INTHE SUPREME COTJRT OFTIIE STATE OFIDAHO
Docket No. 32545
LANERANCHPARTNERSHIP.anIdaho )
general partnership, )
) 2007 Opinion No. 76
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
) Boise, March 2007 Term
)
) Filed: i0{.ay 23,2007
CITY OF SUN VALLEY, IDAHO, a political )
subdivision of the State of Idaho, ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
Defendant-Respondent. )
)
Appeal from the District Court ofthe Fifth Judicial District of the State ofldaho, Blaine County.
Hon. James J. May and Robert J. Elgee, District Judges.
The decision of the district court granting summary judgment is reversed and the order denyng
judicial review is vacated. The case is remanded for further proceedings.
Robertson & Slette, PLLC, Twin Falls, for appellant. Gary D. Slette argued.
Naylor & Hales, P.C., and Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley, Boise, for respondent. Geoffrey M.
Wardle arzued.
TROUT, Justice
Lane Ranch Partnership (the Partnership) appeals from the district court's order granting
summary judgrnent in favor of the city of Sun valley (the city) and its affirmation on judicial
review ofthe City's denial of three applications relating to rezoning and subdividing the Lane
Ranch property.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 1986, the Partnership's predecessor in hterest entered into an Annexation Agreement
(Agreement) with the City to annex the 700-plus acre property known as Lane Ranch. The
Agreement recited that there were benefits to the Partnership in having the city annex Lane
Ranch, and there were also burdens to the city in doing so. Lane Ranch is bisected by Elkhom
Road, with a 166-acre tract falling north of the road (the Northern Property) and the remainder of
Lane Ranch falling to the south (the Southern Property). The parties agreed that a podion of the
Southern Property would be developed into residential lots and would be zoned as RS-l,
residential. The Agreement authorized fewer residential units than would otherwise be allowed
according to the zoning. In addition, the Agreement noted that the Northern Property had
previously been zoned OS-1, open space. Various restrictions in the Agreement emphasized the
importance ofkeeping this area.$ open space land as a component of the agreement to annex the
residentially-zoned land.
At the time the Agreement was signed, the entire Lane Ranch property was not yet part of
the City. Consequently, the land technically had not yet been zoned, despite recitations of
existing zoning in the Agreement. In any event, after the Agreement was signed, the property
was annexed into the city, zoned in accordance with the recitations in the Agreement and the
Partnership then developed the Southem Property. Although the Agreement allowed for 120
residential lots, the Parhrership opted to develop only 110.
h 2001, the Partnership filed three applications with the City regarding the Northem
Property. The Partnership sought to have that property subdivided and re-zoned so that seven
residential lots could be built on what had previously been designated open space, and to amend
the city's comprehensive Plan in order to permit this development.r The city issued Findings
and conclusions with respect to each of the three applications. In doing so, the city analyzed
several factors, including the potential effect of granting the applications on the surrounding
property and the requirements of Idaho's Local Land use Planning Act (LLUpA). The city also
referred to the Agreement and made the specific finding that, with respect to each ofthe
applications, changing the zoning designation of the Northem property "would require amending
the Annexation Agreement." The City then denied each ofthe Partnership's three applications.
In response to the city's denial of its applications, the Partnership filed a declaratory
judgrnent action against the city, arguing that the Agreement did not require amendment for the
applications to be granted and requesting a declaration reversing the City's denial ofthe zoning
' The land north of Elkhom Road was originally zoned as ,.open space,'under OS-1. The
ordinance title was later amended in name only to the oR-l zoning district defined as ,.open
recreation."
applications. At approximately the same time, the Parbrership also pursued judicial review of the
City's decisions denying their zoning and subdivision applications. Both matters went before
Judge May, who ultimately concluded the Agreement effectively meant the Northem Property
could not be rezoned. Judge May concluded the Agreement's limitation of 120 units applied to
the RS-l designated area south of Elkhom Road and determined therefore, that the Partnership
had no ability to develop the Northem Property into residential lots. Judge May then retired.
When the case was reassigned to Judge Elgee, the Partnership asked him to reconsider Judge
May's decision. Judge Elgee agreed with Judge May and reiterated that, while the Partnership
was free to seek a rezone, it would do no good absent an agreement by the City to amend the
Agreement. Judge Elgee also analyzed and affirmed the Findings and conclusions entered by
the City in denying the three applications. The Partnership now appeals from both of the district
court's decisions.
il.
STAtr{DARD OFREVIEW
On appeal from the grant of a motion for summary judgment, this Court,s standard of
review is the same as the standard used by the district court originally ruling on the motion.
Intermountain Forest Management v. Louisiana pacific Corp.,136 Idaho 233,235,31 p.3d 921,
923 (2001). summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on
file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and
that the moving party is entitled to a judgnent as a matter of law. I.R.C.p. 56(c).
The burden ofproving the absence of material facts is upon the moving party. Thomson
v. city of Lewiston,137 rdaho 473,476,50 P.3d 488, 491 (2002); see also petricevich y. salmon
River canal co.,9?rdaho865,452P.2d362 (1969). The facts are drawn from a review of the
record, consisting of the motions, pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file.
I.R.G.P. 56(c). Disputed facts are to be construed liberally in favor of the non-moving pany.
conway v. sonntag, 141 Idaho 144,106P.3d,4io (2005). If reasonable minds might come to
different conclusions, summary judgnent is inappropri ate. Carl H. Christensen Familv Trust v.
Christensen, 133 Idaho 866, 870,993 P.2d ttgl (1999).
In this case, in addition to appealing the district court's grant of summary judgment, the
Partnership seeks judicial review of the city's decision denying its application for rezoning.
"The Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (l.A.p.A.) govems the review of local zoning
decisions." Friends of Farmto Market v. Valley County,l3T Idaho 192,196,46P.3d9,13
(2002), citing Price v. Payette County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 13 I Idaho 426, 429, 958 P .2d
583, 586 (1998). In an appeal from the decision of a district court acting in its appellate capacity
under the I.A.P.A., this Court reviews the agency record independently of the district court's
decision. 1d. (citations omitted); Howard v. Canyon County Bd. of Comm'rs,l28 Idaho 4i9,480,
915 P.2d,709,710 (1996) (citation omitted).
This Court does not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the
evidence presented. LC. $ 67 -5279(l). Rather, this court defers to the agency's findings of fact
unless they are clearly erroneous. Friends of Farm to Market,l37 Idaho at192,46 P.3dat 13.
The agency's factual determinations are binding on the reviewing court, even where there rs
conflicting evidence before the agency, so long as the determinations are supported by
substantial competent evidence in the record. 1d
III.
DISCUSSION
we are presented with two questions, arishg from the two proceedings before us: (l) did
the dishict court err in granting summary judgrnent to the city in the declaratory judgrnent
action' and (2) should this court reverse the city's decision denying the partnership's
applications on judicial review. We address each in tum and also discuss attomey fees awarded
below.
A. Declaratory Judgment
The Partnership alleges error in the district court's ruling that the Agreement
unambiguously prohibited development on the Northem property. on appeal, the partnership
advances two altemate theories. First, it argues the Agreement is unambiguous and allows for up
to 120 residential units on Lane Ranch as a whole, including the Northem property. In the
alternative, the Partnership argues the Agreement is ambiguous in its limitation on development
and extrinsic evidence is necessary to determine the intent of the parties.
Under Brool