criteria to survive a vagueness challenge. It serves as a warning to municipalities that ordinances relying on subjective terms like 'harmony' or 'character' without further definition are constitutionally vulnerable. The ruling protects property owners from arbitrary government action based on the personal, unwritten preferences of review board members. In the future, cities seeking to enforce specific design aesthetics must codify detailed, measurable standards, potentially including illustrative examples and specific material requirements, to provide clear guidance and ensure fair application of the law.
