The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.min.spec.03111997 . ` _,_ � � ------ ' ... . :,. � .. .niFti+.'.15 x r�':r ..' il . .. ...._ .. '':.�... :i.�. 'r7 �. � a PITKIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ��"� WORK SESSION AGENDA t`��ti�`j. • Plaza One Conference Room '° �� . •�• i . TUESDAY.MARGH 11.1997 '� 10:00 AM EXECUTIVE SESSION - Litigation,John Ely Land Negotiations,Jane Ellen Hamilton '•� �� . ` 11:30 Redstone Investments Inc(Castle)Settlement Discussions,Debbie Qe:inn ��' � I. :. IADJOURN EXECUTIVE SESSION F�- i I, ?! 12:00 LiJNCH BREAK-Lunch provided for Council and BOCC in Plazal `, '? �12:30 GMP HEARING-Stage 3 Appeal,Suzanne Wolff ( � 130 PM COUNTY MANA ER'S RFPnuT ' 1. Road Management&Maintenance Plan,Brian Pettet ;! 2. West Hopkins/Souch 7th Street Parking Restrictions,Tom Newland 3. Rec District Reunbursement Request,Tom Newland '� 4. Airport Commercial Traffic Circle Design,Lee Remmel 5. Memos of Interest c i 330 BOCC OPEN DISCUSSION j6. Future Agendas/Agenda Requests . � } 4:00 ADJOURN � � ! :. 0 t 7:00 PM THOMASVILLE/MEREDITH TOWN MEETING jLocation: Meredith Firehouse __ � • 6 4 1 } � I' _ }; i ' • 'i' ._.:,.i.._...�.��........._�.....+.._.�....__..... �..;�._ � . . ...... . ,. .. . . ._...,. . ... t:. . .� , . , .._...�...-: . , ._'� ..:...:...� � �..�. ..::'. i:_ .�. �yt,`4 _ _ 4r /. . �.:; � '�_ — r : � - . 1. �+' .. a . . I j • .. . , . . . . .. �_.�.� . . . . , __—..._ _ ._—..- -- ....� '+�.. . _...----� . . . .i�� y � : , i v y��' �y � �f'. •��' �. � "��:.i ' APPROVED 04-23-97 K�''�,,�`��'x��' ,.. r•*= iVTINUTES � '�� . ;•', - . .'".;' PITKIIV COUNTY BOARD OF COIJNTY COMMI44IONERS (:�`; ,. SPECIAL JOINT MEETING 9t`'t`' ' #'�.Y�y�'. � MARCH 11.1997 �;�^ .. T Ma or John Bennett called the S ecial Meetin of the As en �. "' . ; � Y P 8 P � City Couocil to order at 1130 a.m.in the Courthouse Annex Building �':' E � COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: City Attorney John Wochester proceeded with � , ,:. the roll call: Mayor John Benett answered present;Councit members Georgeanne Wa�gaman ,y. and Max Marolt answered presenL �`"r COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bill Tuite,Dorothea Farris,Mick '�"� " Ireland,Leslie Lamont and Shellia Roy Harper � STAGE Iii APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISiON-MOTION TO REMAND BACK TO TNE JOINT GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION , Suzanne Wolff,Staff Planner,introduced t(iis item as an application,submitted by George . Karasch,represented by Alan Richman,to appeal the Growth ManagemenYs Commission scoring of Uie application. They are requesting thaY the joint City CounciUBoard of County r Commissioners overturn that scoring based on a denial of due process. The Counci!did sustain � tl�e initial appeal unanimously and diat gave the applicant die opportunity to come forward now. � � This joint body also has to first determine that due process was denied. !f that deterniination is � made,tlien they consider remedies that are available to the applicant. i � Suzattne Wolff swnmarized,as outiined in her memorandum,the applicant requested one Metro Area residen[ial GMQS allotment to develop a free market dwelling above Stage lll Theaters. , 6 There was no competition;this was the oniy application. At t6e public hearing before the � ; Grow[I�Management Commission in January,staff presented recommended scores to the � •' Commission and recommended tliat the Commission adopt these scores. After some discussion, F t here was a motion not to a dopt t he sta f Ps scores an d t he Commission mem bers at t hat time scored the application themselves. Tlie application exceeded the minimum score in three of the � categories,but did not receive the minimum thresliold of three in the fourth category,which is maintainina design quality,historic compatibility,and community character. Therefore,the allocation was denied. She said the basis of the applicant's appeal is that the commission did not complete all of the steps necessary to score an application as specified in the code. And the failure to complete those steps denied the applicant the opportunity to have the application fully , BOARD OF COUNTY COMMlSSIONERS 1 SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 11,1997 �_ '`� i ,�, � . ._..._.._..._..,._. .. ;- . .i I � '. .. . .� . ., _ . ', , _ :l � � �` k � .. . . � . N�: .. . . L . � x - . ' ��-' ___�..—... .. ____ . �,a � � � k::. . ,>.- --- , .. ... , ...� t ��`�Y` 1 � . d1A •��f�j{�� •iv and properly considered by the Commission,and resulted in scoring errors by the members. She r said the code outlines two scoring rounds and allows discussion between those rounds,but does ` '`� not require a discussion. In this case,Uiere was only one round of swring that was done, �J essentially a preliminary round and there was no final round of scoring. A copy of her ��r':.;' memorandum summarizing this item nnd the scoring procedures is attached fiereto and made a �, -. part of tliis record as F�LHII3IT"A'. j`.; ,, i';. Ms.Wolff said that it is staff's recomtnendation that the Councii and the Board of County � _ � Commissiouers ove�turn the Growth Management Commission scoring and remand the � "� �r' upplication to the Joint GrowUi Management Commission. 1'6ey feel that the described "r':r'': procedure was not followed and therefore,that the scoring process may have been flawed. Commissioner Lamont asked if the discussion of disagreement between the commission ! members and staff flushed out enough and wiiether or not the applicant had the opportemity to participate in that discussion and offer background. � ' � Ms.Wolff responded tfiat it was a fairly extensive discussion on the part of the commission. ,� _ + However,the applicant was not able to respond to some of the issues that were coming up. But while they were discussing stafPs scores,they did get into a pretty extensive discussion of Nieir � ! concerns with stafPs scoring and how they would consider rescoring it or providing different �Y'F scares. F�' • � e � Commissioner Farcis quastioned if there was any discussion prior to getting to the fourth � ' category. i iMs.Wol{f responded that when they got to tl�at category,before they scored,there was some discussion und the some of the commission members were presenting reasons why they did not j agree widi staft's scoring and why t(iey felt that it did not warrant a threshold score of a tivee. And that is when t6ey decided that the they should allow the members to score tl�emselves. � Then they took a vote,tUe scores were called out,and the meeting ended. - ; ; Council member Waggaman questioned that in the discussion before the first vote,was there � enough discussion for people to have a reasonably good sense that this was going down I flames � or was it still pretty amorphous? � Ms.Wolff responded that everyone in the room was pretty sliocked or suprised when the actual � vote came out. She said that ihere was definitely strong sentiment in the design category;people r disagreed and felt that it did not meet the criteria. But she does not think that anyone at that E point was aware that ihis project was not going to meet at least tlte thres(iold. � '< Council member Wagggaman asked Ms.Wolff if she thinks that people left the meeting because they thought they had their vote,that they had no alternative and they forgot thut they were ' supposed to have two votes. Was the issue of the second vote brought up at all? i , Ms.Wolff responded that the issue did not come up. Staff did not bring it up,nor did ihe Commission bring it up. . Council member Max Marolt said that getting back to due process,the applicant went in there �' � ' with a criteria to compete with other projects and there was no other projects so there was no � ! BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2 SPECIAL MECTINC MARCH 11,1997 . . ..,.......,._.. ...... .. . . ... .... . . ... .r . ... . . .. .. .. . .. .. . �.,. ��:14 : � , . . y �a . . . � t��'.�.�. . 1 � ' . 1�.. . ' _� .. '"" _-"___'_�.-"� . ` �__ _ _ _._..�- _., , . -a�� ..� „o, �� . ._• � . � ------ —�- .� ,:: �'��;; �''.'l�y ��u�.j:i:;.. rpv.y'�, <S.1�'�'.: competition. As a result,it would be very difficult to score compared to anything else,if you '� didn't have tlte competition. So if they had competiteon,this score may have scored I00 perceni. � But as it worked out,there was no competition and it scored at the bottom of the scale because ;�� everybody voted very nonchalant . .:�; Commissioner Lamont said when the LaBurge was scored there was a huge amount of '' ' discussion because staffwas recomme�ding denial. Because of the recommendation of denial, . Yhe applicant had to bring in some amenities to pull the score up. She diinks a project should be - scored and stand on its own to meet the ihreshold. She refen�d to Alan Richmond's letter of appeal in which fie says tliat in the old days of scoring not meeting thresho(d in one category did p:�'� kill the project. She said she disagrees with this. That someone liad to meet threshold in every �_:: � single category. _ i . ICommissioner Harper explained that part of the process problem is that the Commission does not have a real submission nor are they looking at the detail that they nonnally see in conceptual . � and de[ailed submissions. . . ' I ,� � Commissioner Lamont said because the second score did not occur,she would rtcommcnd � : � that we find t6at tlte technical aspect of the process was not thoroughly pursued nnd , because of that there was not the ability to have a give and take discussion with a question and ans�ver period amongst the Joint Commission. She explained thnt when the Growth � ' Management section of tl�e cocle tvas tivritten,it was with t1�e envision to give tLe ability for applicants and people to be outside of the box and work together to come up wit6 the best . - � � project av�ilable. Therefore,she would move that the Board go with the City CounciPs � recommendation. CommissionerHar�erseconded the motion. Motion pnssed � � unanimously. i � i ! A discussion ensued as to whether or not the application should be sent back to the Growth �� . Management Commission. f ; Mayor Bennett said that remandiug the application back to tha Commission was certainly the wny he felt personally at the end of their meeting. He thinks the majority of the City Council felt 1 the same way. _ : e � t ; Council member Waggaman said she suppods remanding and the reason for that is because they y � did not get a chance to reconsider and revoke. f � � i Lenny Oates,representing the applicant,said they think tliis is a City project and therefore,they would like to propose an option of sending it back Yo the City Planning and Zoning Commission ' � because its the one that is going to have to analyze the rest of this applicatian. ti � � _ ! John Wochester pointed out that the municipal code says remedies available for the Joint City Council/Board of County Commissioners shall include,but not be limited to and he thinks this is what Mr.Oates is lianging his flag on. However,he would strongly recommend that this not to ! follow Mr.Oates'recommendation. ? i -: � 1 : BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 3 SPECIAL MEETING MARCH I1,1997 1� ,_..___. .___.. _._.__.. . _ �. _ t . � �� ' � .-- . . .. . . . .. . . . .._ ..__.. i7ra� . F� / . � � , �'_' . � � _ . . � � � t�.�.�. t' . � _ i; . _ I� . • • . . . �, _.__ . .___ . _ '"___.'—�_—'� . . . �.�.,,�__' _"—.�.--._._ _.._..�_._. ._ n�y _..,. ^ ,:. �--- --- ----- __ . � •- ---_. ; : �'�� `:i�:: . ��±A�`.,- °'.�±.��,�{', After a discussion,it was the consensus of Board ntembers and Council members th�t the "" . direction should be to sand it back to the Joint Growth Management Commission due to the Fact that this is how the process and the rules and regulations are set up. �i •' � Council member Marolt stated that he thinks jointly there should be an amendtnent to the ' .`'•; i process. ' ' Cindy Houben,County Community Development Director,said she thinks it is important to note that the scoring criteria is the same for the City and the County when they are looking at diese applications. Another issue is she thinks that one thing that happened during the amendment ; process which was an over site,was the ability to go back and make changes to an appfication if y'� ' j you are the only person in the competition without having to wait a year because that is a true !":' � hardship. For whatever reason,this was left out ofthe amendment. + I- . ' Commissioner Farris moved to remand the application back to the Joint Growth i; Management Commission. Commissioner Harper seconded thc motion. L F � �! - t Cowtcil member Waggaman asked if something could be put into the motion to ask them to � review it with no prejudice? ;�; � �� C6airman Tuite responded that he thinks the fact that the we are choosing not to score or ' - overturning their vote says a lot. Rather,we are simply saying that due process was not followed � • ! Suzanne Wolff said stafPs recommendation is that everything starts at the beginning of the ' process. � :, i 4 iStaff was directed to go by their recommendation of staRing from the beginning with two votes. , � Commissioner Lamont said the message whe wants to send to the Commission is that we want to �� encourage creativity and dia(ogue amongst the applicant and ttie Growth Ma��agement � . f` � Commission. ii ' j �; �� A discussion ensued as to whetlier or not the applicant has the opportunity to change their } 4 i application. ; •4i � Mr.Wochesfer said that staff will research this matter and will tell the applicant whether or not � _ S , 8iey can amend their application. ;. � � i � �' Staff was directed to research this issae and make sure that it follows the exact letter of the law. E i' Mayor Bennett suggested that after this motion is voted on that a motion be made to direct staff ' to follow tip with the amend�nent that Cindy Houben has suggesied for future applications. ! C6airman Tuite called the question that tliis application be rems►nded back to the Grawtle Management Commission to begin their scoring process from the beginning. Motion ' passed unanimously. ; � � 1 �, , BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 11,]997 � �' � Ia ; ' . , ____._.. .___._.. '- _ -_ . . ._ 'xt' �F / ,. � Y � . , . t��• ' Y . C . / � , � . �ly. . _ . '"- ...'__.'""_'_'_'� � . , �� _".. __"' _� '" '"_ .._ ... 4�i� _1i , __. .. . . ._. . . .. ......��:fv'.¢k<':kitSrK .'::.'�vgs;lti�'` � a`�A "'�� ;.��. ls}� s.t ,�t� , Mayor Bennett moved that we request our staffs to research and make a bring back a recommendation to us the issue of the�mendment that Cindy has suggested. �. � Commissioner Farris seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. �� t :�' � Joe Edwards expressed his opposition to remanding this project back to the Joint Growth ' � Management Commission. He proceeded to argue his case as outlined in his letter to the Board � regarding this issue. A copy of this letter is attached hereto and made a part of this record as :;' � EXAIBIT•ag�r � �� . t . . - AAJOURNMEN'I': The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p.m. l': (•:. , C' F, . � , i i � t L F: _ : t: i i i i: _ I e � t i � � � � � , t � ; ___ , I � � , i � i E � i . ( � k . � . � .»��:' � � `�i > il`.. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 5 SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 11,1997 'i :` i �. '1.. �: _.....---_.�..__:�:.. _.. __-. . _.__ J ___ - ,; __...._._.____ --�--- �_ .. .. ... .. .. .. . ....... .�.., � [ �� . � � . .. . ' ' �t .w.. . / . . . � . '� ' 9 �.,:.'.. : � . -'. . . � , .' . . . - tl:� ��. , � � . . �, ,. . _ . � � � " �. : s � � . .i.' . . . , ';r,'., . . . . ' . . , � � � ' � � i . . � • . . . , . ( . >'. j - . � . . . '.� � � �_T—. ----_.- , —---��-- --... �t .?� ��- � � - . _.,�. , -•• -- _ ,...,: �� €:�k;,;, .� •>< :'�y'�� ;�i '� �f, p��f 1 Res ctfully su6mitte , S .. 1 ' �� / � ��,�• I anette Jones ' � .':'' Clerk to the Board of C ty Commissioners ,,_ .s.. �; v �^, �' __:1� Bill TuiY , �.•, : Board of County Commissioners �=._ �;_ ;. , - � _ ,, -F i � . � ' � ; e ` � i � ; � �; - [ i € € , � ': f t 5 � 1 .._.____.: _. . � i . ( � � � i � � �: r ; '`v I Submitted for approval on Aprif 23,1997 ' ;w�. pcjmj/ww/g/minuies/1997/03-I1-97 u"` ��._-.,, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 6 SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 11,1997 - 'n ____._..._------- :;,�:,..� f. __._ - ----- _..:..1..� :__ _ .�...___ __...__. ��, �_ .__....� _. .__. �� _ . / , . . . ".. - • � 5:� � �� . � . - f . �'�.�'3.,.•.:'..�. . �t .. . .. 1 . � � `, .. � `. . ��.. V �.\ � . . . , . F.i . . .. � � . . '• . . �. . � � . ' . . . � . .. . • . � . .. ' . . . ' , � . . , . f / ' � .. . ... . ..-_..__ __ . .....��_��'-�-�-i �p,D �..- _ . .. ,... _`_ _ _,__ .___� . �h;�' ...9i4� .�. .. . ... .. .... . . _ . . ....i . . .. . � s. ......i. :.. +� `��.' /��J � 1��4.,�1u �ti"/�_7/ � Yi'{'-,.#>f��Yj'.�. a.�c!,..�..�t��;. ,.�;- n��o�rrnu�i - - =�� TO: Aspen City Councit "•��:�'� Board of County Commissioners �,i',-' ' TFIRU: Amy Margerum,Qity Manager , �;��.,�, . Tom Ne�vland,Assistant County Manager ; ' � ..q::.�:;7:�'= THRU: Stan Clauson,City Communiry Development Director , � �.;_.i;ji'...'. ', Cindy Houben,County Community Development Director ,�,.,,,,. ',��.:: ;;..,. � FRONI: Suzanne Wolff.Planner �._, �.. i ^{ � ;: ': �: Sta�e 3 Penthouses-Appeal of 1996 Metro Area Residential GMQS Scoring ;q,;; � t'.;>.:, . � DATE: March 11,1997 �,. •: t � !:t; .. SUMVIARy: George Carisch,represented by Alan Richman,has submitted aq appeal of tlte GroMh �':i � �(anaeement Commission's scoring of the Stage�Penthouses application. The notice of appeal requests �� y�r diar diejoint City CouncilBoard of Counry Commissioners overcurn the Gro�vth Manasement ' `�` ! Commission's scoring based on a denial of due process.The notice of appeal is attached as E.�chibit A, - and was received by the Community Development Director widiin the required 14 day period afrer the � Council's decision. � y On February 10,Council sustained the initial appeal based on a denial of due process,which�ave the applicant the opportunity to submit this appeal to the joint CoanciUBoard. '� � � BACKGROUND: The applicant requested one meho area residential Gb[QS allotment to develop one � free market dwellin�unit above the Stage 3'I'heaters. No other applications were received for the 1996 �. competition. A copy of the appiication is included as E:chibit F. ! � r .� At the public hearin�before the Growth Mana�ement Commission on January l4,1997,staff presented � � recommended scores to the Gro�vth vlana�ement Commission,and recommended that the Commission adopt these scores: Althou�h adoption of staff's scoring is not addressed in the procedures in the Code, - ', -� staff has presented tl�is option in the past�vhen there was no competition for allocations. Staffawarded � � tlte project a total score of 12: the application met the minimum threshold score of three poinu for each • ,i of the four growth management scoring criteria, The staff inemo and score sheet are attached as Exhibit j � B. � . � �� Afrer discussion of the criteria and staff's recommended scores,the Commission members determined ` t hat t hey did not agree with stafFs scorin�. The Commission members then scored the application individually and staffcalculated final average scores for the four criteria. The tally sheet of the Commission's scores is attached as E:chibit C. The application exceeded the minimum threshold score of t ' three fn three of die scoring categories,but did not receive the minimum threshold score of three in the �; ":blaintaining desi�n qualiry,historic compatibility and community character"category. Section =' 36.t00.060(C)(5)of the Aspen Municipai Code states,"No growth management allocation shall be �� awarded to projects that do not receive a final average score of at least three points for each of the gro�vth � J : ti,.� k+h� i_:i�:: _ . -� .. .. _. . . .. . . .._....__.. __ .� . . . .____�__...... _._..—__...... .......__.. . . . . r.,` --_ � .. . . . . .._.__. / . � � ' � . � . . _ . � f'�' i . � ' . , � .. i .. , � . ' , .. . � �. . —�—�"---^--'__. _.._.._._. _.. .__ .. __. ..:_......__.___"�. . �� , o.� �":. `-- --- ., .t - --�._� . ..�: . �x.R . .,., � �.�. ...,, . . ... . .. .....�.... ....... „ �'��L . r A.f;��r ; Y},, �,i";':'';�:a}.'4�: manugement scoring criteria",therefore,the albcation was denied. The minutes from the Growth �.;! � Manaeement Commission meeting on January 14,t997,are attached as E:diibit D. i'� , 'ii`i•s� 's; - ._ ,%a. AUT$ORTTY TO REVLEW APPEAL: Section 26.100.060(Dx3)of the Aspen Municipa!Code provides in part, �;'��'�" �' In revietiving an appeal,the joiirt Ciry Cowrcil/Bonrd of Counry Commissioners shall act on the .� l�`: �� basis of the record established by the Growth ei�anagement Commission.The appellant shall have the bwden of persuasion in fhe appeal. "`�_:�;:;; ',' Tire joirtt City CounciUBoard of County Commissioners shall affirm the scoring of the ';,�;�"':; Grotivth Managemettt Commission wrless it determines that there was a denial oJdue process or ab:ue oJdiscretio»by the Growth Monagernent Commission in its scoring,in which case the <<k:''�:` : joint City Cauncil/Board of Counry Commissioners sha/1 take such action as it deems necessary ;�';':" '� ' to remedy the Growth hfanagement Commission's action,Remedies avarlable m the joint City ';. Council/Board of Counry Commissioners shal!rnclude,but not be limfted to amendi�rg the �; , • number of points mvarded or rema»ding!he developinent opplicafion to the Growth ��F �Llanagement.Canmission for rescoring. - 77re decision of the joint City Council/Board of�ounry Commissioners shall eonsfitute ° the final administrative order on 1he matter. � `,�F BASIS OF APPEAL: The basis of the applicant's appeal is tfiat tfie Growth ildunagement Commission p ' did not complete all of the steps necessary to score a growth management application,as specified in the '�° - Code,and that failure to complete these steps"denied the applicant the opportunity to have the application fully and proper(y considered by the Commission and resuited in scoring errors by the � members." Please refer to the attached notiee of appeal(E:chibit A)For a more specifie discussion of the basis for the appeal. �5 i � 77ie scorina procedures as specified in Section 26.100.060(C)(3)of the Code are provided befow for � reference. � + a. �'ach Grotivth:�tunagement Commissiort menrber sha11 assign a whole number score(no[ j afrnctionol numberJ�o.the project. ' i b. Follotiving the initial scorirrg,coinmission members shall be free to discvss individual scores cmd to offer justrfication for se�ch scores. c. Fallowing the close o,f Growth 14fanagement Commission discussions regarding initial -- scoring,a frnal scorirrg ro:md ivill be held,during svhich each Growth Management Commission rnember sha11 again iden[ify the number of points,e.rpressed as whole f numbers,nssigned to the projecr.Growth Management Commission members sha[I be � free to revise the number of points mvarded to a project behveen the prelimrnary and c j frna!scoring rounds. � d. After the close af the frtta!scoring rox�nd,a project s final average score shall be calculated by(1)tolaling the canmissioners'individnal scores and(2J dividing that total . i� by a number eqaral!o the num6er of commissioners who parricipated in the final scoring round.Final average project scores shall be calculated for each of the four growth j � management sroring criferra of Secrions 26.100.080(C)(1),26,100.080(C)(2), � 26.100.080(C)(3)and 26.100.080(CJ(J),cmd a c:rmzrlative score shall be cale:�lated jor ! !he cri�eria as a who[e.The fi�ral average cumulative score calculated purs:rant to this provisiw:sha11 constit:rle rhe projects final score. • I ' e. Projects shal!be ranked in order af their finol average scores. � � k ! �. ;. 2 j ;I, . T� � . .,....- .. . ..._.__._ '"._'._........ .... ._...'"'.. . .....'""""'__ .._... . ... ...... . .._.._. . . .. .. . .....��Y� �, .. -. � , , . ._ ............ �-� . . . ' � .. . .. .. .._ .-... . . . � .`:1N .- / � � �:'` �1 - . r,. ' , , •i. f ' - .. ' , h .• , • y.�...""_'--- _-�-�.-__ ___., .. - _ _ . .__ .__.' —..�._t :�,} }-: ._ .. __---- — —.: . . , . ----- _ . a c ' �,� s � ��,ti';`''.; s,.��. ,�t��:, • , f. The projec[rn�tkings and nnv recamnerTdations for the ativard oJoptiaia!maxinr:rn: �`� . alfom�errts shal!be fonvarded to N7e City Coutrcil and Board of County Canmissio�rers. w;a The Code specifies that a preliminary and a final scoring round shall be held. The Commission only held one scoring round on this application. Estensive discussion of staff's recommended scores occurred • prior to the Commission's scoring,.but no discussion occurred following the scoring. Although the Code ' does not require the Commission members to discuss or justify their scores between scoring rounds,a second scoring round provides the members an opportuniry to reconsider their scores. The applicant in _ this case�vas denied the possibility of revisions since the procedure in the Code was not followed. , i'�";; ' i. - i:�.;. A letter from Joe Edwards,representing the Concept 600 Condominium Association,asserts that due �^':• process was not denied and that the scoring should be affirmed by the CouncilBoard. Tfie letter is � � ;-, . attached as Eshibit E. �' ; �. .�1LTERNATIV�ACTIONS: The Council/Board has the following options to respond to the appeal,as '' provided in Section 26.100.060(D)(3)of the Code: � ;. � . . :� �; l. The Council/Board may affirtn the scoring of the Gro�vth Management Commission. This action '! shall constitute the final administrative order on the matter. � � 2. The Council/Board may overturn the Gro�vth Management Commission's scoring and take such • action as it deems necessary to remedy tlie Commission's action. Remedies available include, but are not limited to.amending the number of points awarded or remandin�the application back • � to the Commission for rescorino. �� The applicant requesu that the Council/Board amend the number of points awarded,or if the preferred f f remedy is to remand die application to the Growth Nlana�ement Commission for rescorino,that U�e -; iCounciiBoard consider remanding the application to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission only, :( whicli�vould sit as the Growth Management Commission for this application only. The applicanYs j3 justiftcation for this request is included in the notice of appeal(E:chibit A). RECOD�D�IENDED ACTION: Staff agrees�vith the applicant that the prescribed procedure was not f?' followed,and,therefore,that the scoring process may have been flawed. Staff also recognizes that this RF, "denial of process",tlioueh"unfair",may not legally be considered a"denial of due process". However, f �j in urder to uphold the importance of the scoririg procedure as established in the Code,staff recommends F i'.: that Council/Board overturn tlie Growth Managemenc Commission's scorin�and remand the application f _.