IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 18-0714

Filed August 7, 2019

SYCAMORE, L.L.C. and LAKE CALVIN PROPERTIES, L.L.C.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

vs.

CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Kevin McKeever, 

Judge.

The owners of property appeal from the district court ruling annulling their 

writ of certiorari challenging the legality of the decision denying their application 

to have their property rezoned. AFFIRMED.

Adam S. Tarr of Pugh Hagan Prahm PLC, Coralville, for appellants.

Elizabeth J. Craig (until withdrawal) and Sara Greenwood Hektoen, Iowa 

City, for appellee.

Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Tabor, JJ.
2

POTTERFIELD, Presiding Judge.

Sycamore, L.L.C. and Lake Calvin Properties, L.L.C. appeal the district 

court’s ruling annulling their writ of certiorari challenging the City Council of Iowa 

City’s denial of their application to rezone 42.01 acres of property. On appeal, 

the landowners maintain the district court erred in concluding (1) the City Council 

did not incorrectly apply the law in denying their application for rezoning and (2)

the Council’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record. 

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

The 42.01 acres at issue here were annexed by the City of Iowa City in 

1994 as part of the 422-acre tract of land owned by Sycamore Farms Company. 

The parcel of land lies in what Iowa City has categorized as the South District.1 

Before the annexation, Iowa City and Sycamore Farms entered into a Conditional 

Zoning Agreement (CZA). The CZA states, in part, 

[Sycamore Farms] has requested the City to annex and rezone 

approximately 422 acres of land located south of Highway 6, east 

of Sycamore Street and west of Sioux Avenue . . . from the County 

designation of RS, Suburban Residential and R3A, Multi-Family 

Residential, to RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family Residential,

RFBH, Factory Built Housing Residential, RM-12, Low Density 

Multi-Family Residential, RM-20, Medium Density Multi-Family 

Residential, RR-1, Rural Residential, and ID-RM, Interim 

Development Residential Multi-Family.

. . . .

4. In consideration of the City’s rezoning the subject property 

from County RS and R3A, Owner agrees that development and use 

of the subject property will conform to the requirements of the 

applicable zones: RS-8, Medium Density, Single-Family 

Residential, RFBH, Factory Built Housing Residential, RM-12, Low 

Density Multi-Family Residential, RM-20, Medium Density MultiFamily Residential, RR-1, Rural Residential; and ID-RM, Interim 

Development Residential Multi-Family. 

 

1 The 1997 Comprehensive Plan adopted by Iowa City divided the city into ten separate 

planning districts. 
3

Additionally, Sycamore Farms agreed “the development and use of the subject 

property will conform to” additional conditions, including taking steps to protect 

certain natural features of the land, creating a conservation easement with part of 

the land, giving the City fifteen acres to create a public school, and more. As part 

of the CZA, Sycamore Farms was also required to “acknowledge[] that the 

conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land 

under Iowa Code § 414.5 (1993), and that said conditions satisfy public needs 

which are directly caused by the requested zoning change.”

In September 2015, the current landowners, Sycamore, L.L.C. and Lake 

Calvin Properties, L.L.C.,2 submitted a rezoning application to the City Council, 

asking for the parcel to be rezoned from ID-RM (interim development, multifamily 

residential) and RR-A (low-density rural) to RM-20 (medium density multi-family 

residential). The requested rezoning would allow for the development of 675 

three-bedroom or 1000 one- and two-bedroom apartments to be built. In the 

application, the landowners claimed that the 1994 annexation of the land by Iowa 

City “was the subject of lengthy negotiations” where the City and landowners 

“were able to reach a mutual agreement regarding the properties’ annexation as 

well as their future development.” The landowners maintained the requirements 

outlined in paragraph 4 of the CZA were “a series of bargained-for considerations 

given between the parties” with the understanding the property would be rezoned 

RM-20 “once an adequate road was constructed to access the properties.”

 

2 The current landowners are successors in interest to Sycamore Farms Company, and 

the CZA—by its terms—runs with the property.
4

In October, City staff prepared a recommendation for the Planning and 

Zoning Commission encouraging the denial of the application. The 

recommendation was based, in part, on the 1997 amendment to the 

Comprehensive Plan for the South District3 as well as the City’s 2030 

Comprehensive Plan, which favored a regime of single-family housing and some 

low- to medium-density housing and disfavored concentrating large areas of 

multi-family units in one neighborhood; concern the proposed multi-family 

development lacked access to goods and services and did not have the 

necessary infrastructure in place to support it; and concern about the impact the 

development would have on wetland and conservation areas. Additionally, the 

recommendation noted:

The [landowners] contend[] that the ID-RM designation was 

negotiated as part of an annexation agreement and implies that 

there was a commitment to zone this property RM-20. Staff found 

no documentation to support the claim of an agreement to zone this 

property to multifamily. Zoning decisions must be made in 

accordance with the Comprehensive Plan after giving consideration 

to such factors as efficient urban development patterns, controlling 

congestion of streets, safety, health and welfare of the public. 

