## Facts

- Michael B. Geisler purchased property in Cedar Falls’s College Hill Neighborhood Overlay Zoning District to develop an eight-unit apartment building.
- In May 2005, Geisler submitted a site plan; a city planner stated it met basic ordinance requirements.
- The Planning and Zoning Commission denied the plan after substantial neighborhood opposition, including concerns about traffic and neighborhood compatibility.
- The City Council also denied the site plan under an ordinance standard requiring compatibility with neighborhood character and scale, citing inconsistent architectural design and lack of comparable scale and character to adjoining properties.
- After controversy about development in the Overlay District, the City adopted a six-month development moratorium.
- The City later amended zoning regulations in a manner that ultimately prohibited Geisler’s proposed project.

## Issues

1. Whether the City’s six-month development moratorium was a legislative act not reviewable by writ of certiorari, or a quasi-judicial act subject to certiorari review.
2. Whether the district court applied the correct standard in upholding the City’s denial of Geisler’s site plan, including whether the denial could be justified by a later zoning change that was only under discussion when the application was filed.
3. Whether the court was required to consider evidence that the denial and subsequent zoning changes were taken in bad faith to block a compliant project.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court held the adoption of the development moratorium was a legislative function and therefore not reviewable by writ of certiorari; dismissal of that claim was affirmed.
- The Court held the district court applied incorrect law in granting summary judgment to the City on the site-plan denial claim.
- The Court reversed summary judgment on the site-plan claim and remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of evidence bearing on bad faith.

## Legal Principles

- Certiorari review reaches judicial or quasi-judicial actions, not legislative policy choices; a broadly applicable development moratorium is legislative.
- A municipality generally must evaluate a site-plan application under the zoning and site-plan standards in effect when the application is filed, not under contemplated or later-enacted restrictions.
- When a denial is followed by zoning action that blocks the same project, courts must consider whether the municipality acted arbitrarily or in bad faith to defeat a specific application.

## Conclusion

The court treated the development moratorium as a nonreviewable legislative act in certiorari but required the site-plan denial to be evaluated under the ordinances in force at the time of application and with scrutiny of potential bad faith, reversing summary judgment and remanding.


Geisler v. City Council of Cedar Falls, 769 N.W.2d 162 (Iowa 2009)