-�� to the joint Growth Management Commission for rescoring. �i � r f If the application is remanded,staff requests direction from the Council/Board as to how the Growth ' f � �` Vtana,ement Commission should proceed witli the rescorin�. Specifically,staff�vould su�gest that the E ± full scoring process should occur,whereby staff and the applicant would make presentations to the � Commission,and the Commission would complete Rvo scorin�rounds. This would allow the E � '� ' Commission to proceed�vithout tryin�to reassemble the exact members who were present at the original ' scoring of the application. a: i �� i~ i. i I F t � � � i ' ___ _ .___"_ ._�.,._ ,__.. . ._—..�'�_'_"__—_ ....__._�,._�...._. '_"'...:.:... _�.........._.. .. .-..;:..,:___- � �. .. i+qC i .. �--� �._..._ . � . '�A _.. / . - . . • .'y:� y O . � � � ' , . �_ ... �� .. • .. (,.' . . . . . � . ` . . " '. . . ....._�_.—.__---. x,. �-_- . ._��.�'_" "___—"' —___'"' '_' enA •�:. ��.� _. . . -:,,. .. ..... ... :-_ ..:_....— �, z��.;-�� . � Eshi�it�: � � � A. Notice of Appeul . , iB. Staff memo and score sheet dated January 14,1997 . !- ( C. Growth Management Commission Tatly SheeY ? D. Growth Management Commission Minutes-January 14,1997 !�� E. Letter from Joe Edwards dated February 5,1997 . � F. Letter from Leonard Oates dated February 7,1997 . �..' Attachments � __ �: l. Application,including supplemental information submitted 11/2.1/9 and 1/14/97. � 2. Letter from Joe Edwards dated February l9,1997 � i t • , " f !: . � . � . . � � �. � . ! � (' ' ' � . �` j . . . ' �. E ' � � ` � S ,� i . i � � {......_.--.—•_ ,... � � � n � � . P . ' :t i_ I; �M1 � � �f 4 � !:1 x �' ....__.�,,,�,o.... ..� ..�--�-- -'--^....� y.Yi..��:��,..x,�,. . ,,,;;i�i:..::ru:.i'+:.�'vv�..+--._"'___.... ._ , . 1 .ff—""_ . . . :l � . � . 7�h: � a�{ . . i. . . . � . ' _ . . . . . '- . � - �h�`�,. � . �} .'' r . . —+ ' . . . ' • . - .� ' . � � . �'��.\1.� .. �l ' _ . . . . . . . � . � .� ... � - � . . ' . .. . • . . ::�-.. �'.� .. - � . . � � . . .. " . . � ' � . . . .. 1 .. � . . � . . . . . . • . ' . 'i/` ' .. .. _..__- . ..—._��.__ � .___�_.—�—�--} . . . '�� .fi�� Y , ,: � � � --.- __.._ __,r...� ..... ,�,. ....... .__ . .�... � , ;: Fx Ei'((�i T r�- �`�: ��' ` 1'��tttti }GGC�� eALls�tut� Se2G�GCed �;�'4��;';; �`/ �— t;i�_.,. �' ,�.� �ax 3613 r¢a�uw L'�� l bl2 '�l.a.c�/�ax (9?O) 920-1 l25 '-r.`�':.;; . `.,_ . February 18, 1997 -- . . , -��.�': +� .a.: ;r� ' City Council of the City of Aspen � Pitkin Counry Board of County Commissioners .. ; c%iVlr.Stan C7auson,Community Development Director - 130 South Galena Street Aspen. Colorado 81611 :Y' � RE: NO'TICE OF.APPEr1L OF STaGE 3 THFATERS RESIDENTIAL GMQS SCORING Dear Stan and Counc�and Board Members, ��q�r?•` �,I`,�. Please consider this letter to be a notice of appeal of the scoring by the Growth ,�� Management Commission of the Stage 3 Theaters Residential GMQS Application for one :. ' (1) free market unit and three (3) affordable"housing units. The scoring was conducted ! during a public hearing held.by the Growth vlanagement Commission on January 14,1997. � j The appeal is being submitted on behalf of Mr. George Carisch {hereinafrer, "the I Appellant"),a managing partner of Carisch Brothers,a il�Iinnesota General Partnership,the � property owner. It is submitted pursuant to Section 26.100.060 D.of the Aspen Land Use. Regulations,Cha(lenges and�Qpeals Made by Aggrieved Parties. . i Section 26.100.060 D.1. provides as follows: ` .i.'. "Upon receipt of t/ie Growth ddmtagement Commission's ra�:ldng of development applications, '! the Citv Council shaU conside.r any appealr made by persons a�rieved by tke scoring of the Growth,Yfa�iagement Cammissio�:. T1:e Ciry Council's review of an appeal shall be limited to �' idetermining whether there was a denin!of due process or abuse o/'discretiac by the Growth j iYtanagement Cammission. Any appeaLr must be fzled within fourteen(14)days of the Growth � .i �Kanagement Commission's public hearvig by jtling a norice of appeal with tfte Communiry � Development Director." Section?6.100.060 D.2 then goes on to provide as follows: "L�reviewing an appea�the City Council shall consider the development applicadai based on �� the record established by the Growth�tifanageme�it Commirsion. The Ciry Council sliall affirm tfte scoring of the Growth Management Commission,�utless it determines that dtere wcrs a denial of due process or abecse of discredon by the Growth Management Commission in iu scorin�in `' _ whidi case the City Council shall overtun:tlie Growth Management Commission's scoring of � � the application." � ' i j v ': � _ ____ . ti,�,�. _. . __ _ _. . r - _ . . _ , . , �'� � Y � +� . . .� . .II,. • Y - ' , '�,i .• �- _T__. __' -_ .�_.__ . .__. . ..._.._.__.._.__, - . ,�.y , � � ,�: ,. _ _ -- . � . _.__ . ....:,.�._. . ..........._.... _ _ i. �2�3,��y,��`+. 33tt�-ti .��.c'. Mr.Stan C7auson �'�`.'.,��'�'� �' February 18, 1997 u• _ Page Two '�''' �' �., As provided by these Regulations,the Appellant submitted a nouce of appeal to the City �`'' �.�.„ Council on January 27,1997. On February 10,1997,the Aspen City Council considered the '- = • notice of appeal and by a unanimous vote of 5-0 decided to sustain the appeal. ��'� '' Therefore,as provided by Secrion 26.100.060 D.3.of the Aspen Land Use Regulauons,the � ` ��`'' " Appellant hereby files this notice of appeal to the Aspen City Council and the Pitldn County s:�-+..�-�• Board of County Commissioners. Ck;_;".: -. � In this appeal we will demonstrate that the applicant was denied due process during the Growth Ytanagement Commission's scoring. We request, therefore, that the joint Ciry ±�, CouncilBoard of County Commissioners remedy the Growth Management Commission's ,, , • action,as authorized by Section 26.100.060 D3. of the Aspen Land Use Regularions. � • . � Basis of Appeal • „;;r. The basis of the applicant's appeal is thaf the Growth Management Commission did not ,�'r complete all of the steps required to score a growtfi management application,as speci6ed �� . in the Aspen Land Use Regulations. Failure to complete all of these steps denied us the opportunity to have our application fully and properly considered by the Commission,which is a denial of the due process specified by the Aspen Land Use Regularions. � � � � Growth management scoring procedures are specified in Secrion 26.100.060 C.of the Land Use Regulations,Allocation Procedures for Non-Exempt Development It provides that: i � "a. Each growtit managemertt commission member shaU assign a whole isumber scare(not a fractional number)to tke project. s b. Following the inidal scorin� commission members slzall be free to discuss individual scores and to ojJ'er justificadon for such scores i � c. FoUowing the close of Growth,Lfanagement Commission d'ucussions regarding initial � � scorin� a ftnal scoring round will be held, dwo:g which each Growth Management � •I Commission member sha1T again identify the number of poinu, expressed as whole numbers, assigned to the project. Growth Maiiagement Commission members shall be � free to revise the number of poin�s awarded to a project benveen the preliminary and fznal scaring rotuids." � ; As the record of the Growth Management Commission hearing shows,the Commission did not perform both the required preliminary and final scoring of the application. Only a single ; round of scoring was performed and no discussion of individual scores or justification of such `' scores was offered. Therefore,that single round of scoring must,according to the Aspen -+ , � Land Use Regulations,be considered the Qreliminarv_and not thz final round of scoring. �` i � I ' _ . -- -._____ __ _ . ' - � -.-_ }� ; ' . / � � ��1�. ` - � � . . - ' �i�., . � • . L. ' � _ ..._ _. '.._ . .__'_-�•_�__-' . . � � .�f��__. ._�--��... .._. . ._.._ � Aj� � --,- . . _ _., ._�.---- � ___ _� - ... .- - -�. ---. ._ .___. - ...._. _ . ; •: �t: I ��. �' �:: ;,��a,:� . ,��,.;' ':��: �,� �v1.r.Stan Clauson February 18, 1997 i.,�"i� Page'Ihree .l The fact that Growth Management Commission members did not discuss their score or offer ' justification for the scores given is of crucial importance to their action on this application. We have attached to this letter a copy of the scores given to our project by the Commission. °- ��'� It illustrates that our project exceeded the threshold score(an average of 3 points)in all of • 1:,�_ , the categories except for the 5nal category, Maintaining Design Quality, Historic ':� ' � Compatibiliry and Community Chazacter. • I , In that one category,our project received.a score of 3 or 4 from five members and a score • of 1 or 2 from four members. If there been a discussion of the preliminary scoring by the , members,some of the members who scored us below the thresho3d could have increased �+ , - their scores to 3,while some who scored us at or above the threshold could have increased `� their scores to offset the unexpectedly low scores �ven by the other members. We say ' "une:�pectedly low", because staff had recommended a score of 3 for this criteria and an � : ove:all score for our project that met the threshold for an allotment. I ' The discussion and justification of the scores would have been particularly relevant in this instance,because af the comments made on the record by neigt�bors to this project. As the ' ` record demonstrates,several of our neighbors made emotional comments to the Commission �; regardin�their anricipated loss of views from our proposed project_ However,consideration � of the impacts of development on private views, as opposed to public viewplanes, is not ` ,� within the purview of the.Growth Management Commission. The standards for this scoring category are instead as follows: � � j� 'Area residerets recogrzize the impoaa�tce of design wuliui ihe [arger fdstoric setting of the k �� communicv. It ir a vital component of the commurtiry s ea�wmic well-being and cullural � ;� heritage. They believe ar�chitecnue should support and enhance community life. Their goal is f� to ensure the maitttenmice of commiuiiry cliaraaer tluougli design quality and hisroric features. j ' :: ' s There are a variety of ways in which a project might address rhe goal of maintaining design � -. � qualitv, huroric compaabiliry and communiry character, uzctuding bttt not limited to the ?. t following: ' ) 6 � a. restoring struct�tres tisted 'ui the inveittory of ltistoric strzectures; , �` . b. improving and maintainuig rhe appearance and functiat of alleys for commercia�a,ffice � � arid residendal uses; � c e�ucuing design compatibJity wide zn'sdng builduigs uz the viciniry ojthe proposed projec� � iri ternu of scale, massii:� bc�ilding materiaLs,fenzstration, other architectural features - � mtd open space; ''�. -- � � � � d including porches or other'pedestriaii friendly"features,• '` ,� , 9 � � '' ._ .- . . ..,...._._.. �. .._—_ 1� ._._.. ........_............. �...... ......�.' . . .. .'� .. .. .; .. . .. - .' " . 4 , . i� - �. . 5 . . _ /'�`��. � � -�a . 1 - • ' ... i. .. . � . . . i .� .. 'A•. �-- . —_"—�- � --- �.--, — � --... ._._ . . �----�--._._.-..� ��1 .. _ . , :.:. . ------ � _ . ..., _.�. t _..._.._ � Y�A i �' . . . ��4 ��{�±'•L^•{� .. � MI.SC2I3 CI8IISOR � :��."'-.%LXk'' February 18, 1997 - Page Four �`• i, � retaining and promoting eclectic a�ul varieta!businesses along Main Street that maintain ...'•, and enhance the special character of the hutoric dispict; `•• �'. f. ensuring the site's usability for social activities." � ' . i'�"<. _ As can be readfly seen,these standards,while not intended to be all encompassing,do not ;`;r^' in any way speak to the issue of private views. Instead, they address design compatibilitv with regard to scale,massing,materials and fenestration and also consider a number of other ;I'��` • neighborhood,community and social concerns that are of a uP blic•not a private nature. i • : � Given the emotion e�ressed by members of the public regarding this issue, and the �, . , comments of one Growth Management Commission member prior to the scoring that their � ► emorions could have a powerful influence on the members,we.feeI particularly ag�-ieved � . at not having had the opportuniry to hear the Commission members who scored our project , below threshold justify their scores,or at least to have had heard a discussion of those scores I . by the Commission members. � ; The applicant's representatives were careful to limit.our remarks to those pertinent to the � GMQS scoring criteria, and not to those that would have been relevant to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission's review of our proposed FAR bonus,which was scheduled � to follow the G�iQS scoring. Because opponents of the project made these comments on ! .I the record, we would have certainly welcomed the chance to point out to Commission members that the some of the public comments they heard were not relevant to the GMQS � scoring criteria, or to have made our own presentation regarding the FAR issue. This � . 1; ;� opportunity would have presented itself had the Commission held a discussion between the ';� preliminary and final scoring. This.discussion would have also given the staff the opportunity f� to clarify this scoring criterion for Commission members before they finalized their scores. � �� { Requested Remedy - � ( �' � � Based on the above,we hereby respectfully request that the joint Aspen City CouncilBoard � � � of County Commissioners ratify the finding made by the City Council on Februar;+10,that c : the Growth Mana�ement Commission's action denied the Appellant his due process. Once � this finding is made,Section 26.100.060 D.3.of the Regularions provides that: "Remedies available to the joint City Council/Board of County Commirsioners shall include,but � not be limited to,amending the number of poinu awarded or remanding the application to the Growth:Yfanagement Commusion for rescoring". � Please note that this language expressly does not limit the joint City Council/Board of ' County Commissioners from considering any and all remedies they feel are justified to � . _ j address the procedural defect they have found. � �1� " , ; i .. i;. . , . _ . _. - _ .r_ ___ �,.. / . . . .,. . .._. ., ..- 'F. 5 � . _ . � f, '. . . .f, � . � • ? . . ,� . � . .. .. . .�_.. --��__ ..._...._._' - ..-.... .._ .__".'_"_"_ ' ,�i „.�. _ � _ __ .:• „� . . � .. .:. - --------- � . . . :. . -. ...� - �.. . ' ��{��: ;f �Y�`L ,� _ t��;':�;�� ,., Mr.5tan Clauson - February 18, 1997 :�`� Page Five � � From our perspective, the most effective remedy to the Commission's acrion would be for the City Counci]JBoard of Counry Commissioners to amend the number of points awazded . to our project with respect to 'SVlaintaining Design Quality, Historic Compatibility and �,:�'�`• Community Character”. If the score given to us in that category were amended$om 2.6 to (':��... 3.0, we would become eligible for an aUotment and could proceed back to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission for a public hearing on our subdivision,special review and � other requesu. � �. � While we would certainly prefer this remedy to any other, we listened carefully to the remarks made by City CounciI members dnring their meeting on February 10. We understand that you may instead wish to remand the application to the Growth Management �� ' � Commusion for rescoring. If this is the approach the joint City CouncilBoard of County �, Comaussioners chooses,then we believe that the most appmpriate remedy in this particular � ;+ circumstance would be to remand the application for rescoring by the Aspen Pfanniag and �' '; Zoning Commission only, which the joint City CouncilBoard of County Commissioners r. .� would ditect to sit as the Growth�Ianagement Commission for this application only. ��f i . :� We request this remedy for the following reasons: j: 1. There was only one (1) residential growth management application submitted this year,requesring just one (1) allotment. That applicarion proposes development on - a site that is not only located wholIy within the City of Aspen,but is actually located • within Aspen's downtown core. There is no logical reason that this development . i would be of any concern or interest to Pitkin County,other than that the GMQS has been sei up to jointly address development throughout the Aspen Vletro Area. i'; E 2. It was appazent to us from the comments made by Growth Management Commission j, members during our hearing that there mighC be a lack of understanding of the � a. Aspen Land Use Regulations by members of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning � =i Commission. These members did not appear to recognize that these Regulations � provide specific procedures by which the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission �i would review the issues of floor area bonus and parking(among others),and could � � E� either place conditions on their appcoval or could deny the project in its entirety. If � '; the County members did understand this aspect of the City's Regulations, then we , can only conclude that they did not trust the City members to adequately address ` these issues on their behalf and feft compelled to"veto' the project at this stage. i The Appellant remains willing to work with the Aspen Planning and Zoning i Commission and our neighbors in the context of our IIoor area bonus and parldng - special review applications, to resgond to the concems they have identi8ed. We ;' - believe there are options still availabie to be e�cplored that may allow these issues to � I be resolved,but for us to do so,we musr first complete the allotment process. I � 1 . _ __. _ _ .. ,. r . ._... n,: _ ._ .... . . . / r . `�, , . y r' -::, . ... , s ' .,. ��`. ♦ _ , '"' ,a,.,,...�.—.—— ----— _ —... _ __— __ ——..--__., ;�y . . � .. � . . .. . ., . � , . • �:�> ;�.t,. � :� �� :s.; 4 1. ...� , . � '��f�jM�"`�;. �. . . :ii..''��..,. Mr.Stan Clauson �•� �" ` ' February 18, 1997 �'.� .`•• Page Six ~} :�''� 3. 'The Community Development Departmenf staff have mentioned to us that they r: .�:�'.�" • intend to propose amendments to the GMQS,to the effect that when there is not ( � comperirion between a project in the City and a project in the County,then scoring should be accom lished either the Ci or Coun P&Z, as a licable. The �r� P by tY tY PP Y . �.9;.':. " recognize that the system,as presently written,is very cumbersome. H aving h a d to �,,,_.:.�'. submit not one (1), but two (2) appeals just to have the opportunity to discuss possble remedies,we wholeheartedly agree. We sug�est this is the perfect time to - begin simplifying this cnmbersome process. Please allow this project to be considered . by the review board that is most directly aware of the issues involved and is ready to �`:. complete its work on this project-the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. ,•_ Additional Requests � - Since rescoring of the applicarion based on the record is one of the remedies authorized by ?�� the Regulations,we would request that when the staff packet is submitted to the joint City � Council/Board of County Commissioners, all of the material we placed in the Growth -'�� Management Commission's record be provided. Therefore,we 6ave provided you another � copy of the handout we submitted to the Commission on the recnrd. We also request that � you include a copy of our original applicarion, dated November 1, 1996, and our �` supplemental application]etter, dated November 21, 1996. �. IFinally,we would request that once you have identified a date that is acceptable to both the - f City Council and the Board of County Commissioners,you inform us before that date gets ; finalized,so we can make sure that we aze also avalable to attend the meeting. - � We thank you for your continuing attenrion to this matter and for your most helpful i�`. % direction while the appeal was being prepared. i � Very truly yours, _ __ � 4� ALr1�i gICgMAri PLANI�3ING SERVICES . �: ,� � � ; �� . ! Alan Richman,AICP � - �': - v '... il ' - � - � `• I ,I . � �i` � � . .::�:.;_._..--... . ...._. .,.__.-� .__, .,'. �"• . _ '� ...___�._._.�..:.. ...._.�--�.._ ..:�.� ...., , �.,.,: ..� .,,..... t _ �', �. / . i . � t:;.. . . . � ^ : . . .:' -�.r,. , " � .� �, - � .. .. � . � . . , , f � . . . _ .._- -- --- --- - . ��M>_ �,�,..�.-�- . _'. __.....�-- � ; :p.r) •�.. . _ .._ _. __.. . . .. ... .. . . .. . .�. _ . _ . ._. � --.._.... ._-- ----- -. .. i �;" ExrttS�T �3 :;; .�F ,;,�. ��. ;�r .;;,� . . �:"�x�titi.`:'; •�� rioRaNn�m i,. ' -` TO: Gro�vth vtanagement Commission - �'� '•� � �. . -• �'.�:,; i THRU: blary Lacicner,Acting Deputy Director •%�� ; - i •`,. i F'?ZO�L• Suzanne Wolff,Planner ! . i.:�_`, . . I . ��.`��`;`�. �' iRE: Sta�e 3 Penthouses Vletro Residential GViQS AppFication-Continued Public Hearing _ � �;Y' � DATE: January l4,1997 ;�� i-�.:.. j � �:.'�;��^��• SLTI�L�RY: The applicant is requesring one metro area midential GvIQS a4otment ro develop one&ee �,o • marice[dwelling unit above the Sta�e i Tlieaters. ?ssociated reviews which will be separately considered { . . ' by che Planning Commission and the City Councii include GV[QS Esemprion for three affordable housin� I T' uniu,Soerial Review and Subdivision. StatFs recommended scoring of the,project is atmched as E:chibit i a,and.he anplicaiicn packet is atCiched as E:thibit C. �'�� i�. No ocher aoplicatioas were rec�ived for metro area residential GMQS allotments. �'�' . _ __.. _ _ ._ _- ._ _. __ _�.,.rr.�..� r. ..__ .. � . . __ .: � ,... ---- . ._,_. -------__ .__.. . . ....�„--. . ..................-- 1 � ::; . , M1�'� '�s�'�': �F2; ��:� i y ' ST-�GE 3 PE�fTAOUSES-riETRO aREA RESIDENTiAL G�tOS SCORE�AEET '~� :.�::' Scorino: Points shall be awnrded for performance relative to each of the Eour scoring criteria.Possibie , scores for each criterian shall ran�e from zero,the lowesx possible score,ro five,the hig6est possible +'. score.It is recognized that small projecu coutd be at a compecitive disadvanta¢e when scored against !.",,I` larse-scale projecu.[t is intended.�herefore,tha[projecu be evaluated accordving to reasonable �;?. � cxpectations rezardin¢whac could be expected�iven[heir size and scale.A score of zero shal]be F.::. , awarded[o projec[s[haL although they had the opportunity to comply wiTh scoring criteria and had the � } a6ility�o�dvance staud communiry goals,will acrually contribuce aothins to implemen[arion of the �F arcicuta[ed vision and may,in fact move the community further away from its ssated goals.A score of `"� - three indica�es tha[a project will move the communiry closer toward atiainmenrof its stared visions and make a posirive conuibution toward the impiementarion of arciculated goals.A score of five indica�es � chat a project demonsaaces excep�ional sensitivity to the stated visions of the community and will result ' in sisniftcant movement toward imptementarion of those 3oals.Other scores along the continuum from `� zero to nve will be awarded based on�he de=ree ro which projeccs will implement stated goais.�io ' �row�h;nana¢ement allocacion shatl 6e awacded to proyeca that do not receive a Ymal�verase score of at i leas[thre�points for each of tfte_ro��rzh manasement scorin;criteria of Pitkin Counrv Land Use Code Sections�-[60.:0-C.1,3-160.�D-�.=.3-160.�0-C3 and 3-I60.:0-C.�1,or of the Ciry of�uen Vlunicipat � • Code St�:ions 36.100.080(C)(1),'_6.:�OA8�(C)(3},'_'6.100.�80(C)(3),and26.100.080(C){�4). ; �: : Cri[e:ia: � � 1. Revitalizing the permaaent community:Residenrs of the rlspen area have lon�reco�ized rhe f ' need co oreserve the community's charac:er and idencicy ys more�han jus�a resort,a collection of second � : I homes and a tourist shoppin�mecca.i'hey reco�ize cha�a"critical mass"of permanent residenrs and ; � local servine-businesses is necessary Lo make any communicy funcrion.They reco�ize,too,that the �: j j vitali[y orousht to the Aspen area by full-ame residents is being seriously diluted by tfie inabiliry of :,` � workins people m live in their o�vn community. ; is - � � �s a result of these concems,one of che community's central eoals is to create a communiry with E i a size,density and diversiry that encourages inceracaon,involvement and vicalicy and ane that provides ' � opportunities Tor its workers to become a permanenc par[of the social fabric. ( � ( There are a variety of ways in which a project mighc address the goal of revitalizin�the � I permanent communiry,includins,but not limited ro the following: . � ' � . a. providing high-quality,on-site,affordable housin�for permanent residents; ' b. providing site appropriare mising of free market and affordable housin,for efficient provision of services such as aansit and discourages sice ptannin�[hac isolates affordable and free mazket � units: c, providing a housin�packaee consistent wi[h the Housin�Authority Guidelines with an emphasis on family-oriented housing where and when appropriate; d. creating afforduble dwelting units through buy-downs or conversion of e.eisting free marke[unia;and e. providin�"locally serving commercial space;businesses:' ��' � � � � I 1 � i ._.�......___. _ .. ._.. . ....:�- ....____. -t..P.r � . -�—- ....— ....:.::,__._--� � ._. .... . _ ;, � _, , . �tt , . � �, -.:. � -- . , - ,, �� . , . . ______, �x� �.a----= - __. - _ - --_ -- --- - , �,y �.r_ _ �_ �,.�.�,�.m �_. . � �---- --=--- --- — -- � . �.. ,..,.,...__ ,.� N _ � �;, , . ,;� � ��',.� ,� ��,;��.;; ,, :' :.,��;. ;� ST�1FF CO�II�LEN'CS: The applicant proposes ro pmvide three affordable housin�units: a srudio,a one-bedroom,and a three bedroom. The location of the units on Main St.creates opportunities for �'.� workiag residena to live in-towrt,and hopefully discoursees[hem Erom using automobites. Also, '� � � providing'a mix of unit rypes addresses various housing needs. .: '.. 'I1te units meet ar exceed the specifications of the r+.ffordable Aousing Guidelines: a!1 three uniu ccceed i'.�'. the minimum net livable squaze footaee standards for Cate�ory 3 units,have additiortal storage space and �'. :�':,, t>� dec:cs,contain dieir own lau�dry facilities,and are located fully above aound to provide natural liglst into �". ' the uni¢. The units ail face�r(ain St.,and do not have any windows with southem exposure. The appficant ' + ' �r'''. i proposes to ren[che units and ro deed remict them as Cate�ory 3 unis. i.,. iilte project is consistent�vith che follo�ving standazds and�oals of the?�ACP: E .:� I • "enccurage infill developmen[�vithin the existin2 urban area". ! • "mix free market and affordabte housing',and � • "'mcre�se the use of upper 7oors oT commercial buiidins to orovide affordable housin_on-site in the �� commercial eore" • � i The projec:also maintains a local-servins commercial use_and reduces the amoun�oi po�en�ial comme:cial 4 buildou[in[he down[own area. ' � PL�I.NNI:VG ST_-1FF'S RECOIVLVIEL`tDED SCORE:� 4 i . [ - • � CObIVIISSIONER'S SCORE:_ � 'I 2. Providin�transportarion alternarives:Residen�s reco�ize thai reducins dependency on the automobile is vital for the lon�:-cean Iivabilirv and heaitli of che aspen area.Their pian is so bold as to �,�,i ;.