Public policy dictates that this police power be freely exercised by 

the City Council in order to respond to changes in the community’s 

needs and concerns.

The Commission also received written correspondence from the public—all of 

which urged denial of the zoning application. At a public meeting, the 

landowners urged the Commission to recommend rezoning, claiming the CZA 

was a valid agreement that gave the City consideration in the form of land for a 

new school and 190 acres set aside in a conservation easement in exchange for 

 

3 Shortly after the Commission made its recommendation, the 2015 South District Plan 

was adopted. 
5

a guarantee the land would be rezoned RM-20 once the landowners complied 

with their obligations. The City staff present at the meeting disagreed with the 

landowners’ claims, noting “future zoning cannot be guaranteed. Contract zoning 

violates public policy, the zoning power is a police power which means that the 

City Council needs to be able to respond to health, safety, welfare issues as they 

appear at the time they are considering the application.” The staff urged the 

Commission to consider the application using only the current comprehensive 

plan and the current conditions. 

The Commission unanimously voted to recommend denial of the 

landowners’ rezoning application. At the request of the landowners, the 

commission’s recommendation was deferred. 

In March 2017, the landowners asked that their application be placed on 

the City Council’s agenda for a public hearing, which ultimately took place in May 

2017. At the public hearing, the Council accepted written correspondence from 

one resident urging denial of the application. The landowners spoke on behalf of 

their application, again urging that the CZA provided for the rezoning of the land 

as they requested and noting the City’s recognized need for more affordable 

housing, which the higher density zoning would allow. The Commission’s 

recommendation was reviewed. In line with the Commission’s recommendation, 

the Council voted unanimously to reject the application for rezoning. 

In June 2017, the landowners filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the 

district court, claiming the Council’s decision was illegal because the Council 

failed to recognize it was bound by the CZA to rezone the property as requested 
6

and because substantial evidence in the record did not support the Council’s 

decision to deny the application.

Following a hearing, the district court annulled the landowners’ writ, ruling:

The Court agrees with the City Council of Iowa City’s determination 

that the CZA does not guarantee any particular rezoning decision. 

While the developers may have inferred that such a promise exists, 

it does not. The Court recognizes that the language would tend to 

support the conclusion that the land would most likely be rezoned 

at some point. However, the Court has thoroughly reviewed the 

CZA and determined that there is no provision contained anywhere 

in the CZA that guarantees that the land will be rezoned to RM-20. 

Furthermore, there is certainly no provision that guarantees that 

any particular type of rezoning will take place at any particular point 

in time.

. . . .

. . . The Court finds that the City Council of Iowa City’s 

determination that the [landowners’] rezoning plan is inconsistent 

with the 1997 and 2030 plans does not constitute a misapplication 

of the law.

The court also concluded, after reviewing the comprehensive plans for the 

pertinent area and the information in the record, that substantial evidence 

supported the Council’s decision to deny the rezoning application.

The landowners appeal. 

II. Standard of Review.

An appeal from a certiorari judgment of a district court is treated as an 

ordinary action and will be affirmed if supported by competent and substantial 

evidence. Norland v. Worth Cty. Comp. Bd., 323 N.W.2d 251, 253 (Iowa 1982). 

III. Discussion.

A. Illegal Decision.

The landowners maintain the district court erred in finding the City 

Council’s denial of the landowners’ application for rezoning was not illegal, 
7

asserting the Council was bound by the CZA to rezone the property once certain

conditions of the CZA were met.

Like the district court, we have found nothing in the CZA that establishes 

the City agreed to a future rezoning to any specific zone at any specific time. 