� envisian a cime in the not-too-disrant iuture when rhe aucomobile is not the dominant means of movitwg � s� people in and azound the community.They are seekine a balanced,in[e�-ated transportation system for � ' ' residents.visitors actd commuters that reduces tcaffic congesrion and air polliition. These are a vaziety of � `'` ways in which a project migh�address the goal of providinQ[ransportation alternatives.including,but � ;; �; noc limired to the followin_: � i� � �1 a. reducing the need for nrivate vehictes as a form of transportation; ia i+ b. tacilitaan�and encoura�ing year-round pedesaian tcansportazion; � _ � c. helping to implement a valley-�vide mus�ansit syscem; � t d. providing needed imQrovements to the esistine RFTA system; t ± e. incm,ssine the number of available vansporcation choices; � r - ; t. creating a less congested downcuwn core: � ! I _ helping to implement zhe transportation planning policies of che�CP and the aspen to Sno�vmass transportation plan; ,' �, alterin�land use pattems to accommodate and contxibute ta a more efficient and effective transit system; i. creatins,improving or espanding pablic commuter trails,walkways or bikeway Eacilities that ace consissent with the goals of the,�r\CP and�ssociated plans,such as the pedesvianlbikeway plan; �. j, locating developments near vansit facilities; . k. providine on-�oing transporta[ion to and from the airporc,ski areas and shopping azeas; f� ��' � l. providing on-going employee transporta�ion services such as van pools or buses az no tj �' I cost to employees; f. � i ; ' �'�^t . . I ,. ___ „ . . ._...-� — ' . .. . .. .�.�� F .._" -— ........... .... � � , �. . _... . . . ..._—'"_" .. . .. . . �t` .M1.. / , 4 . . .. ��I��. \ �R _ . ' • - i� . / . r . f . �__._.�__ �..-—� .._ .- "___ . �'.. �—�.... .—�'^�'.__ ..__._ ��... — , , � -- - �. . _. ____- _,�.�, �__.�___ _ _ _ � .. . . ,., _._�.r ....., . r----------- __--- - .. °-; . . . . ._._-.___ ? �..::� . �� ' ��;,.��;,: ; ,: �_ ° m. providing bicycle parkins,showers and lockers for employees;and:' ' `.' n. providing secure bicycle storage for�uests and em loyees. s�'" ��'' P i: . �.� ST.�FF COYLI�IEi`1TS: As an inftll project which is creating affordabfe housing in-town,this pro}ect �'�.`�.'�,,; automa�ically contributes ro the�oal uf providing transporta[ion altematives. Residents can easiiy walk, '�� ' ride bikes,or take the hus to work;shap or recreate,which wi11 create tess congation in the downtown +�`.. '' " core and lessen air poUution caused by vehicle trafFic. Limited pazking should also serve as an auto i disincentive;each residential unit will be usigned one on-site pazking space. The site is constrained by � 1f`~``.` " ' the existing Stage i sMtcrure,so the develooment is unable to provide the required amount of parking ' �,;;;•:��? on-site. T[ie applicant proposes to pay a 590.000 in-lieu fee to mi[igate the six spaces that cannot be � fk_.__.. provided on-site. �,_.;,.. i _. �, The apolicant reprcsenu that the proposed residential develooment wiil create less traffic than addirional :�^�`� or altemative commercial development on this si[e. ?, ' � � PL.�'VNIiYG ST:1FF'S RECObll�i IE:�iDED SCORE:3 �`�� CON iMISSIONER'S SCORE: �'.�- — ':r.�. 3. PromoHng environmentally sastainable develoQment:Residen�s of the:�spen area recognize Y �'r .: �1� thac the natural enviranment is une oY:he communityb ereatesi asseu.?s a result[hey wish to aUow ,�% only that devclopment that is environmentally sensitive and that promotes individually responsible, ecolosicai Iifestyles.The communiry seeks[o foster a high leve!of consciousness reiative to resourc� ! conservacion,wildlife protecrion and environmentat sustainabilirv. . � These are a varieey of ways in which a projeci mi�ht address tl�e�oal of promoting environmenrallv susninable deveiopment,includine,but not limited to the following: i ; a. orientins buifding sites,sveecs and other project features in order to ma�imize porential � i for use of solar energy and other rene�vable energy resources: b. protectin�and preservins e;cisting trees and other mamre veaention during and after the � consmicLion process; � c. using fe�ver or clesner�vood-burnins devices chan allowed by law; ( d. removing or repiacing esisting dirry wood-burniag devices; j e. increasing communicy access to narural and open space areas; '; ( f. promotin�community recyclin�effor[s; j s. landscaping with fow-wacer-use plant materials and using chemical-free landseape i i main[enance techniques; � h. employing measures thac reduce Pbt 10 levels'sn the nort-attainment area; I i. preservin�and e�cienNy using environmental msources durin�all phases of development,including types of marerials used and funue enerw and material needs of the projec� j. complerely avoidin�"104("hazard areas and rid�eline development; k. enhancing e:cisting wildlife habitat; 1. compfecely avoiding 5040 Greenline issues;and . ' m. complerely avoiding Stream Mar�in Revie�v issues. �: _�, . ST_�FF CONfiI�IE:Y'TS: By developin�an infill project,the applicant is not extending the urban azea or � � ' removing oprn space. The e:cisting theater scructure will remain,therefore,there will not be additiona[ . .� , � impacts on the land_ Three eristing spruce trees dre proposed to be relocaced on-sice to the existing ' l,,:�'� I i ; : i , �+l'_- . .,._._.. ��. _ . __ ...__ _.-_... ....... . �-_ . . . ... � . / .. . . . , t:; ` t' r' �a . _ . , . ; . . • � � ..__._..,—__.-� . . _.— . ._-. • _.._ — �'_ .�,.,..�.�---" ._,. _.... , `�_ '"'`__�.. ,. � . . ^ `�� . .. . _.__._ .. —� _ _:_ .- ------�---------_ - ^� Il� 'L�. �a r�,< r !t��y � �arden area. The existing building footprint.combined�vith[he parking and trash requiremenu,prohibit � ; the aoplicant from Qrovidin3 addi[ional open space on the properry. '�'� I >•� The applicant proposes ro install one wood-buming device.The app(icant is making a positive �,'t�,, ; conuibution to air quatity by providins one wood-buming device�vhen nvo could be allowed(Section � � 13.08.0 i0.d of the City Code allows nvo"Department certified devices in any single building'which �� ' may include wood-burning devices),however.[he applicant could make a sttonger commitment by � � optin�no[m have any wood-bumins devices. � I:�:,' . ' The applicant represenu that recyclin�bins will be provided on-site.the free-markec unit will be I desi2ned to take sdvanta�e of passive solar�ain,and watervsavin�plumbing fixntres wilI be installed �.:,` � The aoolicant srates tha["the uniu will be desi¢ned to at laast meec the requirements of the Ciiy's enersy i code". Tlie project must compty wi�h the v[odel Enerey Code,buc cou(d opt to provide additional � � measures in order[o esc�ed the requirements. ; I • : PL.�Y�iI��TG ST_�FF'S RECO�liYlEE:1DED SCORE:3 ` , COVLI-IISSIOi�IER'S SCORE: i — , 4. J�Iaintainin�desi�a quality,historic comparibility and community character.Residencs � reco__nize the importance of desien�vi[hin�he communi[y's historic setting.[t is a vital component of the � com:nunity's aconomic we:l-bein�and culrural heri[a=e.They believe[hat pubtic architecrure should ' ' ' supoort and enhance communicy life.Their•_oal is to znsure maintenance oY communirv character . I chrou�h design quality and comoatibility with historic features. � These are a variery of�vays in�.vhich a projec:mieht address the 2oa1 of mainrainins design � f qualirv,historic compatioiliry and communirv character,includirs�,but not limired to the followine: � . > • � . 1 i a. rescorin�suuctures listed in the inventory of historic sauctures: � b. improving and maintaining the appearance and funcuon of al(eys for commeccial,ofhce . ' j and residen[ial uses: � c. ensuring design compatibiiity�vizh exisrin2 buildinss in che viciniry of the proposed G ' projec:.in terms of scale,massing,building ma[erials,ienestracion,other archi[ectural features and open •i t � space: - � ` d. including porohes or ocher"pedemian-friendly"Yeamres: - � e. retaining and promo[in�eclectic and varieral businesses along main street that maintain ` � and�nhance the special character of the historic disiricc; • E £ ensurin2 the site`s useabilirv for social activities. � � ' � ' i ': ST�F'F COVLI�IE`ITS: The residential units will be set back from the existing strucrure in order to � reduce the perceived mass and to step the sttvemre down in scale as ic approaches the adjacent structures. Tht setbacic from the tsisting front facade will also prevent shadine on�[ain St. The table below summarizes the setbac!cs from the facades of the �cictin�,.,sm�eture� ' i i . ti�=' � � , _ � _ __ ---� _._. . _ _.�_..-- �..__. _:. ,...___�— -,-�� j-- . �� ; : , ,, � . 4 '; � +� � : � �; . . � , ,, _ �, � . � k4 .. . . . . _._.-__ __ . ._-_'.-__'_. . . ` iw�'___^__' ._._ __..__-_... � . _�� ,._ �_ . • _,.� � -- _ _ _ . ----- _____- - _-.. ._., ,.�: ... ------ _ .. ,b��. . . _f.:�. , t. , -�,: �t��' � Y . $etb2clts fmm F2c�de of Ecisting Str�ctLre • t"�'° �� 4 . 3 i. .c- ; Facade Proposed ProQosed ` ;� ` ! Second Level Third I:evel �`��'� � � �. i North side(Main St) l8' 36' '�.��: IWest side , . p' �1, I , j � Eastside 0' 13' s, South side(alley) 13' 24' i°`', However,staff feeis that the desim does not provide variety which would help to 6reak up the mass of � � ,,r: ,.. the strucnue: dte additional levels are"boxy°and present flat facades to Main St.and to the alley. Also, � •_�,:. . � ttie design does not provide a strong connection between t6e e:tistin�and proposed po�tions of the - I sffucrure. The design is compatible with the surrounding 6uildings,but dces not cnhance the area. ( , The application states that the appearance and fvnction of the alley is being improved by removing trash w . y conrainers and locaung them on-site,and the pedestrian pazh along the westem edge of the property will � _ � be maintained. I PL?.i�ii�fli`iG STaFF'S RECOMIYIE;IDED SCORE:,� ?: � .I _ COhIVi IISSIONER'S SCORE:_ t j i , � A 1. . .I PL.u�1�JL�iG S'TAFF'S TOT_�I.SCORE:la j . . ..�:� � COMNIISSIONER'S TOT.�I.SCORE:_ ��` j � i 1 1 y i " - . �. � ___ �,� 6I . � =,e-. �: ' ` I`..._: �� ' S ,�� i �' _.. __ _--- . , ---_..,...._.__,��I . � .::.��---.._. . ----- . t++Cr ..._ -- . j . . . • _..... _ ,_,_ . .:.�.-�--- , , y�ty,l .. / . � . . • - - � , � � � . ^ � � ' _ - . � . . -_ . . tl.�.�� t ; `� . - . ' .. l; - � �- . � � � . ♦� . . � . . � � . . . � � . • . . . '�'; - � . ., � , . . . ' � . � . � - . • � r , . .. . . . --- �- ---__._-----� `�.. -------'- - — , i � �!- *;E .. � � . --- ., . .. �. _. � _----------- _ ,::,;.�� ::r:_ �'� I� ---... _ ....__ - . — EXH-f6tTC .:.�: I � .��i I `'a� !•,��{`: d r� r� '�.. v z� � ,� � � N - . w>� d . �'� �'''::'. .: • d ! , • , E, � . � � m ; F N N ' (f.:�'�,,:i,. V F:; a�n �'.7��. > l�`,:, - �a �, �, . f1 N Y: . �3 ;;R I . r�.::i:. i. •. . I � t��'.�'.� " a . �'� i. .>_ , . a = � v 'c� � . C U N ;a . � n Ii y � � .I U � N � M � i.1 . ! � i... �� . � n. v� ,.i �„� . �. U `�' � i - IT � v` 1 ,� J � � M � � ,�".' 9 � ` !, � � ;� ^ �?� � r1 c�t � � .. . � q � a T .. i 5 } V � 'r �D� Q' � � � R ._. � � C T �.i. i p � z j{ ._ ...__ Z O F" c � t'1 . (V N �•� � I �%J G � � O � .I � � q ' . o,� �� ^ M . . � F � W ,_: � � � � a � �, � � �� _ � F ='' � a .s � � � 9. . zv � _ � � s o.?. � . L7 d O � � � E a :: 'i; ' p Z T c ° a ° �� m � ." t F y y ° a� •y � '.' � - W� cz'.] = � '^Q � aU f•. 'L.' .� �- " �y, E. � C7 � � F ;�� . p E- � .N._ � _ �� c o � F C U � � � � o.a .=� (r� �C7 F ai 7 � = o n+ 'm m E . . .�� .�'.� • . � ._.__. C U c. Q cL :n' ��U � ._ ---- 4 ` ' . _..--- ._... .4 ., r _ �_..._-- _ __ ` . . . _ A �- / , i, ' ` . •i :::.:,, � . . -� tj�.:- ' .-f. ,':z. -� �� . � , ' �. .- . . � ,i. � . � ♦ ' .� . �]�".. - . . - � , • ' . '. . . . ... _"_ . _._.__"_"_'� . . . * —...., ' � .y�^'�'�`—�_� '_.____'.__.__ . e,i .; ,4 . . ^ .... .�.. �. --- --•---- � ----�X�`�i T � � �„�,.,: �� ,. ��r_��t , GROWTH 1�IANAGEMENT COMMISSION JANiJARY 14 1997 �� - �+t��,; .:.f.;�.�;. _..;< - Sara Garton called the Special yIeeting of the Growth Management Commission . to order. This is a joint commission of the City and County Planning&Zoning ��'� members. Members Sara Garton,David Guthrie,Marcella Larsen,Kathy Tripodi, �.�. . Jake Vickery,Steve Whipple,Iasmine Tygre,Roger Hunt,T"un Mooney and Steve Buettow were present. Marta Chaikovska,Bob Blaich and Dave Johnston were ; ��.� ` excused and Alice Hubbard was absent. Steve Buettow asked to be recused. f'�� " , �,, 1 d:.�,,.:.: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: '�'' `': � STAGE 3 PEN'THOUSES GMQS EXEMPTION � �` SPECIAL REVIEW&.SUBDIVISION � (continued from 12/17/9� .' � Suzanne Wol$esplained that the applicants,Geor�e Carisch,represented by Alan ''� • Richman&Dave Gibson,are requesting one metro area residential GVIQS R� • allotment to develop one free mazket dwelling unit above the Stage 3 Theatres. ��n Stase 3 is located at 625 East Main Street. She said there was no competition and ' � � staff awarded the project a total of 12 points. She stated each of the criteria must � receive at least 3 points and each of the 4 criteria did receive 3 poinu each in order i to receive the development allotment. ,I - '1 Wolff said that staff recommends approval of their scoring and to move forward to - j' Ciry Council and the Board of County Commissioners. She explained that scoring „ was based on a range of 0-5. . ;. s; j� The first criteria is Revitaliing ihe Perm4nent Communiry. The applicant will k s�, provide 3 affordable housing units(deed restricted Category 3). Wolff said these ; - '` units fill a need in the Community,provides a mix of unit types to address � t; y°, different housing needs and e:tceed the specifications in the housing guidelines. 6 i Wolff stated the project is consistent with the standards and goal of the AACP. _ A� 1I The second criteria is Providing Transportation Alternatives. Wolff said that as - • an in fill project creating affordable housing,the project automatically contributes �; to the goal of�ansportauon alternatives and reducina automobile impacts. She � noted that creating residential development could create less traffic than the ; altemative commercial development on site. `; . a The third criteria is Promoting Environmentally Sustainable Development. Wolff ��" � said this is an in fill project not extending the urban azea or removing open space. i. Wolff explained the existin�building will remain so they are not creating �•. . t i� . ,. .. ,. - ... . °�,s. i . . - , _ __. j / �. y �_ �. . . _ . . . .�I,� . � � -. ' . .. ,k . . ._.'._—.._^._., . — .— ... ..__ ' .. ..�"_"" ."�—._. .._.._ � ... � . . :,.,} • . -=� _. ._ .. -�----. _ _ -�ti��x�''; ��`: w v ti v �5:�x.: : ' - ` ��.�„�,?'3ti.:{;_,. µ...Et•1.'k'' 1�.�� additional impacts on the land: She said there would be one wood burning device on the property. Staff sug;ested they not have this device,but one is allowed. l..�':� ;'r '�_�' The fourth criteria is tYtaintaining Design Ouality, Historic Compatibitiry and .� '. Communiry Character. Wo1ff stated the residential units will be set back from the +` �' ;•: , . e.cistinQ structure in order to reduce the perceived mass and step the structure � i;'�.:.:;'°�� ;y.-.'_z•, ,� down as it approaches adjacent structures. She said staff felt the desi�was . �:.. w compatible with surrounding buildings but did not enhance the area. '?" � Garton asked Alan Richman for a preseatation. Richman inoroduced George ; Cariscn. Carisch said he has owned a home here since the mid 70's and purchased ' the Playhouse Theatre in 1984,remodeled it into a Sta�e 3 and sold the operating t�, � : , business in 1983 while retaining the properry. Carisch said they were interested in ( , the Community. � I :, !�f Richrnan said this was the only application for this allotmeat and would be happy Y ' �� if the commission accepted the scorins from Community Development staff. In ,�` particulaz he wanted to Qo o�er the criteria in Revitalizing the Permanent • Community, and Dave Gibson would provide the desi?n criteria. Richman said the code states the evaluation of projecu according to r°asonable espectations � � regardin�what can be espected given their size and scale. He handed out a table i and esplained they are providing 7�%for employee housing(3 of the 4 units aze . emplovee units). Richman said each of the units exceeds the size standards for - Catesory 3,which make them lazger and more desirable to the occupants. He stated the units aze located in the center of Aspen makin�housing close to work, '' shopping and public transponation activities. He noted this was the kind of in fill ' proje�t the AACP encouraged beca�se there is no land development involved with this prcject,just air space. He stated because there is a free market unit and ' employee units with no additional commercial space are bein�developed,they aze ,� � exceedin�the requirement for mitigating the housing needs. Richman said by j e:cpanding the e:cisting buildins,the important Iocal secvice is being preserved . . !1 � � ' (Stage 3 Theatres). . Richman stated there have been many comments from nei�hbors,particularly relatin�to the parking. He said part of the proposal is to pay cash-in-lieu for 4 spaces and cash-in-lieu for 2 additional spaces that aze required. One of the `�, � commenu asked how we may better serve the comznunity. Richman stated they ' � ��-` asked to pay cash-in-lieu$1�,000 per commercial space to remove the commercial ! i requirement so the housin?units could have spaces provided on site. The r, application had 3 additional required spaces brin�in�the cash-in-lieu to 6 sgaces ��+ z �•. ; ,.:r�..: _ _ .. . j ;`� . � , i y i ., , -. - �'' . � _ . �,,. ��:. -_ .. . � - _- _ . �.i ,� ___ _._ ��.s �. "-- � • � _._ .. . ,_. . ..` ._ .._.... . _ ._.. . _ . __. _ i �•°.;:: GROWTA t1�IANA(�F.iVTfi,�I'T['nMMTCCT(1N Ni1t�RV 1d 1947 �',�.: �.0 ;�+' '�;1�` .;.�: +��:.,�:,.��'�. or�90,000.00 and would provide 4 on-site spaces if this is the approved plan. %: �� . ', Richman said a sugaestion would be to look at the Benedict Commons pazking spaces since out of the 31 spaces only 7 are being used(24 aze vacant). He said � .,,�� this would be good for the applicant to lease 2 spaces at Benedict Commons which �`�'':;' would cover all the bedroom required pazking spaces for this project. Richman f- . �'' . stated they did not want to add any impacts to the neighborhood by creating these � '' � additional4 units. i`' �� `K:� ; R::'�.-'!.. i Gibson-Reno had developed visual materials for the discussion. Gibson stated in ` desigiing the project they picked up on some of the materials,shapes and forms (�•>;: . • used in the neighborhood. He said the stucco finish on the buildings was i:' : predominant and wanted to incorporate more timber and stone accents. Gibson � noted the scale was broken down appropriately to decrease the other neighboring ;,. � buildings. He said most of the other buildinQs had flats roofs,so in response they �� won't have to exceed the forty feet to accomplish their desiQn�oals by reducing � the site lines. Gibson e;cplained that the proposed addition was stepped back from !��: ;�. ! the street in 15' increments to increase solar access to the sidewalk He said the :,� lieht to the street,sidewalk and Hunter Square Garden will not be reduced. He . ; said they have tried to study the sight lines from the buildin?s in the area_ . Richman referred to the hei?ht of neiQhboring buildings and FAR numbers from the assessors office. :� _ � CO�IISSIONER CONINIEi�1'TS . , �f ;; Kathy Tripodi asked�what kind of employee housing mitigation e:cists today for `� that commercial space. Richman said the building was built prior to the Growth �; ?� Management System or affordable housing mitigation was adopted in Aspen. F _ ` . � . �,� David Guthrie.asked how the 16'relate to the balconies of the second or third � � floor of the Concept 600 building. Gibson e.�cplained the photo was taken in effect ' ;� from the middle baicony. Guthrie asked if the free mazket unit could be � F condominimized and sold. Richman stated this unit is being done for Mr.&Mrs. �: - Cari§ch. � Garton asked the height for the projection of the elevator. Gibson stated it was � another 4' above cab was required. Sara Garton opened the public hearing. I ' ��, �I � 3 �: • . � y� � ,i : � ___ ' . -. ._�. ___... , . . ..� . . ' . -- ---_..._ ......_.___ ._. . ...,,... . . -... , ... . . . � �_ : _ _-.. - . ...,.� , _ .. . �, �i. _ ' , ' � � � ' y'..'.., i � � � ' 1, . I� .. � t • ,•x. . . __' . - . . . ._. ._..___._.. — . .._— .. ._' '_—_''—_ _ ` ,�`._ .- . , . �n.) . - . .J . . ..,... .:^.....' ,-. . .. ... . ._.. „ . - \." .__. . ... . .� ...�... .�,,,�. ��. . i . . . ... ... ._�. . _... .. ,... .�. ._ . ��'. �n Y ''� GROWTA ViANAGEME�IT COMViISSION .iANiTr�Ry 14, 497 ��` � ;�:�i��::. ' PUBLIC COMI�IEMS �S 3im Curtis,Public,speaking for Housing Advisory Group of AACP,stated that ' ,•.,• � .„ conceptually this project promotes and supports what the goup wanted. He said there were three points: (1.)�places residential units downtown; (2.)developed 2nd and 3rd levels of buildings as housing(both free market and affordable vs. ;,�''� commercial and office space)which was encouraged and(3.)creates incentives . ' ;`-:. ; for private developers to do affordable housing in a mixed use co�guration. � ' � Curtis stated that conceptually,this project does all of Lhose things. He hoped the !„�. - � � bulk and mass of the building could be viewed as a win-win situation with � fle:cibility of the parties. Curtis said one option may be to reduce the size of the � affordabie units which may address the bulk and mass issues. He noted there , � � should be�ood sound between the theatre and the residenual units. Curtis �� applauded the applicant for coming up with a plan that actually provided parking spaces because the cash-in-lieu doesn't solve the parking problems. • Dave:{idder,�306 Concept 600,said he has skied in Aspen since the 1940's and bought his unit 10 years ago for the view of Aspen Vlountain. He remarked the ' ' value of the units are dependent upon the view of the Mouatain,it may be a selfish ' concern,but it is his concern. � i �:. : i Phil Rothblum,624 E.Hopkins,built a home behind the Sta�e 3 and showed � � drawinQs of the building_ He said they were concemed and mindful building this i' - j � sin�le family home between the Stewart Title Building and office building on the � � ` comer. He said his building was about 28'high plus an open roof terrace and tried � : � to be sensitive of the street scape adding interests and off-seu into the building. ' � ; 4 , Rothblum stated they knew what the�Sta?e 3 was,but had hoped to speak to the ti t : owner about mitioatin�the appearance of that stucco wall in the back. He showed � : � ; a photo of the wall and the illesal dumpsters. Rothblum said they provided an ` ; ADli,so he is not objecting to the concept but the height is pushins the heiQht F ' limitations. He said the code required the volume must be considered in a � ' residential building or part thereof. He said che&ee market unit is 3�00 sf which • ' is prefty large for the buildin�and the project should be scaled back to keep in ' character with the neighborhood. Garton noted that iVlr.Rothblum's letter was ' also part of the record. , � ; Bob viiller,Vice President C�ncept 500 Association,stated all the owners ' ' I " � reiterate what VIr.Kidder said about the view. He said they were also concarned 'i � ' about the pazking. He noted the tower for the elevator should be shown on the �' ; � photos for consideration. � a �; ; � . _ � _ _.. � __ _ : . . f _ .. . � . � . � . . j, ..� � • . `.. � . s � �*.•.. �,�.�.--- . --- -._�— —� ` � ' �. r�a � �.m� � _. ` . - � �� ,_ ._.__ _. ........... __._.._._.. _ , ,: , , �4`,��.. C.ROWTH� A�iAC:E: �ivT OMMiS4TON T � TARV 14 1997 �,�;' }A I �.?;A''i`t` � ' � ��.i:}�f'�: ;�,w'i.l.,` , ' Bab Bailey,Concept 600,was concerned about their view because that was part of '" . the price of the unit. He stated the poles placed on top of the building do not represent the blockage of view or the elevator shafts. Gibson said the poles show '�`� the forward comers with regards to Main Street. He said there is a potential loss ' ��':>, : of value of their property which would also be a loss of tax dollars. •. ' . j: , ' Joe Edwards,Attorney representing Concept 600,stated the code provides that all i:'�, �' � :. � adjourned public hearings shail comm:ence only upon the giving of all notices ' �:,�. `�. 1 which wouid have been required for the initial ca11 of the public hearing. He said I in December there was no quorum,the quota system was not heard therefore � hearings were not in process but rather an adjoumed meetin�. Edwards said the �: � meetin�was to be re-noticed and was not done. He said the GMQS notice was to ` � be posted and mailed,it was only published and none of the condo association � � 'I owners received the notice in the mail. He said no one ever saw a si�n and notice ' `�i is a jurisdictional�pre-requisite ia ordec to proceed with a liearing. He said all of ; ; the quotes from the code are attached as e.�chibiu wittt his letter dated 1/14/97. �. Edwards said that before GMQS can Qive a quota,the applicant must have met all ' applicable requiremenu of the code. He said"if an e,�cistin�development is . � expanded additional off-street pazking space shall be provided for that increment of the eYpansion as if it is a separate development"and there proposal here-to-fore � the e:cpanded development. Edwards continued that is a requirement of the code '. to build new parkin�and not complied with the application therefore GVIQS `' ''� cannot be awarded. He quoted from his letter re�azding the mass and volume. � j� Hoefer quoted the code Chapter 26.36.040 that no meeting at which than less than +f a quonun is present shall conduct any liusiness(which did not occur)other than to +�� continue a posted agenda item to a date certain,which was done. Therefore you j have jurisdiction to proceed. � ;: � i; _ . �; F i� Richman stated zhe affidavit was posted and mailed. ( . QI �*i CONL�IISSION COMIvIENT'S ; �� i . Tripodi questioned the transportationlparkin�issues but was in favor of the project bein�downtown. Garton responded the parkin�might be required to be on site or � waived to encourage public transportation. R `' i -- s � ' __ , . _ : � � ___j ---__. : -- ._ . . __.__ ..__ __ - ..... .-� �:� , � , w`: y �,,. . �: � -� - ��• . ,, � _ . � �x._ ��:. _ _._. —-- , — - — __."_� ` T,� �--- � . — � , '='.�! . _ .. . .. .... .- . -.�-';�,.:; '`�'. ..��I ;�„. ..�'' yv (3ROWTA ViANA(:F.rTFVT f�nn�r�rrccrnrr TANTTARY ld �o 7 f''�,.�i'� �:'��`; � Guthrie asked if these units were dedicated to Stage 3 employees. Richman answered no,these units would be re2istered with the housing authority. Guthrie .�> asked where the cash-in-lieu money went. Wolff understood that the money went ::."' _ into a fund for the pazicin�. � �:; " Garton noted the scoring must meet the criteria for the scoring to go forwazd. j;:'': Vickery discussed criteria rtl regarding scoring at a 5 and criteria#4 he could not • - score at even a 3,and said the particulazs fall short. � ; NIOTION: Roger Hunt moved to accept the staff scoring for the 1996 `•' Residential GMQS competition to the City Council and the Board of � County Commissioners. Jasmine Tygre seconded. MOTION DEMED, , . ' ' !' 6-3. Whipple,Larsen,Mooney,Garton,Guthrie and Vickery against. . � � Tripodi,TyDre and Hunt in favor. � ; j i � Since the motion to accept staff scorins was denied,the commission must now ' � individually score on the four criteria Clauson stated the commission will score ; ' as they see fit but there must be a threshold score of 3 for the GMQS allotment to ' be allocated,if denied it will be another year. The tape reflects the discussion of ` the board amon�st themselves regardin�scoring. i � Wolff took:he individual scoring and Garton read the results: � ; j ' 4.3 Reviralizing the Permanent Communitv ' ' � ' S 3.3 Providing TransDOrtation Alternatives �` '• � 3.1 Promoting Environmentally Sustainable Development k` � � ?..i :tilaintaining Design Oualitv,Historic Compatibility and Community ► � Character. � � ' Garton esplained the projecL did not make threshold in every category which is _ j 3.0. Y . € . ,, ! Richman encouraged the GMC to take a hazd look at the system which has been ` � set up. He.said there is not even an opportunity to speak to the commission about ' ways to mitiQate the FAR,height. He asked for the GviC to review all four criteria as to if you are above or below 12. He said the old scoring did not eliminate the project because of one criteria not passing. Richman said the , applicant has a hard time responding to the criteria with the current scoring system havins a fundamental flaw. ? ��±`= I ' ` � J 1 6 .. , � . { --.�_ _._ _,_� _ . _--.. . _ - t . _....._. _..,._ . .. - \ , x .; i . . � �',,,. ; .-. _ ` .�. ' � I , , - --- ---- , a, �.�-.-.--t - .- —--, _ • a.t � ' _,., . . : �. ...-----._ _._ _ _--- . _- . _.. _ .... . :....:._.-- .... .._ .. .. . . __. ... ..._ �'�� -1 � ,,.� . ��.� j GROWTH MANAGFMF.NT('OMMfCCTfIN i N?T RY 14,t997 i ��C�!{; � Hunt said if this were a competition of more than one project,the out come would - . be different,but with only one project being dropped out of the system because of •-°. the method,is difficult for him to accept He said the project was a good one. �' •'� i' �:;' , , R.ichman said the reason only one project was in the system was that ao oae wants � r to compete with this"open ended"system not being able to review the criteria and h+�, ' �:;;:;, �,; say what is a 3 or a 5. He said tlus is a difficult approach to one project and tells K�=':a� �'- people to do something else. He said if they had the 70/30 view they would be in � I['�� front of the commission. I:r'.. r.:_ I Tripodi said they could have come to the GMC prior to this meeting to discuss the otenrial ob e . e aid the nei bo �.•' p pr 1 ms Sh s gh rs view could have been discussed _ Richman noted in the code the views have nothing to do with the GMQS or �� . �F scoring. . � Garton adjoumed the GMC at 6:30 p.m.. �, i � i . .I . � ckie Lothian,Deputy City Clerk ��: ; T . i � + . , �� ' _. ___..._.S . , . � � � �� I .�,. � • �. �'' ' 7 �I . , • ---- , ---......�....v.r.---- . .�.-.�.,..........__._-I ___., y_ _ .. / � ` " N . tl` {. , . . . . . . . � 9 � _ f�..- . + . � _ - ' . . l. . . . I� . � . . . ♦ - . ' . - . • i � � . . ' � - . . � � , .' . . . � � . ..__.'-_.^ . . . ��.. ______._. _ -._.-.-_ -� _ `�x _ _ _ ,____ .. . ..� .. . _.__... �� _ ..._ ,-,, r:� � �$,., ;�� GR(�WTH 1'tANAGFVtE�JT('t��TMTSSinN December i7. 1996 3t°y-w'' • iChairperson Sara Garton opened the public hearing at�:?0 p.m.with '��`t� ( members Jasmine Ty�re,Roger Hunt,Robert Blaich,Steve T3uettow,Dave # Johnston,Kathy Tripodi present. Tim Mooney,Marcella Larson,David ;�` ; Guthrie,Alice Hubbard,Steve Whipple,Jake Vickery and Shellie Harper - { ' were not present. Marta.Chaikovska was e:ccused. '�•" ` 4_ I �Suzanne Wolff,Staff,stated there would not be a quorum tonight with only �_�; one member of the County P 3c Z members present She said the scoring • � ` and tiie review for Stase 3. � . PUBLIC HE:�RING: , i STAGE 3.I�IETRO RESIDEVTIAL Gi1�IQS SCORiNG ' ; .' / ' Sara Garton stated that because a quorum was not present,the public ' hearin�would be continued to January 1�, 1997. Alan Richman,Planner, , presented notiiication. - � NIOTIO�i: Roger Hant tnoved becaase a quorum of the County � Planning and Zoning Commission was not present,the public i hearing for the ST�GE 3 l�TRO RESIDENTIAL GMQS SCORTi�1G-wou[d be conrinued to January 14,1997. Jasmine - Tygre seconded. ALL TiY FAVOR,MOTION PASSED. 1 ' Sara Garton closed the Growth l�fana?ement Commission ai:5:30 p.m, ; f ` �Vo Comments from the public. i . 1� ) ; ,j' . .. ...__ . � . j u��c-.(_• • € ' �acl;ie Lothian,Deputy City Clerk F ' 1 . i � � ��". i I ,I' ,. __._ _�»..__.__ __ _...._____ ----°_.......:..._, ,....._-_ _ __"%.,�yi ,.,... . ..: , , _ � �' . _ �} ' . � • S �:��~ .�. . . -�;�':�;::...,�I . � . � . -- �i� � �: 1. "1 ` : � • , :i. �. . . . � _ i , ' , .. . .'*... _...._.___—�__' _ _..—.._. .._ ._..__'__--__'�_--� � . � .1...�—____�_'. , , � a,} ,.� __._.� �_._� _ . , .__..... .. , . _.. . . .. . r :. ._ . _ _ _ __ _ _ - _,._.... . .. __ _ . _ ----�--�--- ; _ � �c F�r B r T �E :�..�� y��y,��,_ � . �R.Y'�..:t; i.'iS�c. �. . l�,:�rt'�:�.,.: . ;.,,.�'�.; �„ uw� .`'. �,z.,�w�s,�w�ns s��sozv,Li.c. '-:�� eytr�avux.►7wawvmac .`�":�: wsu�rtas�z.sc�m� , . • r�vo.nai.�c CQIO4AOOilf?3 7�6S1AS GHQZ , �� £IDWA1m4RR.G �$ 7e�aP}�yy�,II �. �hSLADICLi@t � �7q9�d132 , t:.'��' . �. February 5,1997 s:;'. - City Coancil,City of Aapea c%Stan Claasan aad S�zaane Wolf . Commuaitp Deveiop�e�Uegarnne� � I3Q South C�ieaa . . ' Asprn,CO 31611 i Re:Voocx oY lLppeal of Stage 3 Theaters Residemial G,tiiQ,S Scoring Dear Council 12embers and Planning 5taif: • _ : I � The Conceac600 C�dominiumAsso�iacionoppnses the applicationto add four fivingu�to the � � Sta�c 3 Thea�ss. TLe applicauon did not receive rhe miu�t CMQ3 sCOre. ApplicaQa bas filed t an appeal objeciing that t6e Cn�mn;�c;on did mt have both an `initiai scoring"aaa a"final • � � scoring:vuad'as contcmplatedby§Zb.100.060C.3.(pages 674 affi 675,L�nd IIsc Cade). The - applica�cla�s deuiai of`due process°in tbat there wa��discussian and jnsd8c�oa of the . j � scores aiter aa�iuidal scor;ng." Secrioa 26.100.060C3.b.states`Following the miriaI scoring, Commissioumembors shail be free to diccuss individna!�rr„ps a ta�ffer j+stific�gentr.u.� scores." While the Commissirnndid noC engage in a doulile scoriug procedur��ver�heless,t�e T recozd shows that a fnli aad ca¢nplete discassion and disclos�m by the Co�iasion meiabers of � ': their opinion about aPPmP�e scocrs and the jtntificatiam far soch scores occ�ased ia sppoase � to tbe scores rer�mendedlry staff, The Commissionwas fiBt asked if it wa�ed tn mereiy adopt � , the scores reco,,,;,,P••�+•a by srar� This is�anthoiized by�26.100,060C.,bat obviously was � -. a proccdme that had ixm pisviousiq nsed "m othet rases. Ia msponse to that qi�esiion, aa cxtended discassion took pIace among the members regazd'mg the scoce r�eadations of staff . E ' and some members srating rhey caald na support rhe staff re�memiatia�in che ama-$ere tLe � ' appHcationultimauly failed o�obtain the rhmshoid scare,i.e.,d�e standazd of§26.100.G80C.4_c of wheil�a the agpliptioawas"maiutaining design quaiiiy.hiswric companbiliq',and cammunrt.y . character by coaqran'b�7iry witb.e�sdng buildings in tams of sc:ale,mas�.fen�strrcioa aod ' '� ot�spaca"The�efore,a fuIl discussioaof proposed individ�al scoiss and justiScarion far such i scores conten�Iatcd by.§26.100.060 in fact ac�und,aithou;h it was in respaose to the scores � zuommeaded by�ff instead oP in response to a first"mitiaI scoring,° . Fnzthermoze, the discnssion of i�iividnal scores and justifacation for them under - ! �26_100.p60C.4.b.is e�rcly oguonal with the membecs of che Commission and�a3 aot o�cur ! I _- , ac atl. � � ; i i � � , . _..___ , �.� / . _ _ . �_ ' ;_, :. : • 1 v +' :-�. . � . .I. -� . 4 � ' , � - . .._ ___. ._._..._—___....., . :�,._. _...�—._. .__. — _ — - , . �.) •;� 4 � . .... - .. � .... .:, : _ _ --------. _ _.. . - -- - ` �` � HF': y L �,��'.. ,;e: :fi3�ti: _,�: �: .��. Ciry Co�mcil,City of rLsoea ?� Febrvacy j,1997 l� . '',.� �.�' p�e� � . I,` .. . � , ,� : � 'I�e apglicants'objecana to tba coma�nts fivm the pnbli�tLat views of the mou�aia wonld be • ,�r:�`•� '- ' bloc7�was na a proQer erineria for consideratioa by rhe P�Z�misco�rffi com�nication • r.. t,;.. ` of the pablic. Zhe objaxion ths[tLe savcnue blacked views is aaot6er way of c��zessmg � objecton:o t}�e inappropriate mass,laek of apem spax and lack of fenestrat[an and geaerat �',��'. - incomparibiliry with the onc�r buildings aloag thac block �� . , � � Courts:�ave bdd tbat"in order to estabIish a proc�aI d�e process vioiadoa,a nlaintiff mas[ grove rhat�e or she was deprived of an opportunity. . .g�am�d at a meaniu�:vi time a�i ia a . ' meaningfu!manac for a hraring aQQropriaae m ti�e namte of the rase" �undheim v. BOCC ' Dna7i�s C�*�tv,9U4 P.2d 1337;1345(Colo.Crt.13pp.199�,�v v_Tawn ef Coj�hecrer 863 � F:d�US,211(Zd Cir. I988),Boddie v. Co�*+r+rz,.�Ol U.S.371,91 S.Ct 780,38 L.E�2 �:� ; 113 ;19;I). 7aning�co�in+gs are mforma[in nanue,do not require aoplicarion oi rules of �`r . evidence used in judicaai proceedings and :he primazy tequzremeot is d�at pr.nciples of I��i fandamental fair.ress be observed. '4[o�e Vista fessional Bidg v C:ty.of 12omr vim�,s31 i� . ; P.33�?GO�Colo.App. 19751,Nan'on�1�Heriraee v. Pr;tza j?g p?d'737(Colo.App_ 1986). � ' Thcreiore,�vhile 1�ere was not cLe'initial scormg,'a discussion and then a`Snai sc�m¢,°tGere �. was nevertheiess a fulf discussiacz of the issues,t[�e pr000sed scons and the jus'tr#'icationfor thase � scores ia canuenrion with the discvs�oaof the scores recommended by stat�'affi appiicauthad{ull t aouor¢uiicy to �uesent and, in fact did p�seat its comme�s that blocked views are only j prelribued ia sQecific designaced vie�planes. Under�hese eac.�um9rances and rhe tecocd as a � � whole,the appliaata zeceived a fair and meannogful public bear�g amd ooportunity to converse ! with the mcmbers aad m hear their poims of view anci was not denied"due process.' c ; � The applic:tnt did not object to the terminazionof the hearing after the scoriug process or ask foc i a second hearing. A priaciple of Colarado law pcovides tLat argttmenu not made ia the iaidai s �g�n71 nat be considesed foz'il�e first t�e oa aapea(and aze deemed�raiveci a v ?, Denvez, 759 P..'d 664,668 (Colo.198�, Headrickson v. T]eor. ef Reverme, 716 P.2d 489 t (Colo.�gp,198�,Pa'vae WebbeLJacicsan&rL**_+s 7nr . 4d�,178 p,2d j08{Colo. 198�, r Chr'stenscn v. Ham�er, 6�3 P,Zd S'Z5, 531 Calo. 1982' Matthe�vs v. Tri C.ountv Water E! ( ). e v �� o*,cervan�vpis 'cL 200 C�lo.?A2,2Q6,618 P.2d 389.392(1980)_ i �; ; :� ` It is c?ear fmm die�ecoai and discaission amooagst the Conmmissionmembers,as we11 as the input from '�h,publac, t6at the concezn focvsed errnmd the excessive scale,massmg, the blockl� azchiterti:re,Jad:af fienestrarion and lack of op�space.The drawi�gs showed a more massive � buildin� than either of tfle otl�er truild'mr,,s in the block. As metaion�d in the staff memo,this � building strctdy oct'.tQies a�ea�er vokume than a bw7diag with a 1.5:1 F AIt ratio with mr.nal � `' ceiling�eeiigbts(which is rhe maximum allowed vaziance under spe�l review). SP��F.� as a 10,000 squarc foot lot and,aithougH tLe bm7din,g now Las only o�Soor ocra►pyiag 8,500 �' �n_- squaze Fxt, �vertheless,the buldiu� (because it is a theater) cturendy is of a height(and i . ' , i _ ,r�_; , _f i . _ , t 4 , . r_. ':.. . v � . .j- 1 . . • . , - . _._.. .—_..__..._, � . ��. �.._.�-__ --•--... _ . _ .. _ ._ .. .._. .- n.F ,_.v. ,,,�_ . . ^ _ . . __ ;-.-_-...._.� : _..... _---�- .. . . _ --- ---- _.�_-. ; � , _..__ _--------.�-- ----- �- . t;' �� ; ' ? ,� � . .�.�" .�< f 3� y�i�.� c. ; �`- . ' City Councd,City ofAspeot � -';. . Fehcvary 5,1997 4.'"a , Pa3e 3 ��':;;. � theiefos a volam�)that wauld be ' � �Y °°�bY.a ivao-sau9 bu�wrth a floor atca of �`' ; i • 17'�s9°az'�tea.�Lc�e.irie mas�g.scale amd tLe viguet i�of the existing� '`'�?:, .` aiready r�eed whaz aovld.be allowod for a bu�ld�8(with mrmal ceIIing Le�),eveu undrr - : special reviea. rLv tlye:sc�i sieows,tbis applica�aa thm.seds to.add addmo�l voluma and `�"~�,� I mass b9 adding a thu'd aad ftuuat�$oor,�g jn a��QB�wt�e.mass and l�uDc ^,': of a bnildia wit6 noimal '`,-`- Q( ce�7ing heights on cach floor)witfi a 8uor aioea ratio of 2.35:1 or . 23.500 sqvax�Eeet ou a 10,000 squae foat lot. The trsui�ng yeoriag�owa that the C� ,' members agreed that the bu�7ding was aot co�mpaable witb c��, �� i Y; . , . i For tfre roregoiag�asons.t�e compt f�o coaaomm;um:�sociatioa�qoests mat rhe cwnc7 ; ,; �� Snd that"due macess"ovas not dmied and the scoriag Syas�ppr��shaatd be adopted by• ' Caancil aad thc appeai demed. • i � V��y y�s, ' ; . . , HILI-•IDWAItD9,EDW S&ADffiSON,L.L.C. � _ ! � ��' os E.� dwazds.h- . �� . ,�rt. j `�n,"`r`°'�o� _ j 1r i[ C _ � i ____� • F, .. - �i . , '� . • i � . i . ' i I . . ;.i tF`-.. �4, i . � �' i ' _'I � , „--. . ._. ._- �-----°--------/ --�."..- .. . . . ..•. ._._._._ � . -----..-......-,�.,..J----- ..,.�..;. .::".. .;-.; :�.:...:,,-�--_. _ � � �: .� . ., .... _ �� ' i - A � . V � , n t - �, ... I . ' . • , �' • � _ , • . • • �'�. � —---— —-.—._ — ----------� . ;y,^'"r"`_T� . � � -- `�Z .,. � . ^ ,;..:; _ � --_ ._ - ._.. .. -,� __. .. ... _ "__'_' ' . _. _�_ .__...:.�_�_�� 31'r F — l��, ,'1 ;�: *r, ��y�,: ' �'sx; tS:•3 • �� lAW OFFICfi 01 ' O�.TES, HLGHES. K�IEZEVICH $z. G:�RDEi�TSWARTZ � PPOFElSIONAICON/ORI�TION ' ';y • 1', �, TNIRO FIOOR.i9PlN OlA2A pU1�DING , !]]CAST NOPNINS�VENUE �,':J- � l� ASPCN,COLOXA00 elall f � LEON�MO t�.O�iE! T[LEPNONE 19'f01 930.1�00' �'` flICHARD�.!(NEZE4ICM /1K81MILE19701920-It21 �'��:�'�- ?EC O.GAROENSW�XT2 ' e-mail OhkyOlo(.net. _ � �. I OAVIO B.MELLY f�:;'� RICN ORMAN I',.'.,.'� � ` OI COYIOSEL � � � RO!!NT'N.M116ME3 � JOMN�MOM�S I(EL-Y ... � . . . � l t , 1 � � February 7, 1997 i ! 1 City Council,City of aspen H?.ND DELIVERED - j c/o Stan Clauson and Suzanne Woif 4 . � Community Development Department r - � ' li0 South Galena • , Aspen,CO 51611 C ( it RE: Joseph E.Edwards,Jr.letter of February 5,1997 . I � Dear Council Members and Planning Staff: G- ) C: This firm represents the applicant as legal counsel regarding the Appeal of the Growth �; ' Management Scoring for the Stage 3 building. You are in receipt of a letter dated February 5, �= i t = 1997 from Joseph E.Edwards,Jr.,the attomey representing the Concept 600 Buiiding across the : I street from Stage 3,alleging certain procedural defects in the rlppeal. �; � � �. -- j l�It.Edwards Feb�uary 5 leiter is a legally inaccurate and misleading attempt to limit the � scope of the City CounciPs inquiry into the decision of the Growth Management Commission,and j , F to impose the formal and ritualistic rutes that govern the Colorado courts on the City Council. � ,, For this reason,the applicant requests that the City Council examine all actions(or inaaions)of the Growth Management Commission in making its decision. � On the second page of his letter,Mr.Edwards states that the applicant"did not object to the termination of the hearing after the scoring process or ask for a second hearing." Mr. Edwards thus implies that the applicant's alleged failure to raise such an issue at the hearing constituted a waiver of the applicant's right to object to what Mr.Edivards himself ad�niLs was a failure of the Growth�Ianagement Commission to comply with the requirements ofLand Use .. j Regulation§26.100.060(c). �' �, ` . I, , . . � . __ ___..._ ___ .r_ ___.. _ ....-.--- ._ �,:. _.. _.._ . ' .. . . ,;; ' � • �4 ,. � � � +I ; ,, �. : . .. ,� . -----, --- . __ . ._-- _ ;..-�--�--� - -_ _.-—-- — , :;„, . .._ ...-`W'�. . ._. .. ... .. r';� . _ . . ;�4;;�:., .� S. �h?ne'; :i . "+��yb:, '� OATES. HCGHES. KVEZEVICH�4c G:�RDE�IS�VqRTZ. P.C. r+h�c{! � �` •,5�;,. '� ��`:".,�i��, 'w . . Lecter ro City Council � ,� Page 2 - �a ; • ,r,:u Even though this is an administradve proceeding and not a avil cnurt case,Mr.Edwards ''-' i erroneously cites several Colorado appeilate court decisions that purportedly support his E�,�, ' j proposition. None of the cases cited by Mr.Edwards support his praposition that the applicant �;;:.�'' ! is barred from challenging,or that the City Council is 6arred from considering,the Growth (: .=:. � ' �:�=,Y:.'�. . � Management Cnmmission's faiture to comp[y with proper procedure. Two of the cases cited by ,.. Mr.Edwards deal with situations where a party to an administrative proceeding attended and ! participated in a hearing and later challenged the administrative actions in court ciaiming that the i,'``�` ' � notice to the hearing itself was inadequaze. Zavala v.Demer,759 P.2d 664,668(Colo. 1988) �; � ; (`By fuily participatin¢in the hearing and failing to object to any notice orovisions,the appel3ant ! waived any right to later claim these defeets constituted a violarion...");Hendricksan v. Depm-mlenr of Reve�rue,716 P.2d 489,�90(Colo. AQp. 1986). Obviously,these cases have no ' � � i application to the present adminisirative appea!process,because these cases dealt with a court ` � challenge aRer the administrative process was compieied,while the administrative proceeding:n £' � this matter is stiU in progress. tldditionally,these cases aze not germane because the participants '� � in the cited cases could not have been injured by lack of no�ice when they participated in the � hearings themselves. Because applicant is not chatlenging the notice of the Growth Management � Commission hearing,ihese cases are irrelevanL. . • All of the other cases cited by vtr.Edwards deal with appeals of civil cases from district 1 courts,not with administra[ive proceedings. In these cases,lawyers for the appealing parties failed to object to matters at trial,and the appellate couRS held that they could not appeal on � , issues ihat were not raised at trial. Paine, Webber,Jackson&Curtis v Adams,7I8 P.2d�08, � 513(Colo. 1986)("As a�eneral rule,issues not presented in the trial court are deemed waived and cannot be raised on appeal");Chrisemsen v.Hoover,643 P.2d 525,531 (Colo. 1982) - � ("Defenses and objections not presented at trial cannot be raised for the first time on appeal"); .� Matthews v. Tri-Caunty Water Conservancy Distrrct,613 P2d 889,392(Co(o. 1980). The decisions reached by the Cotorado Supreme Court in these cases have no relevance to administrative proceedings,and have even less relevance to a situation where[he administrative - proceeding is still in progress,as is che present case. i .� 1 -� In short,Mr.Edwards cites no authoriry for the proposition that the City Counci]cannot �, iconsider the procedural abnormalities of ihe Growth Management Commission. What Mr. � I Edwards is trying to do is impose the format niles of a trial court on an administrative process, which is more informal than a civil trial and which is bound by the Land Use Regulations,not the Colorado CouR Rules. Indeed§26.100.060(D),which governs thu appeal procedure,has no requirement that an applicant make fortnal objections on the record at ihe Growth Management , Cortunission hearing,or that the applicant follow the technical rules which govem a civil court � ' trial. Indeed,the very language of§26.1QQ.060(D)states that the Ciry Council is to consider �;� . "whether there was a denial of due process or abuse of discretion by the Growch Management ='' Commission in scoring." There is no requirement that the appiicant fo[low a formal and ritualistic ' � -- � �. ; � � . � 5.,� � � ,f�,.: . i �i' l ___ �_ ` �: � , w : ,: . ; .;. . ��, ;,..,:�._-__-___.-- _ _� - � �..� ��..„. `,_� ` . . . ' ....... .__ .. • ._��+�/ _.. . .. __._..— ..__.._ '.�_.. . . ... ..... �,,.,, . _ ... _ _ . k- x.:;, , ' -'+�*} y;� ; OATES.HCGHES. K�iEZEVICH 8L G:�RDE�ISLVARTZ. P.C. �. '•� � k'�.`<k�'t i�;::�'�'�.;+ �� . i - Letter to City Council '--.r, Page 3 ;. '�� I i:`; r... ( process as a lawyer might be required to do in a court of law. rUan Richman,who presented the ��' applicadon on behalf of the applicant,is not a lawyer and there is no requirement that the ;{,-�, y aQplicant be represented by a lawyer in the application process. The City Council has unfettered authoriry to consider all actions of the Growth Management Commission,regardless of the %,~-':=�" alleged failure of the applicant to make any objections for the record. Mr.Edwards'attempt to ' -� impose the Colorado Court Rules on these proceedings is without lega!auchoriry,is incorcect,and *' if followed would unnecessaril restrict and com licate[hese roceedines and mi ht resuit in an �.�^`.,!,'� � Y P P .. , g addiiional denia!of due process to che applicant. ��''' ' 1 In short,we urge the City Councii to consider all the actions of ihe Growth Vlanagement !'� � Commission in this matter and the content of the appeal made by Mr.Richman on behalf of the (,-� applicant. „ . Of fu greater importance to the insignificant and incorrect technical issues raised by Vft. y:.' Edwazds is tht fact that vir.Edwards'letter improperly zrgues the merits oi his client's objection � to the appiication. The purpose of the appea!process in::.is administrative proceeding is solely to !`1 � dete:tnine"whether there was a denial of due process or abuse of discretion by che Growth � - _ j Management Commission in scoring." �Ir.Edwards'inapprapriate attempt to inject e:ctraneous issues inLO the appeal process should be disregarded by the Ciry Council,who should only consider the appeal filed by the applicant and the record of the proceedines of the Growth Management Commission. Any other action would be in violation of the Land Use Re3ulations and�eneral principles of administrative law. `N`'i" '_. Sincerely, � � Oates,Hughes,Knezevich, j &Crerdenswartz,P.C., � i � . n By: ,�2. � . Leonard Vt.Oates CC: bir.Joseph Worcester,Esq. � Mr.Alan Richman(via facsimile) • ! c , I • ' I , • I i . _ i II ' � `i , t i. .__.. ___�.......L:;.,..,_.—... ..__Y...-`="'"'. _._._. .._----_. '_.- _"u,� .. - :::�.,:. :._t.... ,. -..-._.:_ .. , � . .. t 1t.� t ; . i . . . • . r.� • _ . � 'r_.�`, . . . '!:-.:,:.�:,�: . ^ I . YI��.: . � . ' . 1; . � .. . � . '.:' . I '. . ' . � ' . _' .— .'.__—_�_�-'.� . . • _ _._ 't�. ._..._.__..—.- 1 � '.7ns�'�"` _ , ' �g) ^ :.�-,:- �-- =- --_..�--�.-.:-r.._...�...._.::._.._..-� . .. ._ :�.., 1 � � • �`�� _��-�� rg�� `� �' �.'�t`'' ;��.�x��; i •,c . � . I I.\W OFFICES � �� .�,a ; HILL,EDWARDS,EDWARDS &ADKISON,L.L.C. ;�.:►, '� ��.�,,B�� .�:�' S�ZMAINS7REET.SIIfiE:O� • .i� . cnxeorroa�.coww�oo nbz� i,,, . Txonus c.tt¢.t, ta.�erso� lOSEPH E.mWARD5.1R.P.C. . (970)%3-390� �::'�.�. JOSEPHEIDWARDS.III FACSN�IDF Iti::..�.`�'+��. • THOA(ASL..�DKISON � (970)%L31i1 ..7. F.:.^: I�4 �:..- _ � " �..,'.'.�. t'; '. iF ;, February 19, 1997 t: . .. . .� � :. . � . Combined GMQS Appeal Committee � Board of County Commissionen,Pitkin Counry � � � City Council,Ciry of Aspen ; c/o Stan Clauson and Suzanne Wolf _ . Communiry Development Depar�men[ `i 130 South Galena - Aspen,CO 31611 :� Re:Appeal of Stage 3 T6eaters Residential GMQS Scoring . j� i� Dear Committee Members, � f� We represenc the Concept 600 Condominium Association which opposes the applicaLion ro add �� . � four livin;uniu to the StaQe 3 Theaters. �� . � . � j� "Di1F PROCESS"WAS NOT DE�TIED. � . _.. . .i . �. � �, The appiication did not receive ttte minimum GvIQS score. Applicant appealed,asserting he was � 6 denied"due process"in that the GMQ3 Commission did not have both an"initiat scorin;"and r. A r ; a"fmai scoring round"as contemplated by Secrion 26.100.060C.3. (see Exhibit A). While the ; GMQS. Commission did not conduct two sepazate scoring rounds, a full discussion occurted k ' benveen the Commission members re�ardin� appropriate scores and the justification for such � scores, which was the purpose behind havine rvvo scoring rounds. Tha[ discussion was precipicated by a mo[ion�o adopt the scores recommended by the planning sraff. which motion � created the same discussion environmentthat an"inirial scorine"round would crea[e. In fact,the discussion was so vigorous,the Clerk was unable co rranscribe it. • _ � i'. ��._ ,� ; � ;: . , � . �:` � � � i . _.__-- , __:.__.:._ ----_ . :.._.._ -. ,� __ . ---�.:.�.__- __. : _ , l~ . ,_, A'- / - . . �..J _ . . 9 1'.... ' ��...':`' : ` � - " ; �`' .. •. . . - ' . . £ _. . . . . _..----..—._�---� • —-�--_'. __ . `�.. ` .�-_- _-...__--�----'. , . TMYa -•�� . . _:;;.. ..;. .,.... -- -...:.�..�._._:- ... :, _.... . . .'t.� ,'`�;; ��e ;'c`•'• . ��'��':, Combined GMQS Appeal Committee ' February 19,1997 ;;, ' Page 2 . a .�, ;,� ; The standard by which you are to review this appeal is in Section 26.100.060D.3.(see Exhibit B). ' � That standard is"The joint Ciry CounciUBoardof Counry Commissio�rs�h,aa1 affirm the scorinQ j of the GMQS Commission unless it decermines there was a denial of due process or abuse of • + discrecion by the GMQS Commission in iu scorine...." The standard does not say that the score � should be overtumed if the GMQS Commission omia any steps.but onty if"there was a denial of due pmcess." The words"due ptocess"have an established meaning in law. In Colorado,"In order co establish a procedural due process violation,a plaintiff must prove that he or she was r deprived of an opponunity . . .granted at a meaningful time and in a meanin�ful manner for a ; � hearins appropriaze to[he nacure of the case." Sundheim v. BOCC of Dou�las Counrv,904 P.2d ' - 1537, li45 (Colo. App. 199�) (see Exhibit C). The City Attomey advised Council at the last �� hearins that no coun would find a violacion of"due process"under the facu of this case. The r irony of this appeal is that the Council criticized the GMQS Commission for no[followine the '• exact scoring procedure described in the Code, yet the Couacil iuelf then failed�o follow the • appeal review standard described in the Code. That standard aeain is that the score is to be � affirmed unless there was a"denial of due process." As defined in Colorado law,there was no • ` � °denial of due process°in tlus case. � Colorado law also requires thaz objections not made in the inicial hearino are deemed waived and will noc be considered for the first time on appeal. Zavela v. Denver,759 P.Zd 664,668(Colo. . 1988), (see Exhibit D). The appiicant did no[ask for a second scoring round nor object to the ' tercninacion of the hearing after the scoring and,therefore, cannoc now raise that objec[ion. � j ' i � RECONSIDERATIO�i OF SCORING : I t � r 4 � If the Appeal Commiuee fmds(in spice of such review standard)that`due process"was violated, � � then this Appeal Committee may remand the matter to the GMQS Commission(which we sug�est s } would be preferable) or this Comminee may iuelf amend [he number of poinu awarded. - � ; However,.should[his Committee iuelf undertake scorin„ then please consider,the followine j ! commencs. V E � � i The record illustraces rhat the concem expressed by the majoriry of the GMQS Commission and j the bulk uf public commen[s related to the excessive scale,massin�,the blocklike architecture, ' � lacl:of fenestra�ion and lack of open space of the proposed buildinQ as compared co the other , ibuildings in rhe block. As mencioned in the staff memo,this buildine alread}•occupies a greater � volume than a building.with a 1.