The language the landowners rely on in paragraph 4 of the CZA contemplates

obligations for the 1994 changes—the annexation of the land and the concurrent 

rezoning to ID-RM. Moreover, we agree with the Council that any agreement 

binding a future council to rezone land a specific way would be void. See Bd. of 

Educ. v. Bremen Twp. Rural Indep. Sch. Dist., 148 N.W.2d 419, 408 (Iowa 1967) 

(“No citation of authority is needed for the proposition that one legislature cannot 

bind future legislatures upon such policy matters. . . . The same rule applies to 

boards or other groups properly delegated legislative authority.”). “A municipal 

corporation may, by contract, curtail its right to exercise functions of a business 

or proprietary nature, but, in the absence of express authority from the 

legislature, such a corporation cannot surrender away its governmental functions 

and powers, and any attempt to barter or surrender them is invalid.” Marco Dev. 

Corp. v. City of Cedar Falls, 473 N.W.2d 41, 42 (Iowa 1991) (quoting 62 C.J.S. 

Municipal Corporations § 139, at 281–82 (1949)); see also Residential & Agric. 

Advisory Comm., LLC, v. Dyersville City Council, 888 N.W.2d 24, 40 (Iowa 2016) 

(“[W]e have long recognized that ‘[z]oning decisions are an exercise of police 

power to promote the health, safety, order and morals of society.’” (alteration in 

original) (citation omitted)).
8

B. Substantial Evidence. 

The landowners also argue the district court erred in finding substantial 

evidence supported the Council’s decision to deny their application to rezone. 

See Fetters v. Degnan, 250 N.W.2d 25, 27 (Iowa 1977) (providing a writ of 

certiorari should be granted when an inferior tribunal, board, or officer, has acted 

illegally and stating, “There is an illegality within the meaning of [Iowa Rule of 

Civil Procedure 1.1401] when the findings upon which the inferior court or 

tribunal based its conclusions of law are not supported by substantial evidence”). 

“The question posed is whether the decision is supported by any competent and 

substantial evidence, and the burden of showing illegality rests upon an asserting 

party.” McIntyre v. Page Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 538 N.W.2d 305, 307 (Iowa Ct. 

App. 1995). 

“Iowa Code section 414.3 requires that any zoning regulations adopted by 

a city council . . . ‘shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan.’” 

Residential & Agric. Advisory Comm., 888 N.W.2d at 44 (quoting Iowa Code 

§ 414.3). “This requirement was adopted to prevent haphazard zoning.” Id. at 

45. “[I]n the context of rezoning, . . . compliance with the comprehensive plan 

requirement merely means that zoning authorities have given ‘full consideration 

to the problem presented, including the needs of the public, changing conditions, 

and the similarity of other land in the same area.’” Iowa Coal Mining Co., Inc. v. 

Monroe Cty., 494 N.W.2d 664, 669 (Iowa 1993) (emphasis removed) (quoting 

Montgomery v. Bremer Cty. Bd. of Supervisors, 299 N.W.2d 687, 695 (Iowa 

1980)). 
9

The density level requested by the landowners with the RM-20 zoning 

designation was inconsistent with both the 2015 South District Plan and the 2030 

Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, concerns were expressed that the 

infrastructure was not yet ready for such a large population and that expending 

City dollars to ready the infrastructure may be ill-advised since the development 

was “leap frogging” over undeveloped land. Similarly, the 2030 Comprehensive 

Plan sets out the goal of “[e]ncourag[ing] compact, efficient development that is 

contiguous and connected to existing neighborhoods to reduce the cost of 

extending infrastructure and services.” There were also concerns the 

disconnectedness of the development would pose a problem for the lowerincome tenants who were expected because the closest bus stop was more than 

one mile away and there were no grocery stores in close proximity. These 

concerns are consistent with the zoning code, which states that RM-20, the 

medium density multi-family residential zone, “is particularly well suited to 

locations adjacent to commercial areas and in areas with good access to all city 

services and facilities.” Iowa City, Iowa, Code § 14-2B-1(B) (2017). 

As the district court noted, when reviewing for substantial evidence, “[t]he 

fact that a different result may have been fully justified by the record is of no 

importance.” We “will not substitute [our] judgment as to wisdom or propriety of 

action by a city or town council, acting reasonably within the scope of its 

authorized police power, in the enactment of ordinances establishing or revising 

municipal zones.” Anderson v. City of Cedar Rapids, 168 N.W.2d 739, 742 (Iowa 

1969). We agree with the district court that substantial evidence supports the 

Council’s denial of the landowners’ rezoning application.
10

IV. Conclusion.

Because the Council did not incorrectly apply the law and substantial 

evidence supports its decision to deny the landowners’ application for rezoning, 

we affirm the district court’s annulling of the landowners’ writ of certiorari. 

AFFIRMED.