�:1 FAR ratio with normal ceiline heishrs(which would be the � ma�iimum al3owed variance under a special review). Specifically,ihis is a 10.000 square foot lot . and,alrhou�h the buildins now has only one floor occupyinQ 5,�00 square feet,t►evercheless,che i::- . building(because it is a thea�er)currently is of a nvo-scory heieh[(and[herefore a volume)that ,�-- : � would normally be occupied by a two-story buildine with a floor area of 17,000 square feet. " 1 � I 1 � � � • _ .. _ -__._...._ . ......__ __..� _ _ _ _ _ -- / . . � ' . � k ' . . � ��'' .1,�: k � . � i1 ,' � �: � '. � � , / . .. . .� . . ,. �._ ... ..._...__.__ _ ..— ... '__ '—__._._�— . �a.k ,�- _ „ � : . .h�. . , -� ... . .:.�-. . -.-r .......,....�.._,. :. . . � � '�: . '.:+.'..�� ;ii�' v .� ' ff yc " '�a on. ��; !.',� � Combined GMQS Appeal Committee f,, .�-,� � February 19,1997 ..�� p�e; ' - k', ':;' ' . ;c .. . ;c,. . � Therefore,the massing,scale and the visual impacu of the existing buildine already exceed what ;;s:_,:•�:,; ! could be allowed for a building(with normal ceiling heighu),even under special review. As the '='=�''!. �' record shows, this applicadon seeks to add addidonal volume and mass by adding a third and ' f' .�� fourth floor,resulting in a building having the volume,mass and bulk of a building(with normal `�'�r� � : ceilin� heights)with a floor area rauo of 2.35:1 or 23,500 square feet. The resulting scorin� �•�:`'`: shows tha�the Commission members aereed that the building was not compa[ibie with existing �'��" � buildings in the viciniry in terms of s�ale,massing,fenestration and open space and rherefore did not compiy with the standard of Section 26.100.080C.4.c. �.� � �7 � For the foregoing reasons, the Concept 600 Condominium Association requesu that the joint .� : � committee find that"due process"was not denied and the scorine by the GMQS Commission was � appropriace and should be reinstated. � -? Very truly yours, �� '� • HILL,EDWARDS,EDWARDS&ADKISON,L.L.C. ----____._,. 7 � . _ ,. �� `� , � Jasep�Edwards,Jr. —''�� ,,.. I v :r�� JE2:caw �~ • � Attachmenu � � ca Ciry Attomey � eoixep[1lc�rycou.03 . i . _.___..__.� . 4 e � � � . i . I � I . ' 1 � ' l. 1'1.. � . ,I , __— , _--�:._..�a, �_..._._:! _. �_.,_�:x. � r . . .� . . .__....., �, _ .,. , ...;.— . --_-_.._. �k� . . . . � . � t�. � - � , �. . ' . Y�:_ .` b . , _+ .. � . ` • . - � . - ' r . .. . .� . . . —_.______�� .J..�'r--.----r ----__—- �—----- -- ._._ . e�! ��..�._.. . _ _ _� ._._ __._.� -- _, ` � __ � J '_.5.100.060 ` `�� a �c�, ' �^,��.��-s}�•, �; :t; :-,;," .i;: �. HFC co��ual approvaL]n the_went rhaz his[oric oiesenanon commiu�(f�C)approva!is n�ed for ury proposed project the committee's conc..-ncual apocovai must Ix sxu�ed prior to submimng an anplicarion for s developman a1lo�enL The aaolicanc shall be cemiired[o s°cure finai approvai of the pcvject irom rhe "`: commiuee orior co snbmission of an application for a building permit l',. ':;• �. Consolidared at�licario�u.Deveiopment aDplicario�for any deve}opment acrivity that is epnsplidated � '_ j` .. with a development a�plicarion for allomient shall only receive nnal anprovai to the extent Lp which the project obrains nec�sary development allotmeats B. ?,.11ocarion proc..-dums for exemnt developmenG �:,;s:., " 1. Applicarion deadline.Applicarions are raken and g'altred allocarions on a.fint-come-�xst-served • °- ` r�:.� � basis be_oinnin,on 7une 1 of each year.�n aDQIicarion for an exempdon or ior a developmenc ailo�ent for t '� . �,;...: txemp[developmen[may be submiued to the Commtmi[y Develonment Dimcwr az any rime oi rhe year. �. :,. �,; Z. ApQlicarion con[ents.An anpiicarion for developmenc alloffienu for exempt develonmenc shall'be 1.` submiaed in a form established by the Communicy Development D'uecmr and made avaiIable m rhe public. F~� � 3. Piocedure.A develonmen[apolication for a develonment allorment for exemnt develooment snall �" be rrviewed outsuant to Common Procedsues.Chauter 2652 Aiter review for comnleceness and ieview and a<+ approval in accondance widi Section 26_I00.050,develo�enc allo�ena shall be allocazed on a fruz�ome-fixs� l served baris,provided rbu all applicarions svbmi[sed on rhe same day saall be consnved to have b�n submived � !'� u the same rime.ln rhe event rhat�he numoer oi develooment applicarions submiucd on the same day exc�ds i y�. ihe number or development allotments available,a random drnwin�shal(be held to deceimine the o:der in � which allocarions aze�anted.Those aoplicarions rhat do not�.ive a develonment allotmeac in the random ��1i draw�in�shatl mmam valid until the iollowin�Yiay 31.In the even[that addirional allocarions become available ,� on or befoie l4ay 31,development allormenrs snali be zllocar�on the oasis of the o s°inal random drawin�. :j - If ailotments a�available after awazdin�alloanens to those applicarions inclnded in the random drawin�, -�-+, ' ihey shall a�zin be made ava�able rn.applicarions on a nis:-come-first-served basis,ba5ed on the dart ei submivaL z�� + If develooment allommenu have imt b�n allocaced to an applicarion by.�/fay 31,that applicarion snall W.DIP � and be�ine2ieible ior allocarion unril a new annlicxrion is submi�. i C. Allocarion procedums for non�xempc develoomenc ?. Aoplication deadiine. A dev�iopment apnlicarion for a deveioQment allo�e�t for non-exemp[ . � develoomen[shall be sabmiaed w the Communirv Developmenc I?ire;wr puisuant;o Common Pc�c�.dur.s, ; Chan�er 26�2.on or beiore rhe iollowina.dazes: • � � Land tise�Development Type Suhmission Date �' Tourist�ccommodarians Aueusc 2 Residenrial ?tiovember I _ _ j '}. I 2• �policarion contenrs.An anolicarion for development allommenrs fornon�xemnt develoomentshall ( � be submiaed in aform establisned by che Commvnitc DVvefopment Dire�or and made availabte co die nublic. �F 3. Rankineproceduissandsrandards.Adevelopmentappiicadonioradevelopmentallomien[iornon- . _ ezem�developmen[shaIl be reviewed punuuit to Common Pro�duies,Chapter 2652.A.`�,r�view for comoloteness and a�ecommendarion for scorino b}•ihe Communin�Development Director,such aDpiicarions shall be reviewed and recommendd ior rhe aw ard oi developmeru allo�ena in accotdance wirh the pmcedn�s anc sandards or mis s�oa�n applic3n[shall oniy ame�an incompie4,appiicarion ro make r�tvucaI cor�oiu :i . or clarincarions.and the applicarion shail be scorad by L'�e Grow�[h Management Commission , `�; ' S �- �. , � c.,�:,ss� 67_ E X H i B I T i� e � '�; ,gi: _.. _.._.._—_ _._._.. . ,.._ �_. . ,: / . ��: ti � - � ... . -1�. � • _- ' . � , / . _ . ..__ _..---.._---- 'x _. "" — w.�""""�.. _ ..__. . �•! 26.100.060 *��'�� t/� ��,_ I��i;, . . :,-Y N,��-u�C�:,': - �-, �. a. Each Growrh Man�ement Commission member shall assi�a whole rn:mber scon(not a fracdoaai �'=�,��-�'4�� : ,c number)to the project i � = - � h. Fnllowing the uatial scorin�.commission membecs shali be ft�ta discuss individ¢at scors and I` .'• [o offer jusdficarion for such scoies. i "'1 c. Followin¢the close of Gmw-th Manaeement Commission disausioas iesaidine inidal scoring,a ! `�r!,:�; nnal scorins round will be held,durin�which each Growth Ivfanasemerrt Commission memb^r shall asain • . � idanrify the nvmber of pointc,ezpressed az whole numbets,assi�r.3 to the project Growth Managemtnt !t' • Commission membeis shall tx fr�to xevise the number oi poinu awarded m a project betw�n the preIin+;na*�: �':�,�. I and linal scorin�rounds. -• r�'�'-,; 9t>:.:.-. - i.:. � � Afrer the close of the finai scotins rovnd,a pmiert's final averase Score shal]be calculated by(1) �;:.�.`- j toralin�the eommissionc�s'individual scores and(2)dividino that coral by a number ectuai w the-numa:. � oi commissione:s who pazticipaitd in d�-.8na1 scorm�[nunrl Fina!averie projecC scoies shall�calcnlaud , , for each oi tne four gowth mana�ement scorin�criteria oi Secrions 26.100_080(G�(1),26.100.080(G�(Z), ; � 26.i00_080(C�(3)and 26.100.080(G�(4),and a c�ulatiw scote shall oe caicutated for die criter,a as a wnole. i The anal avera�e cumularive spre calcutated rninvazn tn rhis provision shall consdmre the p�oiecCs anal f ' i �� ' I,:i , . . "� e. P[ajecrs siiall be ranked in order of th:ir finaI averie scoies � - ! £ Tne project rankin�s and any recommsndarions fnrthe awazd of opdonal maxim�aIiotmrnu snall oe forwazded to the Ciry Councal and Board of.Conntc Commissionea. 'a�,. 4, Acrions recnxuzd for aQprovai of allotments.Since the Grow[n Manag�ent Quota S}�st�m a�ii�s �'j, . throushout the Aspen Meuo are�no�wrh mana�emau allocarion snall be awazd�l unless the.City Council ''rt and Boazd oi County Commissionus boffi acG.pt tt�iecommendarion oi the Growth Management Commissi�. Tne proc�aur�Qovemin�ct�allen=es and anp�ls are set ont in Secrions 36.IDOA60(D)and(�. "" - c.,� ' �.; �. Minimum scorin�thresholds ieq¢ired for allocazion.?�o srowih man�ement allocarion shall be awazded to prpjec[s thaz do not ieceive a final avesa�e scom of az least fF�r�poinu for eacii of tht growth � mana�emein scorin� crireria of Sections 26.100.080(C7(1), 26.100.080(G7(2). 26.100.080(�(3) and 26.100.080(C�(4)- 6. Idenrical point mtaLt.ln the evun that cwo or mon non-exempt development appIicarions i°..c,ive id°n�cal ooin[torals,and onc ormoie must be approved w rh_axckusion of orhets b�ause insufficienc allovnenrs � az°availanie,the Growrh ManaQement Commissioa shalt reronsider tlr t��ins pmjecu and apnly the iollo.mins i criL.;ia in sequrn�,until the rie is broken: I a The oroj�c ihaz ieceived th°hi�her poinc toral in th^,sr.,as°st rnmm�r of scoring caze�ories shail bt consider�..d fi:st'sn eli�ioilit��for an allo�ent � � b. Ttee nroj�that was awazded th��ceatesc number oi points io;";evicaiizmg the perman�u commimin•" shall'oe considered fix�[in eli�ibiliry for an allo�ent ° � _ c. Tne proj�tnaz was awazded th°.�°..ate.st rn�ber of poinu ior"provid'u�aansportaIIOn innovarions" ' shall�considered nnz in eli�ibilitv ior an allo�ent �� c. Ti�proje:�that�cas award_°3 tne�eaces�n�ber of poirns:or'promo�;nvironmencally v, a;,,a�ie develoomr.nt"shall be consideced fitst in eti�ibili[y for an allo�ent � D. Challena;s and agpeaLs made b�•aggrieved pazaes. - � 1. lipon rceipt of th�Growth Mana�ement Commission's ranl-ir.�oi developmenc a�plicariont,tht �, Cin�Council shall consider any ap�ra25 made by penons a�orieve3 be•ma scorine of�e Growtn�Izn2Qemen[ ' Commission.Th�City Council's:eview oi an aopeal sna11 be limitsd to d�Laminina wherhe:tner was a �� i denii oi due process or abuse oi discrerion by the Grow�h Managemenc Commission in irs sco:in_.Anr an�als �i ?; j 1 - �. ' 675 i , i : , , � . q .- - ____..,r. . --- _:_--.__ ---- ---._ _ ,....... • �. . � . / . . _ • ,`+ � + . '' .t y � .-;. � . '4• • V . _� .. ._ --. -- �,�, �._.__ _ _ . � — �a.> � . _: ,► ' e�.- 36.100.060 +�r.; ��;•;.s��`:�: ,s-"�'_•Y��, . �-.:'�e,;::P•.� �;;'h�:��,�,:;; . must be nied:virhin four[een(14)daps of the Gmwrh Management Commission's puoiic hearin�by nlin; ;�.� . . a nodce or appeal with the Communiry Deveiopmen[Dirxrar, 2. In reviewin�an appeal.the Ciry Council shall consider the development aaplicarions 6ascd on ttte �"1 record established'oy the Growth Mana�emen�Commissioa.The City Council shail affiim the scorin�of the " �',.'':;' Growdi Man�emerc Commission unless icdese:min-,s shaz theie was a denial of due process or abuse of msaeuon • . by the Growth Mana;emenc Commission in ia scorin„in which case the Ciry Council shal!ovemim the y� , ' Growih Management Cummission's scoxm�of tht anpticarion If the Ciry Coun�il affirms the scorins of the Csrowth Mana,•emenc Commission.thaz action shall consdmre the final adminis¢ative order on rhe ma¢er. i;�..,;''�� If the C5ry Coundl overcums the Growth,�fana;emen[Commission's scorin2,the appellant aay nie an appeal , !�`:` :. ' of�he Grow�h ManagemeaL Commission`s scorina with the jainc Gty Counci.iBoard of Councy Commissione�s ��=r� ' ' as provided in 3adon 26.100.050(D)(3)• � >�-` � 3. :�n apoea!to the joint City CouncillRoard oi County Commissione.�s shall be filed wi[hin foune�n �: `�:. • - t..., (14)days of the Ciry Coimcil's decision on the maaez by fiIin, a norice or apoeal with the Communiry ;_; • I�euelopment Direttor.A joint Ciry Covncil/County Commissioners mrans s6a11 be called within shirry(30) � ;� days of rhe dare.chaz rhe appeal is Sle.�in reviewins an appeal, rhe joint C�iry Counct�Boazri of Countp i,, Commissoners shall act on the bass of the iecord esrablished by rhe Growrh yfanagement Commission.The � '` � appellan[shaII have the burdea oi peisuasion in rhe znpeaL j, ' The ioinc.Cicy Council1Boazu oi Co�mcv Commissioners si�all arfiim rhe scoriae of the G�ow[h 1�ianagemenc l •'s '+�: Commission unless it detecmines thaz rhae was a denial of due pinc�ss or abuse oi discmtion by the Gmwrh I � x Mana�emenc Commission in ics scorin;,in wmcn case the joint Ciry CouncillBoard of Covnry Commissioneis y r shall take such acdon u ic d�ms nec°ssaty w cemedy d�e Growdi Man�ement Commission's acuo�t R°,medies ,�� ,. available to d�e joinc Cisy Council/Boazd of Caunry Commissionecs shall include,butnot be limited co amendixL rt�e rnunixr of points awasded or iemandin,tf�e develo�ent applicarion to rt�e Growrh Man�.°mau Comm;��on t"� {� . • � for ctscorino. '" A quonJm of the joint Ciry Council/Boazd of Covnty Commissione�shall be comnrised of az least ttuee '� j membexs oi the Asoen Ciry Council and at least thre�members of the PirLzn Coimty Boazri of Coimry Commissiane:s.No m�rin�or rhe joint Cicg ComiciUBoand of Councy Commissioners shall be calld to order � without a auon�m and no meaun�az wtrica less than a qvonun is present ShaIl act on an aapeal o�er rhan to canrinue ii to a dare unain.�Il acrions shall require the conn,***n�vo�e of a simple majorii}r oi�he membeis then pmsenL and vodnd.a de vote by the joint Cicy CouncilfBoard of Counry Commissone:s shall be deemed a de�sion.o uoaoId�e GrowTh?vian�emesu Commission's scoring. '�'� The dwson of�e joint Cicy Counc7lBoazd oi Councc�COmmittinClCiS SI73U CDI7AlAIIC tS]C$I12I 30IDIIllSQ3t1V0 orde:on the maaLr. �' E. Challen�es and anp�,.aIs made by Cicy Council or Boazd of Counry Commissionecs. ; i 1. An�oeal[o[he joint Ciry CounciiBoard of Counry Commissioneis may be filed by eirher the j Citt�Council or Board of Counry Commissioncs az any time by filing a nooce of saoeal wirh rhe Communiry ,, ` Deveioome:u Diiecxor.Iri rhe evenc of suca an anQezl,a joint City Counci]/Councy Commissioners meerin� �} � shall he cailed wirhin thirrv(30)days of thn dau shat the anpeal is nled.In reviewins an appai.th°joinz � City C�uncillRoxrd oi Co�mcy Commissione:s shall act on rhe basis of the iecord esrabiisiied by che Growth ' . M2nagement Commissioa The anoellanc shall have the buiden of persuasion in the appeal. � 'I'he jouu Ciry CouncillBoard oi Counry Commissionsrs shall af5rm the scoring of the Givwdi Manag:.9enc Commission unless ic dereimines rhaz rhere waz a denia!of due process or abuse of discruon by tise Growsh �fan�._emenc Commission in iss scoring,in wflicn case the joun Ciry Coun�l/Boazd of Counry Commissionees snall take such acdon as iL deems necessary[o remedy the Gmwth Man�ement Commission's acdoa Remedies ` ` .�. a��ilable co rhe joint CiR�Counr:lBoazd o.COIICI[Y COmmicciOIIBYS SIl31I IRCllldt,bll[I1Dt F7C IIIDIICCI t0 eIDC21Q171g [�+ _ �sA.+{�. � ,:.. ; 676 _ � EXHtB1T 4 � " 3 B € :'� • ''tir: � _. . ......._....... r...,.. _ . . _ �, . , ' �� .- : --._,._....__._. -. r .. . . � _ t . i . � t. i �I. . r . 'q.. � �,e.._�._. _�-.. ... .� .. , . u.? ___ ___..__ --�- .:- ...,__. i _. _ _ ,. . � ... . _ . . . . - .. .. . . . .._ .. .. .... � , �y`�.. 1&.'. .l�:. . � � _�� ry�:r�.y�?<�., � .. '��:;��'. . 43: `�` i.: SU*TDfIEL•YI v. BOARD OF C'PY.COM'RS OF DOUGL.IS C7'Y• Colo. 133! "t� �. p4a�9W P.7d 1337(CObApp.1995) � .• . �'';'".�I e srawcor: bensation�1ct si�all be based on the d '- � . 03. C.R,i �.n Sfedi.cal:Issaciasian Guides to the Eual- John SSJI3DFiEL1'1 and Soann Scoggin ; , . ' . • chac :he uatian ol Permanent Impairme�tt The Sundheim.Plaintiffs-:lppellants '`` � an: :e3ard :o phy+sipl imnairment rerings containe in the and Cross-:lppellees, • :e�1L.T to 3�irerieaa�Yfedica!Associaiiore Gu s are. :Y 'B) those houwever.inconsisunt with the scheduled in- c. �y::�:� _:•= .;ffial aca- .1�Y impairment:adngs rnnrained.�n§ 3-12- �.i.,.,•.''' rs=a: �on-scheu- l0i(?L BOe1RD OF COUNTY COILIfISSIONERS ' r - / OF AOUGLdS COL:VTF, and Suzy �;'s !. The 1�onrHct i>eiween the sch�uled injury w impairmenc cacings and t6e phpsical impair- �'IcDanaL IZa."Chris"Christensen and James Suilivan,individuailq and in�their � � menc rarin¢s oased on the 3mericax Medi- • .x�r.oc zmGciily di- - cai 3ssoiiisa:im�Gnides may bb minimi��by �Pacities as members of the Boazd of '•e d'mded 'necwee� awardin¢'t;cenenis for all•:$e impairmenrs County Commissioners of Douglas ��,I` a u i e d'cea e n i s�c her.a - p u r s u an s m 3�2-1 0 7(1 H b)(g o v e r n i n g un- Countp,Colorado,and Ed Tepa individ- c scneaciea and noa- _ �ea�� 1��1 i� �as�s ia which the ually and in his capacitp as the D'uector �•�.' s. The_1cc is sileac - ��ti��ers only one injury wnich affeccs of Planning and Community Develop- � � :x:olloaved in sue�a multiole oares ot�e body and whicn resulss meu in Douglas Councp,Cobrado,Do- ; c�concains tanguag<_ in scitieduled.`�na' aomsc5eduled injuries. fendants-:lppellees and Cross-�ppel- ,�r .^=nee chac iqjuries � Harmoniang;.ye stacute ia chis fasnian is lancs. .^d aon-scaeduled im- rnnsistenL vritb.s.he orincnles of stamtory • � :�dered joind}•under - consaucrioa See Izendersdn r. RSI. Ixe. az'd .�"i a�cvra. ;7('�(a).C.P..S.(1994 Domch� Rudd and Roberi Rud$ "- - �•�,.N Defendanis-3ppellees. ' • ahen an emnloyee t��g] We cor.ciude thaz 4 8-�12-10i. - il ;L�es coming uader _ C.R.S.(1994 Cum:SupoJ concemolares thac a �os_93C�1"a23.93C�1S91. _es sneci5ed ia suo- riaimanc:nac su$�an�,jure or injuries noc :.is ;ecdon snall 'ne Culorado Courc oi 3ooeaLs, = oa ;he scitedufe as�1nell as sa iqlurs or '-.chere is no provi- . - ��e4 Wnir3:are on 1he scnedule,and as a �'V' ' ��i disabuiries niucfi " result of the unsc�eduled'mjurp or injuries, ��4 log�, � :ednled. - map be�miied'w che�benents oro�ided in . .asmeen scaeduled g" �-l0i(3). Furcher', because she siat- Reaearing De:ued:�pzil.'_0. 199�. .--enu is;.hat they uces zmonasize �e result or results of an •�-` •^c�dux�ai rales,paz- ix�jur�, sc�ednieu asrd non-scheauied losses C.trriorar_Granted Nov. 14, 1995. :re :ec ouL a§F- mcs�be measured as a wholrpexson imnair- y �roloyed ;n cases oi menc when chose losses or iqturies azise u�om ?s the concencs, a single indusuial ucidenc., roua��board oi couney eom,.�+crinn_ ',dures are encrelc - :� r,(�e :2cord sunoorrs tkie Sndin� ihac ers'deniai oi nrooere:o�ne:s'aoulicadon for � Si ur.e secdon is co ��nc';injurc a3ecring the�necic is noL a use u� snecal re�ieac io ooard and u�ain �� :usion oi the oches. scaeduled injur,•,we perceive np error in the hun�er.�jumper�orses commerc:ally,prooem �e no need ior the Pane'; dec'sion. '; ovcners brou¢nc action alleging iederal cn�l nese secdons. See ' 8ecau:e of our incerpreracio``of§�S?- riehss ��olacions and im-asion of prn�acy { '°'LU' su:°r°- :D� we do not reviecv the propnen�oi che againsc board. board membe:s,eaunct s di- �` incaon:;chat§ � ALJ's conciusion tSac a should� injurv rector Oi DI2T171iI1F, and rnmmunis�develon- u imnairmer.c cen- whic:n affeers t6e arm is uot a scheduled menc and a6jacenc oroperc}owners. The in che scneciuie. ,injur. 1 Disuicc Cour pouglas Counn-,Thomas J. umiis medical im- j� 1'he order s a�-ir.ned � Curn•,7..dinaissed cnil rignrs ciaims,erant- � ' �provided ia§ � :v-', f �, ed siunmar�judgmenc w deiendanrs on inva- � iaz:c susca:ns "an T�LB4L�:\ and?{.�1PELEE.JJ.. rnncur. �on oi pricac� claim, and @enied counc�s ,',., :he scheduie." �\ reauest ior arome}•iees. Oa�nets aopealed - �, C.R.S. (1994 . o Scet�autntu� and counc� c�oss anpeaied. The Co�ut of ,� � - :ll uncsical:moas- ' � ApoeaLs.Da�idsor..d_neld chac Q)occr.ers' _i'' � he Vvorice�'Com- :ailure co oring dmei}•acrion for judicial re- t, - 5c= Y'`�� EXHIBIT =a , No,1:'�S g C s , . _ S ��i�_. , / � � ..: .y, -. - . � . � . � •�, y,�,,;,,.�._: _-_—•.-_ — - • ..k ._ ♦ . �...�Yr-. . � _.�� ' —' - ^ _ .�. ..:......_. • il �� N,�« ' y• _ � . .:' � t�Lr . .�s :� � . _ . �. 1333 Colo. 904 P�CIFIC REPORTER?d'SERLES '`� ��,; vie�v af mning deasion did not bu iedaal �.Civil Rights�194 ; ', civd rights claims: (2)crounry and sute pro- p=,opern,mmers`fai7ure to hring dmely �- f cedures with regard ta zoning decision com- �on for judicial review of denial of their �� t oned wit6 urai due rocess �e- P p�° p � anplicadon for use by speaa!review to boazd ments; (3) ownets srated subsrsndve due �d�ain hunur/'7umper horses commercial- - �: process daim with reoard W councds denial lY� aad co inrnrparaie their consriwrional - of their applicacion; (4)owners failed[o srau �� az�an, did noc baz fe6eral - 'r' • equal protecdon ciaim with regazd m denial civil righss claim,where ownexs did noc seek ' oi their auplicatian: ("o)owners failed w scate 'declaramn or injuncrive reliei buc only mon- _ � talang claim with regard m denial ai their erary damagc,. �t2 US.0�.§ 1�83; Ruies A anpliratioa (6)owners could.noc scau claim ��c.Proc„ Rule 106(ax4). under federal csvi7 rights sratute 6y alle�ing - violarions of srace consridirional or;racutory �,�ppeal and Error a3�(�) - , law; (�ownus]aci:ed sranding m c�allenee � � � alleged search of nronercy leased:a�eoancs: �Dpe��CO�,�it is poss"nle.should ! and (� acdviries of iavesri�mr :ured by unhold correcc result,even ii reasoning�cas ' counry w invesrigace uniag vioiarioas did �coaecc. " noc constitute"search"that invaded owaers' 6. Conscitutional Law u}318(1) ' .f1� privacy. ' � � � • 9f5rmed in narti reversed�par.and �egarions rhac local a�*++;*+;�uve remanded�vith d'uecrions. bodp reached its decision oa��roneous tea- soning or!aade demands wiucz zeceeded ics � • sracucory auchoriiy are not su�cient io es- i . _ L Zoning and Planxiing c�563.1 taulish orocedural dae process caim when - state affords*rrsonable remedies co recofc _ras Action for judioal revieR unde*evil nro- legal ='roxs by loeal adminisu�auae uodies. cedure nile is e�ciusive remedy ior conusc- ��uriing avenues of anneal, and wae� ao _ - � ing zoning deasion when endre mniag ordi- ��enge is raised as w regulacor.r or sracu-. nance is noc challenged and wnen record �ry scheme icselL liS.C3 Cons�mends. j review o[ county nrocedure uxro�des ade- �, lY. . - ' quate remedy. Rules Cic°*oc., P.ule • 106(aH4). i. Constituiionat Law o27S.2(3) � ' ?. Civil Rights a?09 Zoning and Planning a436.1 � , When only decaracor�reliei s reauesc- -°I'�� due process reauir_meats � � '" ed �viih regard to zoning decson. "i,;r+� wer=;aasned�vith regard to counr•commis- � ; ' }�' brougnc under iederai civil rigau ramce ef- s�one:s' denial oi proper• owne�'SDOIIC2- ; ' ` tion for use b al re��ew co uoazd and fecuvely mere inw claim for judieai review y�' i ' � of zoning decisioa 4Y li�.0�. 3 1983; � hunce:�jumuer 60� commercially> '- � ;`; Rules Civ.Proc.,Rule 106. �snere ocmeis c�ere acroraed onooraminr for - f . pubiic hearing on their aoplicarion,and chey 'r �, ' �. 3. Civil Rights�194 rnuid hare availed chemselves of nrocedure - - � tV If monecarv damages are wu¢nt wiih for judicial revieu-oi commission��'decision. ` regard to zoning de�tision,action unuer ieder- L.S.0 a. Const_�lmends. 5, 14; Rules Cic. �I�' al civil righcs sTamce bazed uoon alleeed �c., Rule 106(a)(d). _ t�� violarions of federal constiturionai r,gncs map : be mainrained senazace from aeuon ior judi- 3• �nstitutional Law c��(1) - ciai revievr of wning decision,regardless of �lthough prineiple oi subscanri�e due ' � •�� srams oi an}•action for judicial rnview,since process mac aoolc w land use decisions by - ; ��;j civil pmcedure rule governing judical review local adminisa2rive balies. aggrieved.pam• ". � _ �� does noi prm�de for damages remed}-. �2 must;irsc possess propercy interesc procecc- �.� ' `_ r I� r� U.S.0� 4 19Si: Rules Civ.?:oc.. Ruie ed under feae�zl due process �lause. P„E; ' 106(a1(d). C.S.0� Consc._�xnends.5, ld. �p•.�;,.' �;�: .�• � ' r. .. :� � ' 'w�� Lu. . . ._ - I .. . ... ' i�y�;. � / � ! . . �.',`. . t r, : ; � , .�, j '. � � •*. , -_ . ...._ _.__. ._.—..—_..._. __�-._ ._. . ._ ... �- - .. i.,R'�.�+-_... , 0.1 ,. . � J ._ ....__ • ,j �.. _._ _ .._._... �,..�... ._.___�_ .. ,,.. .� �� _ � ; � SL"DTDHEI�t �•.80.�1RD OF CTY. COhS'RS OF DOUGL�S CPY. Colo. 1339 �~'`•��•' , C�eu90�P2d�1337�CabApp.1995) F_ . ' 9. Constitutional Law a67,'�73?Q) anplicadon amounts to mere unilateral erpec- � Zoning and Planning ca6 tarioa U.S.0� Consulmends.5, 14. ro -e co bring cimelc '�� • .'denial of the:r �e rignt w use one's own real prop- 14.Constitutional Law�3^.3?(1) -•_:zl re�iew to boazd - �Y az one sees nt is prooerry rie�t fullY � ;,�,j .:�:�ee commercial• protzeted by due oroc�s ciauses of federal �1aim ai entitlemeat to .avorable land : -_ consriwrional _ and srate consrimrions.;uch use is subjecc so ase decision by local zoning boatd mnsc come ::.i aoc baz fede.�l prooer etercise oi local police powecs. �some aasting legislarive or adminis�a- '• -,a-s did noc seek U.S.0�. ConsL?.mends. 5, 14; West's dve standani in order w srace substanrive {..'': ' C.R.S�.. Consc?.rc. ?, ;3. due process claim ari9ng�om denial of ap �`.:. � :�uet but only mon- pGcadoa liS.C:1.Consc.dmends,a, 14. ' � ...— 3 1933: Ruies � 10.Constitutional Law d8i 4r " • There is no eonscsurionally proceeced 15. Constitutional Law c�?78.Y(1) _,�� righi ca most nrontaule ar desirable use of I{zoning aoplicarian nroneric coula have � T��°D��• been denied on nonaroi¢�ac?grounds.federal , :s�ossioie,shou:d - 11. Consriturional Law'a?i3?(1) subsrandve due process c!aim arising out of ��n i reasoning�vas It is onen quesdon in Coloredo wttecher, aenial oi aoplicaz.ion�vill be deieateri as cnatr in wning decson rase im m�ich denial of �oi law. t.S.C_L Cons�:mends. 5, 14. � �'d13(1) sabsraarive due nrocess is alleged. courrs 16.Constitusional Law a�gifl.2(1) � _ should reouire thxbshoid snowiag oi en¢t]e- � ��il administrarice - meht�favorabie decision or snaald otesun- In decermining wnecher nrooern owner ;n erroneous rea- oose urotecxti nrooerr inrz�est ar�ing ffom has leeidmate claim oi anciilemecc to favar- � s •anich�YCeeded'.ts t . owneisnio oi and and proce=d d'uectly w able land use decision oy local mning boazd, i ��c su�aenc W es- dera,,,��„�rion as to mne*1ie:ehatlenged gov- �d.�hus.w¢eche*denial oi zoiring appliea- f • ress ciaun :chen ernmental acsion was ar�ia�an or±RadonaL don gices :'se w suostancive due process medies �recri'ry U.S.0�. Cans;..�mends. 5. 14 ciaim,iocus oi inauirv is on decr_e oi mscre- � :.isc.�m-e bodies. 5on aiforded to locai zoning oody, not aa ' i, and wnen no 12 Constitutional Law o27S2(1) reladve probability of favoiable auuome. � :�lacory or scatu- Prooercp own�s alleged 'oorh enritle- li.S.0�.ConsL�snends. 5. 14. _Cons�.mends. ment w iavorable dec�sion and arnisar?and ' irrarional governmeacal acrion, and thus, 17.Consiitutional Law r}?iS3(1) �_: ! ;tated subsranrive due rocess claim with P If?ocal zoning body nas sigssi8cant dis- ::5.2('_) regard to count}• cammissione-�s' denial of �don, anoricsnt'= beliei�hac decision was j ' =436.1 their aoalicarion:or sse b}specal reviem io �e aruiirarily does noc conv�:iils um7ab - - _ board and aain nuatzijumner hoises com- �_��rion into ecriilemeac or rignc so :_^ss reauiremenv - merciall�.� mnere oa�c,s yssened ;he com- _co counn-commis- ` $s co �m'e_:ise co subsranrive due nrocess missionrss anolied unusual standards of re- �� liS.0�. Consc_�mends.5. 14 f ;--' owners' aupfica- view.chac commissionees'�randards�sem un- � ;�°`'e�°L°°°zrd�n° related w aaoricarion's meriis.:hat commis- 18.Constituuonal Law a:78?(1) ' nes commerciall}•, 1 , .• , sioners'srandud�were 6ased uoon oeisonal Fact thac ari,,,;++;rnarive bodc has his- i ;��_d 0000r.�:iln•for "_ consideredons unconnected wiih 1e�amate s � _ Wrirallc e�erc'sed its discresion:n oarricular � :,.poucarion,and:5e}' e gov�'amenral oojecri:es and that aonlirarion • mann�does noc mean chac ic hzs diminisaed � se.ces oi procedure ' would have oeen 2ranred buc for commission- �erion co acc difierearly in :ucu�e, for � '..-.ssioners'aecision.. . � ers'reiusai:o ioIlow adsdng adminisuzrive p�ose oi de[e*mining wneiher a�++�+*s�**�- E ' S, 1�1; 3uies Ci�•. y��, U.S.0�. ConsL�mends.S. 19. 5ve decision�iolaces aonlicant's subsraudve i ' 13. Zoning and Planning�+3ia1 due orocess ri¢hu_ i:.;.C?�.Cons��mends. ` :�•?;7(1) t. Whecne�nrooe.^;owner has leeirimace �. 14. • oi suoscannive due �I� of endt]eme+�t to iavorable land �e 19.Precrial Procedure a62? v �c�se de:isions b}• decision bc local zonine ooard deoends unon � a;, aggrie�;ed par^: a+eecher chero is either a eercvnn•,or a ven• �lodons co dismiss ior Faiiure to state -ti ir.cerest pmcecs- s¢ong likelihood.that anoucadoa�could have elaim are not viewed �cich favor and are � oroce�s clause. - been grancec absenc conduct alleged m be in granced onl�rarel�•. Rules Cir.P:oc.,Rule - violarion of scosrand�-e due nrocess: ii noc lY(b)(oi. � ` �• '- � f`_- I c� ;•f �-'�. . � �.'.�.: � . '� ' i • ? • � ' : -. . �i... � 1 s ,. . _ .__.-_,_-..._, • -- — _ _ . .iwf""'�'___ ..�_ ' � . ti.il _..�. --- �. , , ::... . .. � ... . _. __ .. ,_.. _ . _. - .=fi• ''{� 4.:':";:>. �;` � ,. " - � � �3:4Q Colo. 904 P�iCIFIC REPORTER. "_d SERIES - �. �i , 20. Constitutional Iaw a?73_°(1) amount ordinarily ro cogni�able equal orotec- '.�1rbi¢�ary, capricious, or irraconat" rion claim; ptaintiff muss allege acoons aldn �> �, �' srandard of re�iew approoriace w property � �� ption or bad faith incent w ,�`': : owne.ts'snbsramive due process claim in fed- �l� based upon petsonal hast�ity. ' - ��'�� eral ovil righcs action,challeneing denial oi U.S.0 1.Const�tnend 14. �' .,� _ appticacion for use by speaal reviecv to boazd � ,�Pp��d Error a863 and aain hunterijumper horses commercial- ly,was snhsrandally different from scandazd Dismissal ior falure co sraie claim nill ` of re��ew under civil procedure rnle relacng 6e affumed¢it anpears chat plainriff cannoc '.' w judicial review of zoning decision. even ��blisu anp set of facrs in supoort of his ar � f thougn ii employed similar cerms. U.S.0�. her cfaim�hat wouid permit courc co granc T :r � • Cansc_�mends. �, 14: 42.ti.S.0�. § 1983: �� Rules Civ_°roc.. Rule L?(b)(5). 8ules Civ.Proc., Ru1e 106. ?6,Eminent Domain a?(1?) '" - Zl. Constitutional Law a?73.2(ll Land vse regvladons as aoolied to par- • Substandve due Qrocess srandard oi re- ricular piece oi prooercy will cansdtuu rak- view, chac governmencal acdon cvill not be ��u�ey prevent aay economically reason- found co be azbiIIary,capricious,or inarionai ��e.ose oi propercy. G.S.C�I. Corn2 ' ualess no ardcuiated basis for deasion uears �end o. . , anv radonal relarionsnin W le'iimate � ernme.nral inceresc,mas apvlica'ole in ied'er.1 �'•Eminenc Domain a'?93(1) . civil rienu acaon challenging councy commis- Prapem•owne*s fai7ed m sca[e taldng •�. sioners'deniai oi anplication for use by sne- ��regazd w counts commissione:s' � , riai:eview w board and traia nuncerljumoer denial oi:heir apnlication for use by special • �' �� a review so uoazd and caixi uuncer/]umnex' - �� horses commerc'sally,where denial of speaal �o:ses commercially, wcere comnlainc did � use uermit was quasi judiaai acrion under �� ,a:` stace law. IIS.0 9. Const_�mends. �. 1.�. nos all`ge char.governmenc acrion nad result- - ii m �gE - ed in permanenc occuoadon of their prooerry ' '"' Constitutional Law co?�2 or loss of all eroaomieailc benencal or prn ' ;I - If no stacutory classincaDOn.is ereaced ducuve use. L.S.0�. Cons��mend 5. �• by uning reguladon on i'ts face, aggxieved nam• :laiming denial uf equal protecdon ''s'Eminent Domain a?,i musc allege chac governaienra(acriocL oos- �'e°u cou�'s uroainivan of commer- sess elemens oi iacenrional or purooseml dis- °��ocse zaining as�d boazding business on criminarion ehati is based on classi5carions owners mm�em divesced prooercr oi its suce as se�and race.or on egtegious abuse oniq economicallc viable use, taldng ciaim oi po.ser. U.S.0�. Consv�mend 14. ��d not be rine under iederal civii righss sramce,where owners had not punved any �. Conscitutional Law cc�•M$? srace mverse condemnarion c2a�,and thus. Prooercy owners :ai7ed w scace equai had aoi escablished ;.hac ;uu intended co procecrion daun aich regard io countc com- deap the� jusc comoa�saoon. U.S.0?. m;�sioners'ieaial oi their applicaoon for use �ns��nend 5; �2 ti.�.0�.§ 19&3. ,• by soeeiai :evievc w boazd and uain hunc- � er/jumoer norses mmmercially,even if t6ey �•Civil Rights olOS.l � were sunjecced co seleccive�eamient in de- Plainuff dces noc srare claim ior relief � � nial oi thes aooliclrion,where they did noc undes federal eivil rienc stanste by alleging - �% allege corrunaon or bad faii6 intent co injure. ��coaduc:oi deie�danc:iolaced srace con- ,�, �� CS.C_1. Const�nend 14. scicutional ur sracuwn• law. �L? li.S.C_1. � �� ' �i�. ?4. Constitutional Law a350.�1 § 19�� '�� DeDBI'CIILCS from administraiive proce- 30. Civil Rights a194 '.) r? dures or nuricies.use of�11e�amace etiieria, To e�aent thas prone-cc o�vners' claim 4� ' and amorphous aDegarion of bias,bad iaith challenging county commissioners'denial of ' ��1'. ' "' malice. conspirac�, and cnrruprion do noL iheir anplicarion ior use b�speciat review io r�, � � . - �: �:; '.�. R' �,t � �n:. �'i.. �..� . •<:.. �.,�. E � �' . i . r ' �u. �..._�, _—"— . . — �� — . _`� �.: .�.. __ _F n ..... __"' ' _ 1 .'y: _ �T"..L}Y�:`�3 �'1".��.:'.1�, a �!.,.:4�:r.�..'"_ %*-'�•.�'.:: � .1:,{�{�.i' • � . j j,�,�.3::�;, Y SWDIiEI.1�I v. BOARD OF CTY.COM'RS OF DOUGLaS CTY. Colo. 1341 �,�� Cl�e u 40f P.2d I337(fakApp.19951 . �_a�izable equal procec- board and�ain hunterfjumper horses com- 36. �onspiracy u}iS ^, ::csc allese acrions al�n merciaily could fairt be read as inde ndent �'� Y Pe Prouerc} owners faved m sute cfaun -- °�'° -��h inteni ;n claim ior reiief for vialations of state consa- ��counry defendancs aod adjacenc proo- � = pexsona! hosdliiy, tudonal and ;tatucory lam, it should have � • . :.c. 14. been brou c as acrion for 'udiciai revie�v ��ers undPr iederal civil rignts ron- ; � ] spirac3 sraiute wit6 re¢acd co cocmry com- r, .,,�,� within 30 days of commissioners' deasion, �{aness'denial of o�cnc�s'anpGcarion for � �� :re to srau claim will - rrcher thaa as federat civil rigars claim. A2 use by spec9al review co aoard and azin �,;_., '�- US.0�. � 1953; Rutes Civ.Proe, Rule huncerijumoer horses commerciaUc, where (�'`.`. � �chac�lainrii7 cannot ipg�a��.��, comnlains did noc comain either alle on of t ' _�=��n�upport of his or &� i;_r,.:. � x.�ait courc tv Kra�t � �- 31. Zoning and Planning�35a clasa-based animus or descripdon of snffi- :�c., Ruie L(bx1. aentip defiuite or precise ciass oi pe�sons in Denial ot special use pertnit is quasi- whico oane:s were memness. 42 G.�.C_�L j.,'-. m �•2(1�) juflicial acaon. . 3 1985(3). - :aans as apnlied to oar- " ,.r.�ro�� 32.�dminisuative Law and Procedure 3i.Seazcaes and Seizures c 162 i; � ' �:y�conomically reason- " �5�'"1 Beiore aggrieved par•r map objecc w ��-'. li.S.0�. Const, jumcial review re cesenis sole �'�D4�°e-m.ment agenrs,ne or she musc �` ?�c�on:or p � remedy ior reviev� of auasi-jumcial acrioa �L.de�ons�te leei�mace eceecrarion of ? Ruies CR•?roc., Rule 106(a)(4). Prn'ac�'in:seas searcae6. L.S.0�.Const j • n�•393(7J 3mend.1. ( . • ::iied W state tatdng 33.Zoning and Planning co561,�81.1 I� 3S.Searches and Seizvres�162 •councy co*+,r,;�'ane_s' �Vhen narr: Las been afforded norice � ;�on:or use by soeeal Pam wno cannoc demonsffate legiri- , and chance m oardanate in public heazing, �ate emecTarion of pricacc oy�tue ot some ' � hII°�'/]�n�' any cnalleng� m local zoning bod}'s quasi- ��sor: ar nrnpriecar:inceresc in ateas � :here comolainc did searc:�ed :na}• ]ac4 s-.anding w conres j i juoical acnon:whecher conscicudonai or srat- ::�ent acrion had result- utor•,muss be joined mith acrion fnr juditial search. liS.0� Cons��end 4. .acon of their prooe�; review and brought aiihin time limiis pre- } I_caily benenciai or pro- � - sc�Coed by cic�proeedure rule gaverning ac- 39. Landlord and Tenant u>L'i u ;_ Const�.mend,i �' tions for judicial review. Rules CivProc., Tenanc is entiiled co oassesson of leased 1 1 ¢5:r;� Ruie 106. premises m �cciusion ai landlord. absenc �'` ' r ' j '^ � some a¢reement w she conQai:�. : �roitibirion oi commes- �.-.� 3.i.Zoning and Planninq P�61,SSS.1 - ' ,.boazding ousiness on d0.Seazches and Seizures c5-?6 � .,$�d �o�.� oi i� i aciai c�allen¢es m mning legislsdon itse�are noc subjecc to gena�al nile chai, �nea seazci� ai:es placa on leased ; :cble use. cafdng elaim premises.ic is]essee's ng�rs oi pm•acc whieh ` 'der federal civiI;i cs ' wnen oar:• �az been afforded notice and �' chance to naz[icioare ia ar'e inuingea not chose oi landlord. ! : nad noc nursued any p�blic hearing,am• = � ;:acion claim,ana thus, ciiallenge m local zoning body's auasi-judicial ;}y Torts c�?0 '' acdon. �rneL�e* consmurional or siawmry, • '-zac �race intended �o ;. ?rooear�ownets asse-�ng elaim for in- � �:ceuarion. U.S.0� 4 musc be joined with action ior judioa!rerie�c vasion oi orRacc laci:ed xanding :o chai- � `- anu�rou hc wir,�in time limics rescnbed'oy i.;.S.C_1. § !9�i. _ g P lenge alleged illeeal;eare:of their prooerty f " - m11 orncemub ruie far such actions. Rules � ;98•1 Cic.proc.. Ruie 106. bp prnace investi¢acor :rired bc ooard of i rnunn cottunissioners m invesa¢ace mning . state claim for reiiei 3�, Conspiracp a13 violarions a�:n regard u�orse craining and :-s scamce by alle2�ae boarding ocerarioa whero owne:s had leased �nrs�iolateti state con- _ Even u nropertc pied ootirical cronsnira- propem• ac �me oi invesd¢acors ac�vities ' -: ]aw, 42 L'c,C_1. cp may orovide oasis ior acdon pursuanc w �d lessee wzs t6e onic endt}• condacmie �� feueral civu riehu rnnsuiracy stamtz, and such¢aining and'ooazmng acmities on pro� � even;hougc protecdon of sracute may reach � ciearir de�ned mli4c:lh- based classes, -ooe;r•ocvnezs'c:sizc piaineiff rsusc nonetheless mst allege chac he �Z--Searches and Seizures d16 . -imissione:s'deniai oi '� or site is me:nber af suc�class. �L'.L�.S.0�. Obsenarions oi oronern made fivm �by soeciat reviear w � § !9g5(37, pubnc road by urvesti¢zcor,who nad been � -_ i � � ' !.:;y � / � 4 ��,��.� .. . —v � ^:.. � � •j. � � � .k . . . � . _ ._--�--__ .. . _ ,. .'m�'^'�—.-- _. — _._ ..' __._.____—_. _ �.} . � �� ' ' 'i. - _' _ � �'�,K .., �:�q.C�, �li.� �!''�- _ . ` : �T � - �; 13¢2 Colo. 903 P:ICIFIC REPORTER,?d SERIES c !� hired by counry board of rnuunissonets to �19.Seuches and'Seizures a1S2 . ��. ; investigate zoning violadons,did not rnasd- ��gavernment agenc,posiag u�vdl- ,� • I� wrz "searca," Wr nurpose of decermining mg p��p�L N utilawfiil acriviiy,is allo�ced _ '. l:,. whether invesrigarion invaded ownexs'priva- ��•by�.ri�rion,there has been no unrea- �j zY• sonable search. U.S.C.a. Cons��mend. �. ;- � See publieation wards and Phrates .�1 for ocher judicial consauczions and de(- 50.To[Ls �6a(4) i; iniuons. �.oce�c owners arere not�lianle iar al- • , '�, leged incasion of adjacent properw ownexs' � ?' x� A3.Torts a8.a(d) There is no invasion of om�ary involved p�d�'1°he'�e,anarc from their ecpression ' ' in observing that whici�is DI2IIII}'4j5jp�(q of 000usiaon:a mmmercial horse oneradon punlic. and, thus, neason's -ea1 propen�i� on adjacent proorscy,they did noc oarricinace , noc mocecTed from onsc�atlons lauiully 1° �� eneeti acriviries of invesri3awr _ made firom ourside its pexi�ecer. who nad been hired by councv to invesd¢are _ wning violadons,and they onserved aad[aok .... ,�., �1:Searches and Seizures d19 phocogranns oi adjacens prooercy onlr arom ' . . Use of camera�ciih:eiescanic lens by ��ge P°�L ouuide thaL proner.r iiu1L imescigacor,wuo had'oee_^.an-ed'np rnuncv �1. Zoning snd Planning a353.1 . to invesrigare zoning Yiolaaons,did noc aans- g��Y'orth penalties for=onin¢ �'.� form incesrieato�'s lawnil onsexcarioas from �oiarions doo noc by iis nlain z�ms.pre- ' k. public road inw unreasonaole "sezreh." � clude invesrigarion oi alleged zonine �ioia- �`` detennining wner.her invesrieaLOrs acriciries - ��i tlons by baard oi counc�� commissione:s. � insaded o�cnexs'privac}-. Wesi's C.RS�3 3��-1:.". jl . 4,i.Searches and Seizures a13.1 �Z,Toris o8S(-1) _ "Searen" did not occur nhen invesuga- . To ercenc iva:prooer.y owneis asseRed "' tor,who had been?uted'op councy co invesri- �L counry deiendanss singSen them ouc`or ' - . �ace zonine violadons,was invited onw bua- �cesri¢arion b�';elecrice eniorcemeat" ui ness pmnercp by one oi]essee's owners.:or yo�g yaws, thac assercion fa�led m scace puroose of de�a*^+�++�^g wnecher proo�:p ��ior incasian of nmac�, �inee aere s - _ oaaers' nrivac}• was irrvaded. even thhough no privac}•in[ersc in��olacing rhe iaR. ,-a�i invesrigacor was oosing as ootenda!custom- - p,�., 53.Judgment c�1S6, . u Ta avoid oreciniious and premacur= - .. -1G.Seazches and Seizures�'25.1 �L of judgment a¢ainst ooposing �ar•, !�` Business premises are nrotected zom �procedur_:vie aifords ecceasion oi�e ` t;` unreasonabie searches but:hey are onen co �urilize discove'y orocedm-es�o;ee::addi- t' inmisions thac would not oe permissioie in rionai evidence beiorn trial courc ruies on pureiy privarc cir�v�scanees CS.0�. mocion ior summan•judgmenc Rules C:c. Const�.mead �k. Proc.. Rule 56(fl. - ! ' 'i �1i.Searches and Seizures vE5.1 's{.Judgmen't�196 - � Commercal escabiisnment mjo�T .�ic- Reasonable eonrinuance fur discocen �! ished e�cpectaaon of privacg in those areas pnrooses mac be ordered if it anoears:hac . wiuen are open co oublic. summarc judement would be preman::e an- - v 4S.Searches and Seizures o?5.1 �nt opoortunity m conducc such disrnve.. : Rules Cic.Proc»Bute "vo(fl. �i When inavsian inm commercial esao- +''` Gsiunenc is based unon nature oi business ��•Judgment a136 _: acdviues there raldnz place.or upon regula- _1n}•disrnven•relaang W prooem•anr.- `' �'+ ` don thereoi, business owner may noc have e_s'allegation regarding acdviries oi counn' r: � reasonabte ea-ueccarion of aricacy in those defenaanc5 and adyacent prooercy o�cners':n ' : acmides. invescigasing zonine�iolauons could not ha�-e ,,� . j ��. _ 5,.� . �' .. � � � � _. .i,. � - . .>...�""�'_" ------_ - - • '�,.> ,.�.: ...._ _ , :�r,�.• .;,,;k ,. :.___.._. ., _ �......_.,. .. . ._. . . . } . '�G �',`.��';`;i• .. �(�r..�'i�. `� 5: . .� _ f,:,..� .i�.l , p _ i.�'..�.'.,.;: .. 1;}:: . •'T= SLti�HEL1'1 v.BO_�1RD OF CTY. COM'RS OF DOliGLdS CTY. Cqlo. j�� '�,7'' �`�' CIIea904 P�'.d ll3i I�olaApp.19951 " . �a Seizures c�1S2 resultza in any iacts thac wuuid have pre- fees oresendy were noc aeaiiabie mdrs yTat_ ; .� -_�enc agen4 posing as will_ cluded summar;judgment for councp defen- ute awarding awnrney fee:unon dism+<�i�I �_ :t, .:u:la�riul activin�,is allo�red - daats and adjacent nropercc o�me:s in orop- eatire:ort acrion. �Gest's C.R.SA§ 1�;;_ " ... . cnere has been.w unrea- ercy owners' acrion for im�asion o#privam�, ^_(Il. ' �S.0�. Consc,lmend. �, " and ttms properc�owneis failed so deman- '. saace teac discrovery was neeessary w oo- 6L Civi[ Rights o'�9 pose summan judg!nem modoa achere un- Costs a194.�1-4 vr.ets were nor lia'ole for:i- �isnutefi macerial:aeu demonsnaceu no pri- Based aoon iaecs as alle¢ed in properc_ � �jacent prooem oecners' wae� inserrss and no illegal seazc:ti Rules owners'rnmoiainc asserdn¢civ7 rig�ts•vio3a- aoa-frnm their e��nrnssion Civ.Proc.. Rule 5ot�. ' rions and inva5ion oi nrnace,aiai courc did :^.'nmercial horse one:arion not abnse iss discretion in deciining w deter- r � :-:�,they f31fI�OL D3I'C1C1D3iR �B. Cl�'ll RigI1t5�'�6 ipjne thac owners lae�c or_s6ou(d have � activiaes of irvesrigacor ' Lnder ar„orney :ee srawre reiaang w �a� thas ciaims mere subsrandally frivo- - td by county w invesri¢ace avil :igncs acrions. "nreva�iag olaind�" is �ous or subsranpally�oundless reJative rn . �.d:hey observed and moic one wno nas successnuly litieaud si¢nincanc counNs acdons :n denS�ing aoniicarion :or � .:ijacenc proper,s onip a�om issue weici: acaieves �ome of the benent use by special *e�ie�c w board and cain ; ;�.::�ide tnac properc• ;rse!f. souguc�y chat nar..•. 42 ti.S.C.(1988 Ed.) hunier,jumner aorses mm.merc:allF, and ia � � � ! § 193a. invescigaring mning�iolarions�and.rhus,ai- i�.Planning c:5353.1 ' - See ?uolicauon Words ann ?hrasu ' � : al courc did noc sbuse iss aiscrerioa m derlia- iq foi7h penalries:-:oning _ ior otne:;udic:ai conscvcdons ma de[- �g � a� actomey iees nnder suwrz 't by[� oltin�zrms. nre- inicioa5. � , even chouga cwo cnii:-isnLS caims did not ' :a ui aileged zanir.g ��oIa- �;, Civil Rignu%?'296 survice riodoa w aismiss, and invasion of � , .�: councy commissioneis. Deiendanc is rnnsidered m be'brnva7- pri�-ac}c?aim was de�ded a¢aiasc owners or. t i ,'.0-?S-1?A. . - ing parr:':or oisooses oi accard oi accomey morion for summazy juugmeac West'; - t :) Fees emaer:ederal civil righrs;cuure ii plain- C.RS�. 3 13-1;-104. :c�raoeny owners asseRed �? �s claim i iound co be groundless or with- � ; ouc foundadan. -2�.S.C.(1�Ed.}§ I9SS. -s singled the�ouz.or �Sassee 5hoaalter S�fash.P.C,Richaid ' �' .°^IIVe entotcemen:'.o[_. - . ,_ .- - -� --Sce �uoiicarion��Woids and'?hrases . ..;erdoa faiied w stace for orae:;udic:3l conseu000s a�d dei- -a.- �az'sa Dencz�, ior olaincu`;-anpelianu uricioas. and eross-aunellees. � •r:�rivacy,;ince ttiere is ' 9: � violadng.he ea-. 68.�ppeal and Errar c�l'!O7(3) Greengarci�ences Goltifazb d RirP,Stevea S 'Ifiai cou-:�re��caminarion on*emana oi J. Dawes. Aennerh R. Ylorsenbocker, Den- ' v�, :or deieadan-s-anoellees and eross-ap- - countt s-eauest ior acsornep iees unde*ied- �us and ?remana�e " eral cicil rizh•s s�mte�aas Raxr3nua zvw PeUants. � , .;g:insc opnosin¢ naztp. _ - t2�ough one oi nro,nerry owners' caims for litilceless &Busec Jenni?er Bisset,Den- � a'r,"ords eesension o:�me " relief a.¢ains� counn deieadaars had 'neen ver,ior deiendxnss-annelees Dorochy Rudd -�rccedvres:a;eeic addi- �Sracea in nar. wnere othe %:aims for and Robe•c P.uad. 4 '::ore 5ia1 cour: ruies on �u�vice*e nroneri}- dismissed. •4Y i:.S.C. � -�;udgmenc. Ruie=_ �ic. �lggg EQ,j § :g�, Opinion oy Tudge DA4TD50\�. ' 09. Counties <•=2=S Plainriffs. Juim Sundhe� and JoAna � ' - Insoiaz as nmoercc own��s` comnlainc Scoggin Sundheun,anoeal irom the�smissal E :nuance for disc��:e�• allee�d willPsi and wanwn conduct and asked P'�uanc co C.R.C.P.Lfb)f5i oi thra federal i, ' -dz�d i�it aDcears ,:nac for exemniar:damages frum muncy uefen- �''t righu claims brnugat uader 92 L'.S.C. :would be ure�-�acure ab- $ 19C�'i (19531 and �2 I;.S.C. § 19&S(1985;. danrs ouisuar.;to invasion of orn-acy ciaun, � conducc;uch disco�-e�•. and'aom rhe summan•judgmenc eacered sn uial rnur. �sas obri¢aced ander srawce co (se 56(�. award attora�}• iees co counn ioiloaing favor of deiendanc:, w'e Board oi Coun.: � � � �I'3lli OI;u�ui:an•jud¢menc for councc de- Commissione-s oi Doualas Councy,and Suz� � _ i fendanu. R�est's C.��. §?4-10-i10(5). ��anaL R_1. "Chris" Chriscensen. ano :eizcing co orooe:�•own- James Sullican.individuaih and in their ca- :dEng acd��aes of cour.n- 60.Costs a196 paciiies as members of cne Boazd of Counn acent prone^:mcne�in Wne::one oi Qlainii3's'four claims had Commissioners oi Douglu Counr:,Ed Tepe. `' !:zoianons couid noc iave - been restored � oar: on apQeal. aanrney individuall}' and in his caoaciiy as the Di- � - ; . .x - - - / � --• � ` . : ♦ ' .}, .�-^'�"_.. __,_. — - - - — - --- --_�.._, �,.7 .._ ._._ _.__. ...... _ itlilH� .. .. ♦� 1 �, j�� Colo. 90�4 PACIFIC REPOHTER, ?d SERIES *'�•� �.• 13� r� reccor oi Plazming and Community Develap- and against Douglas County and rLe t2udds � '�' menc in Douglas Counn•. (collecrively Doug- alleging conspiracp w deprive them of cheir - ' ��•t las Counry)and Dorochy and Roberc Rudd civil rights and�iolarion of nrivan. � (Rudds), on plaindSs' claim for invasion of Tye aial coutc dismissed the iederal and � ,.� privacy. Douglaa Connty cross-aQneaLs a�am srate constiiutional ciaims under C.R.C3. ��' tlie denial oi its reauest for aa awazd of �yrox��p�e barred because they had noi �; acwmey tees. We amrm in nar�revexse in ��ed within the 30-day time limii for ' par�.and remand aiih insavcrions. ��ew uuder C.R.C.P.106. The crial Tk�e folloaing :acs are sec forrh in che co�sc aLw di.vassed piaind8's' consoiracy � complaint or are nos disnuted. Plaindff;own ��on che basis that t6e}•had not alleged a � i . prooercr in Dou¢ias Countti which,according iace.based conspiiacy. - - m counry zoning regularion,:nay be used ior pouglas Councy then moved for susnen- - ='.Y. ' - the commercial boarding and uaining ot yaa of discovery based upon iss rnnunrion ho:ses only by enecal x�eview. 'The Rudds thac sovereign unmumry bazzed plaincci�'re- o�rn propem adjaceac io plaindffs' and as . - reievanc here, ooQosed :he ap��con oi a °�1Dq��for invasion oi nrivacy. 3t:he _ commeroai ho:se baazding and saining busi- same ome.Douelas Councy moved,"or sum- ness in the area. �Y,Ndgmens hued uoon sovereiea ic�mu- nin or.alternarively, on�e basis tha�,ac- ` In 1990,Douglas County denied olaindffs` ��g�i(�e undisnuud iac:s,no im�asion - � apoiicarion ior a use by snecial revieu� co a{nrivacy had occurred. The Rudds alsa - boazd and a�ain huncer,%jumper noxses com- {��a mocioa ior summary judgment The " merciallt. Plainti� did noc seei: jumcial � cour. granced tLe morion W susuend - � revie�oi-Wis deniaL discave.�•as ru Dougias Counry•. - �r Followin�reporrs 3at a comme cial horse p��moved for susnension oi resnoase �f:. ' ,: ooarding and ffaiaiag business was ooeraong ��e mouon for�,+++rt+�*�•judgmeac and so .� ':. on plaindus'orooe::y,Douglas Counry�ired �nducc discovery on the;rounds t:nat�e�� j • : :£ an ixrvesrieawr who then cronrzcted Ja- _ Y . could noc deie�d a¢ainst:�he summary judg- �� : Brooke TYaining(JacBrooke)�lunugn its ad- ment r�oaoas cviihout conducring discovent � ,�'; veresemenc in the ye]low pages of the celr qye triat court denied that morion. peone dire:A"r.•whic� lisced the Sundheim - ' proper:�'as ics business addx=_sa He spoke P�°��ed no respoase io the morioas t with 7enniier Brooke, ane oi che ownets, for summan jud�ment and che trial cour aooac boazaing;ome horses and upon her �'�eauently granted s.hose motions. , j - inviiarioa he made an anpoinanenc;n cisit _ the aperation. ' Z i - The invesrigamr cisited the prooerty,DllL Federa!and State Cm�siituiivna!Claims �� noc on the annoinced day. Since Jennifer plainii3s argue that rhe trial rnurt�'red - ` �• : Srooke was noc presen:, che oiher mcne- � � in its deurminadon thac their nrs: avo i; gave the inresrigacor a mur of che faciiiy, j � described the services o�'ered,and eave h� ��s ior reliei,brauehc a�;*=s the counn• — + deiendanrs, were cime-barred 'oecause che�• _' 2 copy ai the boazding and zaining consecc 4 1� were not brought in a C.R.C.?. 106 acdon j �~ ?Scer the invesdgawr reiayed this intorma- ��30 days of che Dougias Cour.ry aenial � '�I tion w Dougas Counrr,ii_conracted plainri�'s of che snecial use aoolicaoon We aeree in - E and JayBrooke co inform ihem that :hey P�, �, t�� were in ciolarion ot the zaniag regularions. 1� JayBmoke moved its busiaess w anorher � - _ -. {ocarian shorrl}thereafrer. - . Plainriffs .hea �7ed suii agaiasc Douglaz Section 2985 Clai�ms ms ` Counn•alle�ing violarions af cheir due pro- Because they brougnc s.heir fedexa!consa- ain •'��., cess xnd equal prouction rights unde che mrional cauns under 4"_li.S.C.§ 1983.olaia- '' i ;�;: Uniced 3taces and Colorado Constiiucions, tiffs concend that the Qial eourc erred in `i: � �. � � � - �� - y i � »: - b . � � �t • I / • , � �.�'.�•�•, . ,, ^ • � ' � , �'' � . .h __��. _ - .. .._ . . .. .... _.� .__...._.. � .I�� . i�! ...': ' �f�a��— . . 1 � . _.____._ , . �'1. ..�._....u. .. �� ., �:.ri ,,:a,•', ��e � �^'�;,',. ._ p;., . . � �':f`�`��,. . '•s.'. =? �:�. SWAHET�I v. BOARD OF CTY,CO�I'RS OF DOUGL_�15 CTY. Colo. 134$ � ' Gte u 9P/P.2d 17J:<Celo,App.19fs1 .<. �u�.��and che Rudds aQQlying ehe 30-day timiiarion for nling an (1963); Dorris v. Gardner Zemke Ca, 76"0 :�, iepricre chem of their action for judicial review pucsuant m P_°d 602(Colo,l,op.1988i. • � " !n uf oric•uy. C.R.C.P. 106. We agree. ',-;: �ppfving che aporooriace scandatd of re- .u :<.:ed che tederal and (y_] ��n far judicial review under view for a modon ra dismiss under C.RCP. -^s under C.P..C,. C.R.C.P.106(a>(4)is che e�clusive remedy for I2(b)(5), we w�l assume rhaz i.he materia[ ' ��e:ause chey nad noc concesdng a zoning decision when the enrire allegarions oi the rnmnlains are ave. See t , 1--:ay�me limii ior aoning ord'n�ance is not caallenged and when Xatversan r.Piices Pealc FamiZy Cou�tseLing ' c'..C.P.106. The n-al record review of the rnun o � �'i '•. tiP P�d�Pi'o- &1fers3al Healih'Ce�ter,Ine.;9b?�1352 i ': r�iaind�s' consuuacy cides an adeauate remedy. See Snyder v (Colo_;,pp.1990). �'�'ith that assumorion in i" :�ay had not alleged a CiCy oj Lakewoar� 189 Calo.42I, 042 P?d mind, xe rnnctude t9ac aithou¢h :he Iria! i : I 3r1(1975). When oniy declaratory reliei;s court oroneriy aismissed ;ome oi plamdffs' �:`;: . ? ao�ed for ;usnea- renuesced. claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 198"o claims,it mas noc aoorooriau az this ;upon iss concenrion — 3 1983 euecuveiy merge iato the C.R.0°. �y �qe oi the nroceedin� .o dismiss � � ��ared uL�undffs'r� - 106 claim. Higby v.Eoa�rd of County Com- them alL m ui nrivac;•. AC che �isaioraers. 689 P_"d 635(CoJo?np.19&i). , ' `.:r:cnoced:or sum- [3] If. however, monetary damages are �, � ion sovereign immu- ► • sougrtt,because C.RC.P. 106 does noc pro-. . , � : the oasis chat ac- eide ior a ramedp in damagea a sepazate-L? Fede�ui Consiifuiionai C[aims t3_acrs,no invasioe '' C�.C.§ !98,�acdon oased uoon alle ed do- . � The Rudds aLso -.y �a�oi;ede.�l coasriiurional righrs ma}•be PI�D� � ti.5'C. § !9S3 daim alleges .:i-�jutigmenc The - " that acdons :aken bc Dou¢las County 'Sn mainrained. Sefaveniiis v.Cheml Hilis 4�l- IPj�d;"fs'annli- ' �ocon ta susnend connecrinn wiih cne denial oi fage Board ol aa��c„�,Lc a Appeals, i�l Counn. � carionj�vron¢Ic aad disr-^^+*�*�rily deorived � __ P_d 661(Caio_-1nn.1988). Su�separace ac- �p��of their_^"ghcs co benencia.l ose of " spension of resnonse don uader-12 li�C.§ 1953 may be.brouguc ��„�p��„ a due process of laac and : ry.1�QSmenc aad co regardless oi the 'sratvs of auy C1iC.P. � ��.,��er.c under_and orocecdon of�_. : '-�iwwds thac thec 106(a)(4)acrion. See LvrJc u.Board of Cawe- federal consdwrionai and ssarnmry laws ro- i::.a sumxnan•judg- ty Cam.missioner� 789 P?d 4ia (Colo_�np. p — ` n tec.ing and saieg��ardi::g auca righrs." �mduedng discove^r. - 1490): see also R�iIson u Toum oj 3�me.'r99 '= �- :a��osion_ P?d 990 (Colo_�on.198'n. . i_ f ;�rse ra:he mouors (;] Here,nlaindffs do not see.i.-declarato- � ��:d :he a�ial cour re or injuaerive reliei buc only monecar• � �cess �se morions. _ Qa�g¢e�, ':'ye a�ial courc thereiore_�red'oy Plaia�s':L t�.C.4 19�claim is based � determining rhac the iaiivre w bring a dme�y � p�, upon denial oi due nrocess. We ; C.RC.P. 106(a)(4) action incorporaring che conciude chac dismissal of ;he elaim was � - federal rnnsdcucana2 claims barred the -f3 prooer insoiaz as :he c3ain: is based apon j '�ciiucimcal Claims li.S.C. § :9&i claim. Cf Mari.no u i�ii- procediral due nrocess bu: was zrroneous i �.e=:ti ^_our:e__eri � (m�gnby, 613 ?_°d 723 (Co)o Snp.19S01 (al- insoiaz as:he claim is based uoon a denial of 1 :,c :.heu� msr. �o ' thougn rhe principle oi res judicaia bazs noc substanm-e due process. : 't� a¢vnsc che coun:• only claims previousiy decided buc also all f ^�_a Decause thep. � claims mi�ici�could have been brougnt in:he E :.�.C.P. 106 acdon ` nrevious liri¢arion.civil rights claims are nos � ; � ieias Counr.denial L U3il2��lI che adr�inisaawe aiounal wnicn ?�edurai Due Process cua �T�e aeree in heard the case laeked the authorin to consia- °� omer w esuhlish a nrocedural due er such caims or to award damages). orocess�ioiarion.a olaincff musc qrnve thac he or;ne was denr::•ed oi az:onoorw.vn•... � B' ¢ranted at a meanina'nil time and in a mean- � y�,.r,� - (�] However,tbis does not end our inaui- ineiul:nannu for a hezrin¢aoorooriace w ry. _lnoe!]ate courss,if ic is poss�ble,snould ihe �awre of the cue." Brady u Toum of ie'.r:ederal cansd- . unnoid a rnrrect result even if the reasoning Coknesur, S6i F.�d 205,'_'_i (?d Cir.1998); '.�.C.§ 1953.piain- aas iacorrecc See S�.ireher u lndusiriu! see aiso Bodd'u a CanneciicuL-101 li.S.351. . �ii •:ours emd in Commissior, 152 Colo. �, 3S1 P?d ?53 91 S.CL 730,'_S L.E'�'d li3 ;1971). �� ' � 1 i - -� . .. . _ �.w�: i . 1`��,~- � t: , r' 1 • . . ' . T: _ . ...�� ._ __ ._. . .._. ..-...-_._.��.__ . ' ` ��._ _-�-._ , . . �,. � ..� __ _ .... �. -- ._. . _ •� --- -- . :-.. : _ . . ... . . . .,... .. �° :,� _� j:}�� _ rY y ��;w. i.;, � �- � : ,� � ;:•.. �'x ' 1�6 Colo. 904 P?�CIFIC REPOR7'ER.:d SERIES _ � [6I Whea a state affords reasanable rem- use oi real propercy. See Vop�o Ca u Tmun ' edies W rectify legal rsro�bq iocal adminis- oj Cherry HiUs Village. 180 Colo. Pli, 504 ' t �ti, f h-arive bodies, incindin avenues of a � S PP�. P?d 3sd i19?2); Madis v. Higginson, 1fr1 5�.�,' and whea no ci�allenge is raised as to the Colo.�0,�l34 P�d�0'a 1196")i. . regulawry or scatucorp scheme itself,allega- ��enctp,before a deprivadon of vb- • tioaq that the local adminisaacive body y.�me dne process may be cla�ed. some ` reacned iis decision on erroneous reasoning couru require more rhan mere oac�e.�snip or made demands which esceeded its stacuso- ��sc in the real prooerry and comnei the ry auchorics are noc suffiaenc co esrablish a ��,� �p�h as a threshold _ procedural due process cfaim. Creative En• ��r chac it had a cecced roo vironmerzts. I�nc u csfanrook 680 F?d� � P ��r nc ��;a�orable wnin¢de�sion sou�c •� (Isc Cir.1982); see aLso 3eilo u WaUcer,340 �ee Bisa v. Toum of Bel�ir. 991 F?d 100 - F.^_d 11?A (3d Cir.1986). (4th Cu�.19931: RRI Realty Corp.�.lncoroo- — [^r] Here,nlainri3s were accorded the o� �d 4sllaae oi Southmm.pwtt 870 F?d 911 pommity for a public hearing on:heir annli- (?d C:r.2989). T_i such a procected orone.�-c _ pdon, and they cauld 'nave availed :hem- uscei'�c erisu the deasion of the local ad- _ • � seives of a C.RC.P.106(a)(4)procedure ior �'T'�'e board will be scrudnized as w - f judical•revie;v of the councy rnmmissionets' �pecaer:c mas made araicaruy and caori- - ' deasoa. R%e conclude :hat �his comuorrs oousic. See racobs L�uconsi d✓aco'os Co. • with proceduzal due procrss requirements. u Ciiy oj Lawrence, 92i F_d illl (lOch : ' Su Yan Sickle u Boyes,7�P?d L67(Cola. Cir.2?91).. • 1��• Conversely,:u�der the on7osoohy chac�de Secause,�periinens here.;he countr nro- due grocess clause uas iacended to ;ecure ; cedures, and the srace procedures wlrica the iadicidual 9rom aroiu�arc ece.�cise o;�oc- plainriffs chose noi to utilize,meet all rnnsri- ecamenral oowers, ocher roures presunoose � . + ' Ntonal proceduxal due process reaupe- -the e�dsunce of a prorecced nrooem incerest : i;� _ _. . _ —.' , !r_ mencs,plaintiffs'due process ciaim under� arising from ihe ownrsship oi land and and a li.S.C. 3 1983 is nrecluded as a maiter oi snbsranave due urocess interesL in Lhe�ee� , lau. See Brady u Toum of Colchester, su- dom ffom"ce'[aia arbi�;wroneiul gov- = _ pm: Rogin ti.Bensalem Toumsicip,616 F?d er.imenc acrions te¢ardless oi the procedures _ 680 ;,id Cir.1980). used ro imniemens;hem." See Pearsars ^. - . j City oj Grand BLanc 961 F?d lYll.'/4�0 - j b. (6th Cir1E92); Beiio u 6i%all:er, supra _ Substantive Due'Process under this approuh. deeisions by iocal = } (8.9] ?lthoagn tbe prinanie of subsran- ��8�es are evaluaced as m�vnelier - ( 4 tive due process may apoiy m land use deci- rhe deasioa was "aroitran• or irrarional.' - � sions by locat adminisaarne oodies, an ag- �fhout consid��ing �vhether the prooe^: ' - ± grieved pany musc 3rst oossess a propeny owae*has alleged any enutlemenc co a iavor- � � f interesc procecred und�the iederal due oro- able de^�ion See Raain.u Bensaiem 1'oum- _ = � _. cess ctause. See Holiared u Boa�d af Cou�ety sieia v;ma_ _ ` Commissio�ners. 883 P?d 500 (.Colo3op. sioner p . (1L 1?] It is an opea ouestion in Coion- � 19941. While che righc ro use oae s o�vn real Qo. wne[her, in a wning decision case in � � '' prooerc}as one sees 5t is a propem right : � fiilly procected by the due nrocess clause of. mhica denial oi subsranrive due process � _ �1 alleged mures snould reaivre a :hresaold - t : the:ederal and srace consdt,vrions,this use is 7 �I snowing of enriclemen: [o a facoranie deci- - �; � subject w the prooer e�cerese oi local police poweis. Western Imcame Psoperiies,Inc v. sion or snouid oresupnose a proceeced oroo- ;. City&County of Den.ver; 1i4 Colo.533,J3� ��S`ansl°Q fr°m the ownetsnin oi ,_ ?�d L'0(1971). land and proceed direcity m a decerminarSon i . as to a�Lesher:he challenged governmental { (10] There is no mnsriturionally protecc- acrion was azoi¢ary or irradonaL fiowe��e:. _ t r '- ed righc co ctre most proniabie,or desiraule even;uider che mare demanding standard if � . ' -_ id` ' 1 j. LLa . / : '--,... . '. ' 1 . � ' ' ..;. t .,. i . • . . x . ' � �,s.�._._. _—�—_. . .— .. . _. _.._.._._ _._._.. . � .-. .. �...:� . . __ . _ _.. . .::- •-�.- --------_ _ .--- �. ---- _._.. _. � =�� .�.:. !�s � �:;� i:. �, . . .��:, ,.�:: �::�. • SLi\�DHEI'.1I v. BOARD OF CT'Y. CO;YI'RS OF DOUGL.�S CTY. Co1o. 13�i cu��,sos e.xa�aa7�co�apP.is9sr :e.V"op+v Co.r.Town We give plaind3s:he benefit oi every possi- doa They asserc chaz:hese standarris were �'� :¢. 280 Colo. 417, 5G4 ble favor�le inierence which mag be draan unre!ated to the merits oi che annucadan - > u. Higgi.nson, lirt �� romolainc, they have alleged a and,inscead,�cere based unon pecsonal con- � '. '-�'�• threshold showing of enticlement co a favor- ;iderarions unconnecced crirh legitimare goc- •� ' •e a denr.•.�ation of;u� " able decision. Therefore,unde either sesc, ecnmenwt ob}ecdves. �lthough ii aopesis �xp ce rlaaned. some they ssace a subsrancive due proeess claim. thac the perc:nenc aning�guiation vess:ne ' - i. '•=. .aan me-e owneasiiio �errai�ilc, hue. �lainciffs have alleged a counrv com[nissioners�vich discecion:a con- �.`- : rae_^_y and eomael che _ p��a�p¢�•;ncerest ar:sinq from the �a�S�bec6e to granc an anouacon:dr cao�ish as a chreshoid owneishin of lana use by soeciai review. olainrifi�' comniaias � � .otecced prooercy incer• atleges thaG�uc for a-etisal co iollmc an , [�37 On che oche*hand,whether a proo- i: _, r�.g deuion soug�c ' ��+ owner i�as a le ace elaim of enritle- e�isdng adminiscacce srandard,;hean_olica- i3�;;3ir. 991 F?d 1W � �� tion would hace been grnr.ed. 'aalty Cor�.u lncorpo- '°' menc w a t"avorable land use decision oy a ' mptan. 3�0 F.�911 local zonin¢ baard deoends upoa wnether i19] 34oflons to tGsmss :or :ailure � �'"'a�� o�N _ " chere is eic6er a cerainry,or a very sGrong ��a claim aze noc�ie�ced:cith iacar and �sion of:he local ad- ..�s��' ` ��10°d ��at rhe anoGcarion would 'nave � �nted oniy rarelc. Daaiason:. DiIL : oe scvuaized as co been gransed absenc the conduec alleged w 130 Colo. 1?3. 503 P_°d 157 (1974). Here. . � ' azbia-a:ily and caori- ne in violarion of suosrandve dne pmcess; Ef considering,u�ce musc onl}rhe alle¢adons � - ' no4 che apprication amounss to a mere unilac- ��,�e enmoiainc and assw..ing thac:he ma- , ':scmisi.i:lacobs.Co. �e. ecrarion. See Y'a!e�uio Pars, Inc. 92% e_'d illl (10[h �;: - � _ tezial allegarioas are m:e.we con�ude�hac ( .;�; u Johnsan ,�is F?d 54 (3d Cir.19851. ;}�e claim aile¢� bor.h m �rirle:nen�;o a :e pirilosoohy chat the - _ [14,15] The ciaun of enriilemenc musc iavorable outcor�e and ar:ax�ican and irta- . .' come �rom some =r�-+"> Segislauce or ad- rional governmeacal acdon reiaave w olam- �s =cended "ta sec•are -� dus` anoucadon. See Colamdo Vaiional miniscraiiCe scandard Biser u Tou�n of Bel Ll : {Qar;� �:cse oi gm- y. :lir,supra. If.under ihac staadu'o.an ao- 9ani:;:. F.�Bieger Cc_ '_6"o Colo.iH,�...... . • � cot , presuunose ,� ' � P.?d'a�6(19681: Du1i er v.Var,n Ster{s -, P6carion orooerir eouid have 6een demed on ''� --- . �9--=----.--.- . 'esed�rooercy inures� non-arbia�u^grounds. ti�e federa! subscan- Irriga,tion D'ucrict, lai Culo. 100.30&?_d _; ' ;iup of lxnd and and a • 008(195�. �-�k �;interee:in the iea- ave oue nrocess c2aia avl be defeatea az a �� ^;, wrongiul goc- - marter oi aa�. See RRI Realty Cmv. u In ��nu�ing nlaindi£s' suusranave dne � ' '�ss of iae nroeedures = �n�o+'P�'�a ti`alIage or Southa'm;ntan suprc orocess caim�o ae aiai cour..howev�,tce ' m." See Pearson .•. - Yaie 3uto ?aru. Ir.c r. Johreson, supra do nor,emress anv ooinion u so fne eczaLVal j 96i r'_'d '_'=11. LO [16-13] The iocc=oi ths inauin•is on the ouuome oi this issue; our casic is limiied ro � . id%aUcer, su� �=j degree af discrerion auorded to the locai de•='+++;*+;�g wne��er oiaind:s' comuiainc �. decisions b� local zoning body,aoc'on che reladve grooaniiiiy of sraces a claim:or reliei, regartiless oi how i aazed u to wheche- ,4 a :avorable ourcome. RRI Realty Carp. v. reaoce or unfilceic�i apnears that;.he}-;uti- rnemporated tiiilage or Sauthampto�e su.pra maceic mill preeau. See tZoain u.Bertaaiem 1 �iusx': or i.-rarionai." . � � If the local zoning DOQt•f125 51�I11I7Cdi1L QLS- TOtVliShi;4 suvr¢ Dazidson.a. Di1L suma j aecher �e oroner' ti atiUemenc co a:acor- e'eoon. the:acc thac,.he aoolicanc believes ��0] ?lso. for purnoses o; guidance on t - che decision�cas made aroiu�azily dces noc ; ��a v,3e�resaler+x Toecn- ^: remand. we eaonasize ciiai'.he u'vicar:, � -:,,,ri eonverc nis uailace-ai e-neeation inco an en- �oricious.or ixnrional"standazd oi reeie�c titlemenc or ri¢�c Biser n Toma.of Bel Air. I':oues�on in Colora- sacpre see aiso SyLvia Develomnent Carp. c, annrooriare co oiaia�'s'subsranrive ciue nro- 6 ..2 decision czse in Calvert Cauaty, 84? F�upu. 1S3 (D.d4d cess rlaim is sunssancall�diu��nc arom the ;' :cive due process � - 1994). �Ieiihe will.he iac:that an adminis- '�°�of revie��nder C.RC.P.106.ecen ,r�ouire a c2ueshold a-arive bod��as nistorically e�ercised irs di5- �hougn it emnloys simiiu:erms. See Pear- :� a iavor_'vle deci- credon in a oudculaz manner mean chat it sara r.City oi Grand BLanc.�upra(the mesa- i c a proueced pme- _ has d'uninisned discredon co acc differently ia '°F oi"arbicrar:and capre:aus" ia fede�l ;:he ownersnin oi - the funu�e. See Janes i.Lane,568 F.Supp. subsraodr=due oroc^ss concea�is:z-di3e- '•:�a decer.ru:.arion 1113 (N.D.Ill.198,i). enc�an in the rnr.czx.o: >xace adr�i�+*x- ;en,ed em�e-nnenral ave law1. Here,plaindffs'comnlainc sutes ihat the " �:-adona?. Ho�cever, �=" �o��-commissioness apolied unusval stan- [?1] The precse apnlicarion of this"azroi- � -_ �anding sranda:c.si aards of reviea w their speciai use anolica- �a.-y, capricious. or irrarional" standard ai � _ { •t <: 'x _. ,,? . i � � • .. r .. ` � , 1' ♦ ��..._T, ---'-- -- ' 'o� . . � , •._ . -- __�_ .._. , .��..:,:.. ..s:... ..,�. .�......... .. :.'...._.... ..m _.... ..,._._. _Y` " � "Y _ . _ . • �J �{•�!:1•. j•(.:�.: }' '..71... ,:r �, `,` ;. j$¢$ Colo. 904 PACIFIC REPORTER,?d SER1E5 '�' c �•i� review razies amang the iedexal courts. Su (2!] �7eparcnres kwn adminisaative pra �^; Pearsore v. City of Gr¢nd BIan4 supru, cedures or policies,use of iUeeiamace rsice- •:,'�� •'. However,mosc j�is�iiccons agree.tha�if the ria and amorohous altegarions of bias�bad � '_ zoni�o decision az issue may be�h�*��+a++�� ;aith,malice,consoicacv, and corrupoon do as quasi-judieial,che gwernmental acaon will not amounc ormnarily m a comizabie eqnal i�` • nnt be founri w be arbiaaary,apriaons,nr procection ciaim; a plainuff must allege ac- - - irrational uniess no aztiailaud basis for the tions alrin m accual corruption or a bad faith c decision bears any rdcionai relationship w a incent W injnre based upon personal hosdlity. ' r. ]egiianace 3overnmencal inierest See Ja- See Tm�jord u. Penno,suprv; Cmueco De- ' ';r. ' • cobs,Yucansi�Jacobs Co.v.City of Iaw- veiopment Corn. u Santiago �%osquec. 639 � ' rence, suasc: Caniston Carp. u Y�llQge oj F'.'�?06 ilsc Cir.:9761. This orevencs dis- ; {it- . Horfmax Eawtes, S44 F?d 461 (7th Cir. grunUe6 permii anpficanrs trom �eadag ; �+,. 1988). • rnnsaiurional claims"mereh•by zlleging chas (, . '` Because in Colorado the denia!of a special �ec were aeated differend}�om a similariy �;' - use penaii is a quzsi-judioal action. this sicuaced anpiicanL"and subjering'ti-irmailn i;., • ; . anuliraaon oi *.he ssaadard is appronriace �y stace perr�is deaiaP'to 3 !9&i Hiigadon. • here. Cf. Co7mado State doasd of Ln,nd. See tVestar Colon.Yledina d;Sucesares.Iaa � �.. u Cusiodia 96d r'?fl�.�f4-t5(lsc C'u.:99Z1. Commissimeers u Colorado :4fined l,and Reciamation Boa�d 809 P?d 974 (Colo. [?5] Dismissai ior:ailure w atace a r]aim ' 1991). . l will be ai6rmed s it aonears cnac a olainriff canuot esrablisn zne sec of iacrs in suomrt oi �i' = his or her claim chat ticould oerciiu a courc W �; - �ouo1 pmtec+ion gxant reliei. See Jacoo�Yuconsi d•Jacob& 4_ '.) Ca u City ojLauTeace.sums Dar.idson u �i y_. linder the�eme resaicced reviem, glain- � yy.� gecause.absenc atlegadons oi , � . -. .. .ta{fs'claia ai denial oi equal proucoon of ffie ��Co1TUAUOR or oad faith aieni m in- _-�_ -_"' si law,however,is insu�cienc to smvive a mo- ��even� lainous were subjecced m sr tioa to msmiss uader C.RC°.12(bX5). �ective treamient in t6e denial oi;heir suecial �i [?.'] �u aere.IIO ST8NtAty'rl�eeinnrian �se aopiicatio4�e conclude ckiac the iacts as _ _ is created by ;he wning regiiladon on its �eged 'oy plaindrs no noc scace a claim .� face,in oruer[o sraTe a rlairn ior denial oi `��°JOVId enriue chem co reriei See Praf- equal protecrion an aggrieved parcy masc ford r. Perneo. su�v. - allege that tbe governmenral acuons possess _ an elemenc of iatenrional or purposeiui dis- �� ` :�v .. r*+�++;*arion ibac is based on classinrrdons Taax�rrq Claim : { such as sec and race,'or on an egregious In:heir briefs on xopeal,plainciffs do not ' abuse oi power. Sylvia Deaelopment Corp. p�iess chat chis is z:egulaton caidng cla�. ' u Calvert Cou�eiy, supro: see Tm}jard v. �(�yeir comnlainc however, asse-rs:hac they Penna S00 F.Supp, 1052 (D.R.L1992). have been deprived ai the benencial use of •�: (23] Plainri6s do noc allege any dass che:r rea!prop�^.1•. To che e.r�enc ihaz chis ' ; based discriavnadon. The eomolainc mrlrJy �sercion could'oe consaued as sesc^�ing a -- .j alleges [hac at�er the Board used`�nusual taldng�vithouc jusc rnmpensadon. plaindffs' - complains faiLs to suu a ciauc. _ standards" m review plaintiffs' appaeaoon. - . "the board aooroved Ll:e or similar applica- [?6.2�] Land use regularions as anolied rions of other lando�cn�s." SpecifitaRy, m a patricular piece of prope.m•will consri- �I� - plaintiffs allege that their applicarion was tnte a taldng if�her prevenc anr economiral- -'- l denied based upon eonsiderarions unrelaced ly reasonable use oi the pronercp. See Van - �,� � to the me:its oi their apnlicadon Further, Sickle 2•.Bm�e&su;ora Lartdmark Land Co. : �L,'�i, } they allege inac cexTain of the counry com- n City 8•County of Denver,_'..Q P2d 1y81 � . missioners should have abstained from the (Colo.1986). Here.however,plaina�'rnm- - � - �� appticarion procedure. plaint does not allege tLac gover,�menc acrion � � � � �'. x'^ 3 � , '�' -�. t • . . . . . . °' -- — _ _ - - —..._ , �--'�'—'—,^ -�-. — ..> ___.. _ ._w. � W�. � . _ . _ . . . .. .�� - ------_ - . _.._____._.:,..r__........�.`.__.,_...._.,_-� .. ... ............: . _ . . .. �t1`i��:;i:' t � ' - . t��', �.��45.. .�.`,; �' _ SII`IDHELl4 v.BOARD OF CTY. COM'RS oF DOUGLas CTY. Colo. 1349 �� .: Ckea9M P.]d 1137 ICuio.lpp.1N5) • . �^�admiaisaarne pro- has resulted in a permanent occuparion of C.R.C.P. 106(a)(41 action�viihin thiriy�vs �'3 :ni illegiumau mie- �eir prooem•or che loss of all economically of:he counry commissioners'zoning deci�oa y'�,.'�,�' e�-araons oi bias,Bad 'oenencial or producrive use. Therefore, no 'Thereiore,;his ciaim�oas proper3y dismis�e�, i • :'% : •. and corrupdon do calang has cecurred. See City oj Nm�ehglemt ; � �a cognizable zaual ' r. Gn�nbery, 346 P�d L��(Cnlo.1993). ��1-33) TF�e denial of a speciai use permii !`: • s:n:i�musc allege u- �s a qussi jntiiciai acdaa See Colorodo Sta:e ::aucion or a bad iaith ��g1 ��ore,even if the prohibition Board of La�nd Camanissioners v. Colmndn .'' oi a rnmmes'al horse�aining and boarding :Nined Land P.eclamation Board su;mu, �, r` .� .�oa pecsonal hosrilitY. business divesced the prooeny of its only C.R.C.P.106(ax4)acrion represenss the wle :,:.`�` 7cpr� Cardzro De- - � :r. .antiago 4'asque- ai9 �nomicailc ciable use.a tatdng cltim would remedy for revievc oi a auasiyudicial action �). ';his prevenrs dis- noc oe rioe Plaindffs have not pursued anq See Vorby x.C�y oj 3ouider 193 Colo.�1, ;tate inve:se condemnauon claim and thus 5'77 P?d 4;i(19'rS). When a pam�has heea ��;'^ ' �:�ats fi�am �eadng }��e noc esrabiished that the stare incends to afforded nodce and a enance co pazticipate in ' :ec•ely by alleging that -enrly aom a similarn a�Y�em just comgensadaa See WiIiiam- a nunlic hearing, any ehallenge to a Ixa! �..�:, ; su6Jecting"circuallc san Caun=y Regimial Planning Comm.issian zoning bod}'s auasi-judicai acdan. whecher ('`. ' ;0 3 1983 lidgarion. L• Hamiltorc Ba�nk, 4i3 US. 172, 105 3.CL constiturional or sumcory, musc oe joined � 'j :d:Sucesons Inc 3108,3'�L.F.d?d 126(19&��; Culebras Enier- wiih che C.R.C3. i06 aecion and DiOQ�L � ��15(lst Cir.l°9?). , P^s�COY°•t.Rivem Rias,813 F?d a06(lst wichin the �me ;imirs orescrioed by tbac �: , Cir.198� i�necher based upon the Fifr2i rule Sayder�;. Ciiy of Laketuood, sum¢ ? '�• ,_se to stace a caun _lmendmens, or upon subscwwe due pro- �� Lyrion does not aooly io ia- �t� c�srs chac a pLtinri: - _ eess,dama¢es under i2 US.C.3 1983 fur the �r�„�tenges m c4e zoaing legislation itselL �',r .:;acu in suppor.oi diminucion ai zalue oi nrooerty by govern- See Tri�twz Generation & Tra�n,smiasicn � o�d oerntii a eourc:o ment aerion may noc be decermined unril just Co.i.Cuy oj Thornion,64 i P2d 670(Cola ;` �;,'v`:sconsi&Jacobs comoensarion nas been either awarded or � 1932;. Plainriffs. howevez. reise no far�ai ) a a _. :�c� Davidson v. denied). challenge w ihe _>oning reguiauon at issue. - �e•ent allegarioes oi ; _ _._ .. __ • l:,ich incent rn Ln- '--" --- a . _ .. ..__--- . ._ . _ _ .__...___._._..A__ - - _ , __ _ _ _ _ II. .=subjecied m s� " = 'i=aiai oi t6eir snecal - SW#e Conscitutional LTaims Conrviracy Clarm � . _ �that�he iacc:as �lthoug� noc clear}y aztic�ilated ia the p:�� ne+ct argue ;hat the u�ial co�u�c - , c ;rate s c:�ia comniaint or in their hrieis,plainci5s azgue �ed in dece'miniug that �i2 li.3.C. reiiei. See Trqi- on anoeal chac their second claim for reliei § 1985("a) (1988) does noc prn�ide relief ior :or�ioladoas o[scace stamWry and rnnsticu- � �eeed oolirically mo�aced conspirac�, �onal law also mas brought piasuanc to 42 Even if the Qial cour: ��red ia;o amm�g, G.S.C.§'.983. as such tl�ey asser4 fi was howe�et,we afmzn the dismissal af p(aind� ' ;.iaim aiso:morooeriy dismissed. We disagtee. �rl�i,.�ior reliei becanse.upon review of � `oeal,plaindifs do noc (29� �oiainri3'6ces.noc sxare a claim for P��s' cromolainc we can disce� no ai- 'tory:axing clait�. reiiei undc 42 ii.S.C. § 19� by alleging leged mori�aaon iar.he assarced consniracy, �Tt�a : i�r.asserrs thac chey _ �nac the conduec of;3�e defendants violaced Ponrical or oche.^FUe. j !c:�e benencia]use oi staie consdtuaonal or siammrY law. Haxd- In omer co orevent the:iansior:aadon of �i �:ae eazenc chac:his iev v. Ciiy of SeagoxRIle. 798 F.Supp. L� 42 i;.S.C. 3 198b inm a source oi generel � =�r.i�describi�¢3 (\'.D.Tec'.°92;; Scaie'o u Humane Society federa!torc la�r,the iederal courts have con- aoensarion, plainri;� ej iluran Y'alley,582 F.Suon.i 14(E.D.Mich. sisxendc insisced t.has ic is neeessazs w allege a^!aim. 19841: see aiso Balcer u�Y1cCv7.lan.443 L.S. an in�iniously disc-iminawn�.class-oased azr . 13�, 99 9.Ct ?689, 61 L.Ed2d 43u (1979); imus. See G�?�n s Breekenridge,403[;S :��c...�ons as aooGed pQ.�t.p�,.�:}y�U,g,693.96 S.CL ll�i,-t7 88, 91 S.C� 1790, 89 L.Ed?d :�38 (1�1) ?rooer:�will coasa- " L.Ed_°d d05(1976). Brmo�i% Reardan. ','�0 F.�896(10th C'a. 'senc an}•'rnnomici- 1985). . - --�oerty. See�a�n [30] yloreover, w the extent that plain- _,:;�dmerk Land Ca diis' second claim for m3ief may L�h• be [35l In linited Brother'raood oj Caroen- ` �mrr, '?S P.°_d 1?31 read as an indeoendeni�1aim for relief for ters&Jofners oj�merica r.Scor-1'6„'�[;.g. �1' � �ecer.plainriffs'com- _ - vialadons oi srate consdturional and stacuto- 8?S.103 S.Ct.:w"52 T L.Ed?d LQ49(1983), �'$ �}�- sc 2overnmenc acrior. = ry la�c, it should have been brough: as a the Courc casc some doubt upon whethe•a !( , � t i: . i. 7� . � . k: � . _ . � � �'';:.�'.` �+�,. i ` r -: ' , , �'�� ..�'�'"'�`_.. _—.—... _ .. — .. -_ . , �.:. 4 , .. _ _ _ � _ % ..� .. - . . .. ... . .... .. .�� ,�� - _ i � � -� t �•'� ) :t: t fY' ..rv; � � 1350 Colo. 904 PSCIFIC REPORTER.°d SERIES �' - �,s''':��, �_ty . r,,. i:i . .,:' - purely poGtically mom�aud class-based ani- A ' `' . ; mus is sufficient under�2 liS.C.§ 1985(3). _ - _ .r. The quesrion, however, was left undecer- �3'+�� BeTOre an aggrieved par.r�ay _ �` - mined. Even if we assume,without deciding, objecc;o a;earch by.governmenc agenss,i�e � . �=� or sae musc 'ssc demonsaace a le¢irimace - r'r' „� � ; that a pronerly pled noliricai conspizacy may _ �,;. _ provide the basis for.an acdon puxsuant to-12 �eearion oi orivacy in;he azeas searcaed. - ' • - U.S.C.§ 1985(3),see Cmddia r.Lauely,834 Peoplt u.Oates 698 P?d 311(Colo.195oi: see - F?d o93(6th Cir.1987(sunporc of a politipi �o?.akas r.lllinois,-139 U.S.128.E9 S.Ci _ ' caadidau); Keatina v. Carey, 706 F?d 3� `� � I`Ed?° � (1978). 4 oar:mno , (2d Cir.1983)(memoc�suin in a political par- �oc demans�ece such a legirimase emec- � i:• ry); Mea�cs u Wiison 52 F.Bd 333 (3th �on of pricac;:hp vinue of some possesso- Cir.197o) (membersnin in, and acciviries on r9 or pronrierary inceresc in the areas .' r : behslf of,a poliriral movement),aad although searcaed may lacic sranding w conces: :he ' _ the protecrion of-f2 liS.C. 3 1985("0) may Searc�. Peanu r.r'o:,362_°.°_d 1000(Coio. = �. ; _ reach dearly denned ooiidcally based �'PP•1993); ace also People v. Totuers l i6 , iF_ classes,see Glassan r.CiEy oJ Louisv(lle.018 Colo."�5.�90?°d 302 (1�1). - •_ 4 �: F?d 399(6th Cir.l@�b); Cameron n,Bmck : di3 F2d 608(6th Cir.19�),a olainciff musc. [39.�0J �bse^c some agreecnent �0 1�e - _ , . nonetheless,3rsc alle�tbu he or she is a COnffar�•,a rznant is enriiled to;he?osses- - , member oi suca a class. See Perr_�,�.Cucc�; ��n oi;,he leued oremises W the e:cciusion _ _ � i'S F.Sunp.409(D.\.5.19891. of che !andlord. Radinsicy u tiVeaier. �0 : • Colo.i69,960?_°d°_18(19691; Rutherord u _ ?'-� Scar'o %L?$CJIO_�DD.��Z.}!?D.°_d�21 ��, [36j Nocwiihstaadiag ce�ain s�atemenu °7'm{9 _ made by the uial courc uere, our cazenil «�4�• �en a search;aL•es nlace on iezsed " � " mises,it is:he lessee's ri' � !� - review of piainriffs` comolaiac reveais that P�'e gnrs of nmae� they do not allege_itner an idenrifiaole poliU ��ae inainged. not those of the iand- ' •� • ;. irally-based animus oa the oar.oi:he caunry �02'a- �ee Chapmcn v. finiied States. 365 ' '�I �` • commissionets or:6e Pudds.or membership US.010.Sl S.Cw i i6,5 L.Ed?d 3?9(?96i); ._ �•" in 3ny class. Henc=, oecavse it dces noc �1 S�* �• Cai.irornia ui6 II.S. ,153, 34 - � !" contain either an allegadon of class-based ��9• 11 L.Ed3d 350(19b1)(seuc!� of = "' hocel room tiioiarzs e animus or a descriorion oi a;umciendy den- gu s�s righc of or.cacc, - �**<ar nrecise c!ass oi pe'sons to invoke a ��oce?owne�s: thereiore.hocel manae� _ " claim under-32 U.S.C. § 198b(3), the ihird ��t had no aucnoricti co consent m sescz); _ elaim was properly dismissed. See LGilhelm linitea Staies r.Storvge Spaces Designwzd `' u Conti�ienral Tifle Co..720-'_'d ll;o;lOtn �OZ � ��9• �� F�d 136.i (9th Cir1985) ' Cfr.1983). (rnnciumng thac lessee of smrage lock�and - not lessor wouid have authoriry to consenc m L `. searca): Peaoie r.Breidenuacit,�ib P_'d 379 � III. , (Colo.199A)(mer=ownershin of real orooer• _ F Claim:br lniasion oi?tivacy d0��a�conie;the authoriis co consen;co c � � search oi thac orauercy). Plainii�s aerc arxue rhaz�e ffial rnur. _ �" . erred in granting deiendanu' morions for (41l The undisnuced e�idence nresenxed � sutamary judgmenc on their;omtkt c2aim for by oeiendanu i�conjuncrion with:heic mo- ' _ � incasion of privacy resuitiag�om the alleged tions ior summazy judgment indiczces ::^.aL. _ �' illegal investigacion ai i6eir zoning violarions at the dme af the invesrieaLOr s ac�ciries. ,� by the Baard. Snecnrall�•, mey claim thac plainrius had leased ihe prooerc co Jac- -_ c; the Board's deeision ru have a omace invesci- Hmoice and thac JayBrooke �vas the only ' � ;' gaWr suniew their nmoem inauded on enrin conducring horse nzining and�oard- . �•. their"righc m be lerc alone' We disagree ing on che oropere}•. Thereiore.the nr.cacc -:` because,as�a maccer oi]a�c,no orivae�righcs interesc alleged co i�ave been invaded�y any '°C ` oi plainrit�s wern ix�fx'�ged by;he invesriea- aReged illeeal searc�belonged to JayBrooke .:L_ ��. wt's acmities. � as plainriffs' iesse<. and noc W plainriffs. - . - �� FI - ' j � ..li.. t. �k r'` . �:. ti � ' . ' �• , a , ' � _. _....___. __.. _. .. .�.. _�_ .. — _ -- — . . � ,Nt �r '-'�t -. }.,��. ,:: , . `}l ' � � � 4s'; • SLTiDE�Ll�I v. BO?.RD OF C'PY.COM'RS OF DOUGI.AS CTY. Colo. 1351 � �� . CIIea�9M P3d 13]]ICaloApp.If9S) � i Even if we rnnsider olainrius' asserdon. 9S S.Ct 619,5D L.Ed2d"a30(19T�. A com- ��•,t, matie for the tixst time at oral ar3umenk�az meniai establishmenc eqjoys a dimiaished : aggrieved pazn mac ihey did noc lease their enrire propercy to ecoecradon ot privacy in those areu whicn r`�' ':�' ^overnmenc agenrs,�e JayBrooke. it remains undisputed that rhe are open w the public People�:.Rowe�'i'� ' • :�onsa^.ce a le¢i^�mace areas ;hawn co the indesrigator when he P?d ?60 (Colo_�,pp.1992), reu'd an �Icer _z:he areas seuched. visited the nrooercy were only those areas in grounds. 35o P�d d86 (Colo.1993). Thus, i, .'� :^Sll(Colo.19&ii: see which JayBrooke was conducdng irs opera- when an inavsian inm a rnmmexrial estao- ::i9 u.5.123.�9 S.C� - tion. Gshmenc is bued upon t6e nanse af tbe , i�.-'%. . ,:975). A parc•wno business acrivities there talang piace.or unon �' :^a iegiamau eeneo- B. che reguladon thereo4 che business owner !!`�r "� ^se oi some possesso- - may aoc have a reasonable z.mec•asion ot :teresc in the areas Fuxr.her, no privacy inceresc of plaindffs' Piivacy in chose acciviries. See Cr..tiL Lensing .. :wc:ing to conresc;.ie _ ��olared'oecause the challenged acdvities Corp. a Grziied States su;ora. : .. 562??d 1000 iColo. �d noc conscimce a search. "�vpde u Tmuers li6 [42,33] It is undisputed chac some of the �'19� �l"'�her.nore, according � the un- ? ;19i1). _ invescigacors oosercadons were made from a °�DUCed evirience althouga;.he invesrigawr - public:oad autside oiaindffs'pronerty. Be- `°�DOSing as a oocencial cuswmer.he aas � ' ' _ aereemenc m he cause there is ao invasion ai prrvaey iavolved �ted onro the pronem. W'hea aa ageac oi ; -:ed w the rwsses- in obsen-ing;hat anirh is plainly visible;o' the goverr.taenc. oosing as a williag paztia- +. � :.es co the cY:.iusion - ttie ouniia a oerson's rea► pmoerry t5 ADL °az'�''n u�ila�stul ae�vicf,is allo�ced enm Sy �;•. i ;ky v. Weaxr.. 1�0 _ orotecced �om ohsen-adons awiully made 1°��DOn. .here hu beea �o unreasonaule [r � 369); Ruthznbrc v. ¢om ourside iis nerunecer. .Yoljman u Peo- ��'�' Peonle v.Visser,139 Coio.#'r1,542 [� - .552.3i'_P°d i2: pLe, �0 P?d�1 (Colo.1989). P3d 34 i197"a). `'{t ;es olace on lezszd ?�ihou¢�olain�s procesc t6at rhe i�est- � �,, [4•f] �either aze we ne*suaded that t6e � ^��s oi ac;- yecor did noc view the prooer.y on the dace � ' use oi a camera with a teiesconic lens�a�s- y t :hose oi ihe !aad- designaced 'oc Teaaiier Brooke,it is vndis- � . Jaued States, 36a forms chis laaivl ohsetvacion inco an unrea- y��a thac he was consensually admicced onta - � :�d_°d 329(190:; ��e seann. See Uniied States u Ruci� �e nrope_-n by the co-owner oi JayBmoke �is L.� �. _,y - ski,651 F?d i41(lOth Cir.1981); cj United See Peaple t�.P•awe,suprc:People u Luce% ��Y ' - ��1�64� �Seaz.,,� 'y- States v Bassimd 601 F.Supp.132�(D.�Ie �0??d o"4'!(Colo_�1pn.198"0). ;ri¢nc oi orivacc, - 1985),ayd,3L'^?d 16(lst Cir.1987(use of ,' etore,hocel manzer binoculazs to enuance�iew of readily visible [�0] S4e also note thac the Rudds,anan j " mar{juana pianrs did aot ronsuiure unreuon- �om�her z�-oressioa of onpo9rion co a com- -;LSenc to searchl: aces Designa:ed able search); State�•Rogers. 100\.�I.51i. mercial ho:se onerarioa. did noc pazrianare :a (9th Cir.1P&i1 �P-'a 132(\.�L�np.19&i)(use of binoeu- ��y of the incesrigaiots cnallenged ac3vi- ' . Arage locker and 1azs dces noc:ender aerial surve7lance un- bes. and ihe record indicaces tnac olaiacffs ��, rnnsriturionally inm�sive). did aoc disouce chis or the fact:hat Dorothy e;..uzurin co consen:to - l:den�acir,37o P_°d:-? � �a�berc Rudd ohserved and mok phoco- _ [•15] The remainder of:he invesdgadae �nns of olaincifis' prooei:y oaly firom a > f ±. � oi reai orooe^g -. acaviiies:o whicn ulaintiffs objecc wok place P P ! ..,crin co consea:� - vanra¢e oint ourside ihe ronem itselL � when the �vesrigacor�vas invited onto the j:l• ;�, propem- uy one oi the JayBrooke owne:s. [51] Finalls, contran• W nlaincias' mn- � . ` The evidence wu undispuced:hac oosing as tendon §30-?3-124.C.R.S.(1986 RepLVoL + E �.idenee orese.^.cac a horse oamer inceresced in boazding and L�?.J. wnieh se� forch oenalcies :or mning ! �,'zcdon�virfi�hei^io- _ �g, �e imesrigawr contacced Jac- �iolations, tioes not by its ptain tzrms,pre- �',��nc indicarzs.:�ac � Brooke rsom iu adverdsement in che cele- clude incesrieavon oi atleged zoning viola- . czsci2acors acaviries. - phone book and was inviud W �iew rhe �rions��:6e Board. Thus.alsa rnnuar:'w ine �oem ro Ja�'- - operarion bp Je.nnuer Brooi:e. plaindns'concenrioa the Board md noihiag 3croo:. �vas the onlc ille�l. in ihat regar$ by iis fI1Y25L1gSL706. � �t��,ting and boarri- C46--13] Business prn�ises aze pmcecced � : 'her�fore.[he pm-ae• from unreaconable searches but thep are (a2] To che eecenc thac plainriffs assert been in�•aded b�•aar ' open ta inavsiors thac would noc be p��mis- thac,by"selecdve eniorcemenc"of the zoning I,. e!oneed co JayBrooke uble in purely orn�ace circumsrances. G.-YI. laws.rhe crounnr deFenaanrs singled niain�s ." d r.rot�o piaind'us. Leosing Carp.r.linited States.429 li.S.333. out for invesogaiian, we simply norz thai �' �j - e I i- � �1`,�:.. � . . � , . r _ • ... � __ .___..._.____. 'a. �,�...�-�-� —..-____ __._- . — _ _ — - . .,.. � . _ ' :��3.: �i `,t,� �; _ ',a�: ,.;:; �.. ...�. :.: T � 1352 Colo. 904 P9CIFIC REPORTER, ^_d SERIES , these is no privacy interesc ip violating the tivities oi:he defendants reguding the imes- ' 1aW, tlgation,the mdispured material facts dem- Therefore, :he trial court did not err in onsaau no privacy incerest and no illegai - granring boch Douglas Count,yrs, and the seareh. Rudds', modons for summary judgmeat on 'jy�'ore, we rnnclude tha[, regazdlcss '. . plainriffs'fourrH claim for relief. whether she sial court properlq suspended . discovery a.�o t6e counry defendanrs,plain. �• tiffs 6ave not demonstrated t6at discwery ' 3lleged Vdation ot C.RC.P.56(fl �necessarp to oppose the mocion for sum- Finally, plaindifs conund thac che ¢ial �p�udgmenc See Vestor Colan:Lledina • & Sucesorea. Inc v. Custodio, supvn (con- murc etred by failing to giant t6eir C.R.C.°. Smang the suusrandally simv'ar FedRCiv:�. b6(fl morion in order ta crondua discovery u ��fl� _ co their invasion of urivacy cia�. We per- , ceive no abuse of discrerion' '; V. ' After [he sial rnurc dismissed piaindffs' �Y' nrst second and thud claima for relie.�the Uoon dismissal oi olaintiffs'claims.Doug- , . •,n' counry defendanrs successfully moved for a :as Councy submiuzd a modon ior an awatti � suspension oi discovery pending a de�ermina- of attarney:ees. On crossanpeal. Douglas � ' tion of the anolicab�7ity oi governmental:m- Counry conuads thac the¢ial courc aoused �±% , muniiy to plaincffs'rn+.�a;r;,,g claim for inva- its discrerion by denying this mouan. We — . - sion of privacy. Thereader, all defendancs a@me in oar �.�: moved for summary judgmenc u W that Dougias Councy argues that as W olain- - ;�; �aim. tiffs'a2 uS.C.3 1983 and d2 USC.§ 1985 Plaindff's responded by requesting the clauas, atturney fees should have been - � couri m reronsitier and,pmsuant u C.RC°. awazded as cosrs. The aial coure should ��`;= 58(fl.w percut disewe.ry sa�aent W allow reconside-this issue .' : .. __ . __,_.._. __ - __.....,. • plainriffs co nrenare at$davits in opposirion �"� of;he moGon for summary judgmeat The �cording so 42 li.S.C. §1988(19&4): ;,� affidavits oi plamtiff Jo�1nn Scoggin � �y�on or proeeediag to eniorce a Sandheim,oi 7ennifer Brooke,and of plain- PT��ao oi secrions 1981,1982,1983.198�, ' `-!�. tifis' attomey were attached in supporc of �d 1986 oi this dile ... the courc,in iis _ S this motion. discrecon.may allow the preca�ling parcy, - oiher thaa rhe United States,.a reasooable i [�3,S1] In ortier to avoid:he preciniious �me}'s:ee'as parc of the cosrs. and premacum grrnt of judgmeai agaiasc che - � onoosing parr:,C.R.C.P.bo"(fl affords an ee- [56,a7J 3 P��B Plainriff is one who - 4 tension of dme W utilize discovery proce- � N�essiully Gtigaced a significant issue � 1, dures w see's addi¢onal evidence beforn the °�"�acnieves some oi Lhe cenefit sought by y �ial courc rules on a motion for s�+*++�++a*�• �e parcy. Hensley a Eckerhark #61 U.S ! j judgmenc DuBois u .11yeTa, 684 P2d 940 ��103 S.C.19�'i. i6 L.Ed?d�0(19&i). A j (Colo�op.19Lt1). �reasanable rnntinuance defendanc in con�asc is rnnsidered w be a ' ip: ' for discoce�nurposes may be ordered if it Pre��?P�F for nurooses of an award of E i,i anpeazs that aummary judgmenc would be a�mey fe�s if the plaiarirYs claim is found , _ � t�� premarnre abseni t6e opoortuniry w coaduct �be groundless or withwc foundation. See � ��i this discove.ry. See Holla�nd u Board of Hugiies i.Rmce,�419 C?.S.o,101 S.Ct 173,68 . " County Commissioners, suprn_ L.Ed°d 163 (1950). ' �. [��7 Our revie�c of the affidavits su6mii- [a8I Here.althoug'n nlaiariffs'�st claim ; ted 'oy plaind5s reveal thac any discoven for relief has beea reinsrated ia part,plain-: relaced co these allegatlons could aot have tiffs' sernnd rJami for reliei was prope•19 _ resulted in aay faccs that would preclvde dismissed, as aas their 32 U.S.C. § 198� � � summary jud�nenc. Regardless of prior ac- claim. �ccotdingly,auplving tbe appropria[e � ' ~`• I "� ' •#-�':� , 1,� � � , . . ;..�------- ---.- - - -- - -- - l- �� . :s;''M: �:�.,.T_ _ -- -- - . _ ..::�: <.: 4.>. ,. (`'�F � t � �, �. HORNSII,VER CIRCI.E.LTD.v, TROPE Cam. 13�3 �,:`1: • a�e+.9a r.��3sa icob.�pp.ts+s� - . :s regarding the inve�. ' �aadard on m:nand the �ial coure should danu. The cause is remanded for fucther ::zo:nacerial facts dem- re-eramine Douglaq Count�s requrst proceedings consiscent wiih chis opinioa �:� �: in•.�-est and no �legal " [59] Fursher. we agree with Douglas STERNBERG. C.J.. and Ii:1PELKE,T., �� ,e:_de chat, �gardless - - Counry thas. insoiar,as plaintiffs'rnmolainc concur. '. :r.oroneriy susnended ' � �e��aII°`°�i°n conduct and asked �;.. :�_^�deiendants.plain- for eYempiary damages from the rouncy de- o Sni�ee.s�rn� i...''= _::�.:ted that discwe:}• fendants p„*'�,a^c co tt�e invasion oi privacy :��ae che mocion ior sum- �• �e =%� C0�TD7��°� aGnrney . :.'estor Colan Yfedino � fees nndes 3 '-'�-i0-110(5), C.Ry. (198i .�. ' :::;coo:io, sumv,(rn�_ ReoL4oL l0A). , , ::similar FedR.C;v.P. _- _. [60] We do noc agree,however,that r.he gORNSII.�'ER CIRCI.E.LTD.,a Colora- aial court snouid have awazded artomey fees do genual parcnersnip, and Sherry B. • � - -- pursuant to§ 2"u-li-�1.C.R.S.(1987 ReoL Johnson.Plainciffs-�lppellees, i. � VoL 6A). �ecording m First I�uerstau Bwu: �lair.3ffs'claims.Doug- v. Berrnbaum. 372 P?d 129'r (Colo_�1nn. `' � . . 'i_�ocion ior an awatd ' 1993),no acwmey iees award may be grdnU Lindu TROPE and Sorrell'i�ope, ►: snss-aooeal,Dou¢iu - �.�a�§ ;;r.ii-201 unless an enm�e ton' Deiendanrs-Appellanu. _�=cial court abused ycaon has been �+�*�++«ed. Here. one ai Yo.83C�17i0. '-z this morion. We piainyi�s' iour ciaims nas been resrured in '• � oarc Ther�ore.4 l,i-1�-?Ol is nai oreseat- Colorado Cu�sc oi inoeals. � - °-�as Chat as to oiain- ly ava�7able u a basis for an avcard of acur Div.4. � •i d2 U.S.C.§ 1�&5 ne�fees. See 3o!land n Board oj Cauniy H�9. 1°95. i �uould have beea Corrcmissianers, suprc -trial coure should Renearing Denied Anril?i, 1990. : .-_.._ ._ , [6Il FinaLy,.�e do not agree t6at plain- Cerriorari De.tied Occ.30.-199a_-. ----.._.-.: .�.= :. § 19&3(1938): �' ��s we.re �ivolous aud groan�ess nuxsuanc co 3 13--1�-104,C.R.S.(198T Reol. ��; eeding:o eniorc=a Owner oi dominant;enement sought io ' [ nI 4 0l. 6e�). ?lthou¢a olainvffs' secroud and � �i981,1982,19&i,:98�, ' �i,•.3 ciaims ior reiiei din not�utvive a mo- �Join occners ui s�nient�enemeat from in- .. the rnur�:n iis don to dismiss under C.R.C.P.L(bX7.and ceriering with oazUne easemenc anc, air.a S .r.�e prevailing nar.y� bencn c^ial.:he Disaicc Cour�nagle CountS� plainri,-`s' ioursh claim tivas decided ag�ainsc >d�ates,a rnasonabie Ric6ard H. Harc J., gxanced 'wjunetioa i tbem on morion:or svmmary judgmeac ue ; r °the cosrs. azo Pre�juded ;mder the aoprouriare 7an- ��`oi setvienc tenement apoealed. 13e � 2:lainri�is one�cho dard oi re�ie�c iom conrluding that,based COIII'C 0I�DPE215.JL2i'1D2=j,G.S.,held thac + :ec a signincanc issue unon 'he iacu as alleged in che rnmplainc �l) easement �as califi >vea though deed ::e benent sou nc by , plainriu's knew or should have �..aown that conrained inacch:race legal des�iprion of �: g _ _ a:. dominant tenemenr. i?) owners of servient y :•. .uriear: -161 li.�. these claims mer_su6sranciall)•frivoloos or � , tenemenc nad acr.:ai�ocice of easemenc�vhen I 1,...:d2d 10(19QU). �1 _ sunsranciall} groun�ess relative :o the ac- �e}•nurchazed:heir prooercc; and(3)owo- :� conside:ed w be a - tions oi Doueias Counzy. See Coaen x.Em- e�s oi senienc easemenc imper.nissiely incer � ;x^.:os_s oi an a�cazd oi pire CasualEy Co., 'i+l P.?d ?9 (Colo_�no. I�od wiih dominant cenement's use of easr F air.�s claim is iound = 19&9). � _: _ meac b.r eandlevering parc oi new house ove� � .�cuc foun�aarion. See �e judemenc as tu plaintif�' second por.ion oi easecienc anc:andscaoing w as to .".101,..CL 1�,d"o • _ third, and ;ourS claims is affirmed The �� elecarion oi easemenc area dismissal of plainti�s'nrst claim for mli�is ��, : pl.incffs'Oxsc caim reversed. as i the order denying�Dougias asti;zd in parc,plain- } Counn•an accard at actomey fees. Because - m3ef was prooer.� onlp che chird and fovr,h claiau aze anuuca- 1.Euemenu c}L(' 3) 3 li�.C. § 193o ble w the Rudds.the¢iai coa�c is directed m ?vo narticular�vords are necessary for �1 � i:_g the aopropriacz dismiss the complaini as ag�einst these deien- grant of easemenL bu:t6e insavment musc ! . :� - i '_ � I ', " i . . ti t � • _ ' ,,. ��_. __T- — _ ... — - . _�� . " ..: . . ,... -- ... . _ . . _. . . , . . ;_._ . _ �� _. . ,;, .... ., ,,. ., __ _ ._ ....:.._.... ., :;,,� i•,• �. ss¢ Colo. 759 P�CIFIC REPORTEF��d SERIES D. 80202-a435, within siity days frrom the '*� FSnally,the respondenc contends ihat he dace of this opinion: should have been allowed an attorne}rs lien •'': for moneys rnceived from Bizer aad Fits• � �� o TcnwuMk�sme� � In February 1986,the board ordered the , respondent to submit a statemenc and list oi authoritirs wit6ia ten days sunpotting ' his claim that the S1,300 given w him by ' Fltzpatrick was his propercy nnder aa ac- ; torney's lien In the same order, the re� Y9'dr°�i'ZAyaI"�and iiorma L ' spondent was aLso advised that unless the Docaon.Plaintiffs-Appellanu, • ' shtement was t�ed'oy the dace requested, v. • he could not iaise the actome�s lien as an CI1'Y?iND COU,ITY OF DENVF,F�a sin- issue. The respondent :ailed m mmply g�e 6odp politic and corporate; Board � wit6 ihe board's order. �Ve find no error in of Zoning adjustment for the City and ` . tbe board's denial oi the respondenYs claim County of Denver, Marjorie Hornbein. 1 that he was endtled to an acwrne�s lien ��ence Henry, Emest Capillupo. � � . Aparc from Che waiver issue,Ne resoon- Frana ]Iaca and Charles Cousins, av denc has also failed to demonsQate how the membecs of the Board of Zoning�d- � board could"graut"the respondenc a stat- jusunent for the City and County of . utory lien,nor wny it should do so, even Denver, and Dorothy Nepa.as Zoning - assuming it possessed such jurisdicrioa Administrator for the City and County � The respondenYs concznrion is wiihouL of Drnver.Defendants-Appellees. = ' ' merit° :Io.85SA300. " � . _ In snmmary we a::u�m che nndiags,rnn- 'a clusions, and recommendaaons of the Supreme Courf of Colorado, ' board,as considered and uaanimousl}atr En Hanc. `�� , pmved by the heazing naaei. June 20, 1988. - [9] Axordingly,the respondent is sus- Renearing Denied July 11,1988. " j � pended from the prectice of law for one yeaz aad a day from:he date of this opin- ioa. Upon applirrtion.for reinsracemeat he Unmarried, .unrelated homeownexs !�� will be required w give evidence oi ceat- brnught acrion against ciry zoning board, �_� ' �!: mentfor migreine headac�es supoorred by ary, councy, and soning adminisuawr w - R a phpsician's sratement and �eaaaenc challeage order m ceage violating ordi- '- l ' rernrds. Also, he shall pav resozurion co nances thac alleged]p nrohibited them from i ` Betty Rowiey in the amount of S99b; and Gving in siuglrunic dwelling and [o chal• ! � W Donna�Stpahicic and Garc Bizer ia the lenge cnnsacurionality of ord'mances. The ' � ;: amount of$1,800. F'wally,the zesmnde�t Discict Courc City and Couary of Denver, _ � � is directed to pay 51,14i.�for the cosu oi Leonard P.?:aak,1.,rejected hameowners' — E these proceedings co the Supreme Courc contendons. and they appealed. The Su- � � � Grievance Commiiue, 600 Seventeench oreme Cour Kirshbaum,J.,held that (1) ! ` S�eet, Suite b00-S, Denver, Colorado homeowners waived right w claim violation 1C . � & In his opcning and renly uriefs wbmined io may allega Moreover,CR.C3.241.:0 zutc - �� this muct the raponceat nius thc dcfcnsc of that"[i�f no ucepcions are filed.tk�e ma[ter wil! ��_ lach��,although laches wss noc ciaimeu as an sund submi[ccd upon tk�c hariog panel's e:rxpuon io�Lc hearing board's findings,cnn- [y�•s)repon.' la light of thcse provisions. -_- ctusions,and «commcnda[ions. ?he:esnon- w,�yg��h the Pmple that tbc respondcat's i; dent admirs that he did nai specifinlly plud failure to plwd t6is defense,eitber in his an- lacha in 6is an.swerz m ihe original rnmplaiats ,�,�,or in chc e<mptions he sv6mitted to thiz ' ` � Undv C.RC:P.?4L!3,a rcmondenc must set w��.a.��n a waiver oE chat defeax. r: . fon6 in his answa any affirmadve defenx he . �� 1��. ��, EXHIBIT � - _ � , ` , • � ' - . • � � � �'�� . Y. �� _...��.. . . - � .- .� . ... . . ._"_ .'_. ��. 4.._ .. .."_".'"—__--' ' y .... �. . —__' _._"..___.......�.._..__.. ... . .......:......,w.r�. . ._._.._'..,.""'__.. �1:f�.. �+ i�i'��t . . ��y �4.'• � ZAV.ILA v. CITY.�IVD COWi T'Y OF DE.WEA Colo. 6fi� ;'�rk;: tli�u 7]9 P�d 66i ftob.19N) aaya from the _ af procednral dve process; (2)homeawners a Zoning and Planning a3 _ failed to esrablish intentionally discrimina- $ome rule citr's zoning authoriry is wry eaforcement of ordinances; and (3) governed 'ny its own charrer and ardi• � _:� - remaad was required so rbat DisQict Gourc oanecy, Consc:lrt. 20, § 6. S' couid malce fuzther Sadings and coneln- � sions on consritnrionaliry of ordiaances. 6.Zoning and Planning w676 • �� 7aning decisions oi muniaoal ausharity Affirmed in parc,zeversed in part,and i rnmaadea �?��ed valid. i �- 7.Zoning and Planning�681 i ; Erickson, 3., speciatlq concurred and ' ±a Vorma L_ filed opinion joined by Lohr and�ollack, �m' chal�enging consritu�onalitp of �anefianta, �- JJ, zoning ordinance normally bears burdea of �- oroving asser�ed invalidicg beyond reason- � able doubc • � E'�1YFR'a 9m� f 1.Zoning and Planning�358 - !:porate: Board i.= 3. Consvtutional Law a?:9?._:H.3(1) 'or che Cit7 and Ertoneous statemenrs in aeigahorhood F�rh�e involving cnalienge to zon- ; ;jorie Horn6ein. o='8�a�oa reierral Porm aad zoning a¢ �g ordinance under equai procecrion and � ;«sc Capillupo. P�1 applicarion thac teierred to vendor as Que process clauses reauires catenil as- � ke Cousins, as . P�PenT owner and 'nomeowaers as sen- sessmeac of pardcular-ignt asserced aad ' anu did not deprive ciry boazd ai zoning 5 _� Q � of Zoning dd- �'��enc oi'urisdiccion over challea e co p��c roncluCions_e rdia nu ses of and County of > > g ardinance. ti.,,.C.�. Consc_�nends.5. 14; �epa.aa Zoning residence ia sing)runit dwelling by un- �asc�rc.3. ¢§ u, 2�. . ity and Councy related,unmar.ied homeaivnexs. L.S.C_+. -�PPellers. Const�mends. b, 24; Consc_�a-c 2, �§ 3. 9•�PP�� and Error a117�B) . � ?5, Disaict courc's haldiag:nac prior,Cab • ! � orrdo Sunreme Cvurt dec�s�nn equired d� 2.Zoning and Planning u�o72 nia►of cnalleuge b} unm2rriea unrelated olorado, - % -- - Unmarried, 'anrelated homeowners, homeowners co consacndonal�cy oi arar � --,,.- -- _.._ � _._ _Who full anici ated in heazin oeiore Y P P g nances allegedly oroTu'biiang;heii resi3eace 3, city zoning boazd and failed to objeet to �singlrunii dwelling reauired mmand Far 1.� � ��• :1, 2985. allegedly erroneor.s norice provision, ��qs and conciusions conce:ting ezteat � � waived any rignc lacer W claim thaz deiecss oi rigars asseried by homeowne_s, pur- j violaud procedurat dne process. LT.S.C�L ooses oi ordinances, and erseat of ordi- .omeowneis ConscAtneads.5, 14. nances' prohioiAOns. L.:.C.�. Const � ,ning board. 3.Civil Rightv c�13.13(3) -+.mends. 5. i9: Coasc :1rc Z. §§3. 25. ' c � ,dminisQator to . t ` violating ordi- Unmarried, unrelased homeowners � fa7ed-w estabtish incearional,discriminato- geck and Cassinis.Aoward J.Beck and x �ited chem£rom } aq and ta chal- ry eniorcement oi ordiaances agaiasc un- Diana J.Payne, Auzora, ior niainriifs-a� i rdicances. The mamed, unrelaced residenss in singlruniz nellaacs, : :lnty oi Deaver, �I. dwelling and failed to esublisn violarion of Steohen H.Kanlan,Cih�t�-.,Ro'cert:li. 'ed'nomeowners' rignts to equal nrotecdon anb due process; f t fiells aad Daniel 3. Slacre^•, Denver, for !�aiea. The Su- j homeowners stipu)ated that zoning depara deieadaaLS-apoellees. � � ment proceeded in sazne maaner used co E '. '-:-1d that (1) a ciaim violarion � �sPoad w ocher complainu of alleged zon- � ;' ( ing violations. US.0�.Consc.-lmends.5. ��'�`�.Justice �?. ?a1.2o sca�cs ! 14; ConsL Arc ^_, §§ 3,?S. Ysidro M.7avala and Vorma L.Douon :ee,ehe maner wili t (aooellan[s)anpea!a disciei rnurt's judg- ` hc.ring pancPs � 4.ConsNtutional Law�+250.1(3) ' ment rejecflng their conceauons thac sec :chese provisionz, Fact that some individuals escape nms- tions of the Revised V[anicipai Code of the a;::espondmis ecution under otdinances is insuf5cient;n Citr and Coun of Denver(the Code)vio- .etav ia Aiz azr LY ':submieced w ihis establish iatentionat,seteerive enforcemenc lace the:r rights to suhstanuve due process ?chu deiense. of ordiaance in violadon of eqaal protecrion oi law and eaual procecdon oi the law - clause.. LT.S.C.A.ConsLs.mend. 14. under the United Staces and Colorado Con- ` f£ �� ' ' �: � � � kS`. . . , �3 � � '�� i � � ' . ; ..,.. ' � ��' • � .. x . . y..�....,�__ __�_-._. _ — __ _— _. _.. .. __.—__ x . - -- � - - - 4.,_ -. �. .;. .. .. ._._ . ... .� ' _ � � � _ . ._ .. . �.. .. , �I��- i6 �"�x - �„ ! �. . . .� �� ;" .. 666 ��o• J59 PACIFIC REPORTEF�2d SERIES � ,'�� stiturions and thac the enforcemeat of A single deuched structure haviag but � _.;,- � those provisions by a�uniapal anr2iorities one dwelling unit with a siagle kiccnen � 't• was arbihzry, canricious, constituted an and housing aap aumber oi persons uear- abuse of discredan and also violated appel- ing W each other the reiationsain of: � � Ianrs' constitudonal rigets.� The disaicc husband, wife. mocher. fathec, gxand- ; , caurc based ics conclusion solely on our mocher,grandfather,son,daughter.sis- �:. decisiou in Rademaa v.City&County of ter,brother,supson,scepcaughter,st.en- • ` Denver, 186 Colo. 250, 026 P2d 1325 brocner, stensisre:, scepmocher, sceafa- - � � (19T4). We affirm:he judgmentiasofar as ther,grandsoa, granddaughter, mocher �� it deaied the appeilancs' claims a3leging imlaw,.father-in-law,siscer-in-law,ororh- - �� _ improper eniorcemeat oi the Code againss er•in-lam,daughcer•in-iaw,;on-in-laa•.un- r; them. However,because we conclude thac cle,aunt,nephew or niece liviag cogecher r° ! Rademan is noc disoositive af all of�he as a single,non-profit nousekeening unii, � I aQpellancs'claims,aad because the dis�ics pius domesdc sercants emoloyed ior ser- z< , � court's tuling lacks cerrain ciucal findings, vice on the premises; provided,aoweve-, ' we revene;he judgmeac insofar u it re- that nnon aonlication m anfi issuanca by { F ]aces•co the aocellaau` remaining claims the aeoarsmenc of zoning adminiscapon ' aad remarid the case :or:utther proceed- of a pemut therefor,one additional�tcu- '�.,: ! '` . ings consistenc wic:�:his opinion. en may be mainrainea & � . I Denver, Colo.Rev3�lun.Cade §b9-2(i31) . � (19821. Although in some oi:he rnsidenual 4� The agpellanu,a man and a woman who 3y��c:s penons may requesz permiu 9rom � ' are neither ssarried nor atherwise relased. �e Deoarrment to use iand or sffuc:sres � ' pnrchased as joinc znanu a residenaai lot ior cettain permitted home occuuarions ia . and dwelling on r ebrnary 9,1984,from the ronnecrion with che oeeration of a siagle ' _:. .Internauonal 3lissionary Society of the ��C dwelling, home occupariou uses are'- ' -"' '" Seventh Day advearist Church. The orop- not permiued in other residenrial districts. r � ercy�is locaxed ia Denver and is subjecc to permissible home oceinarion ases ako � ' the provisions of:he Code regulating the ��, Comaan Denve:, Colo.Rev_tifun. � nse of land and sff�cnues. Code§59-102(4)(19821 wi.th Denver.Colo. � , , 1 The Code creazes sneciic soning discicts Rev.l�un.Code § 59-103(4) (19521_ In _ Eh �ugnouc Deave:and deiines wbat uses some,but not all,of ihose disaiccs in wnica - . � � may be pursued in_ach disssicc lises of home occuparion uses are ne•mitr,ed. laad ' � +� proper.y defined by:he Code include uses and shvcmres may be used ior":ooming �- � . by right,uses bp cemporup nermit,acces- aad/or boarding," wnicl :he Code defines _ t sory uses and'nome occunations. Denver; zs "[t]he furnishing oi iodging wirh or = � � ° Cnla,Rev_1luaCode § a9-�9'� (1982). without meais ior comoensarion co oeana- � �i Uses by right reauire no special authoriza- nent guesu." Denver.Coio.Re�•.31un.Code ' � - � tion from adminisaative of8cials. See � b9-�121)(1982). � . r Denver, Coia.3e�.14un.Code § b9-?(17 Deosrvnenc officiais recaived a ulr Ei: (198�. Pe:sons wisning w use land or phone call irom an unideadned caller com- • } scuccnres for uses other than uses bc Qlaining about activiries oi the former own- ; j right musc obtain authorization from the ers and occupanrs oi che house Wnile Department oi Zoning:�dminisaation(the �nves�gadng taac eomolaiac, Deuarsmenc . • Denarrsnenc)for thac use. reoresenrarives]earned rhac che anpe!lanss : ', Eleven diffemnc residential districcs arn are not rela[ed bc marriag=or by biood. _ �j, esrablished by tl�e Code. Occunancy of The appellancs occupp the dwelling and op- ' �- b�uldings as"singie unii dwellings"is au- erace it az a single housekeeoing unic. � � thorized as a use b�right in ten of those share eapenses,and descrioe rhemselve<_as . i disaitts. A "single unit dwelling" is de wmpanions. They have noc sought a ner- ' Sned�s foilows: mit to use their propercp iar any nume - I 1. TJtis court has jurisdittion pursvant to §133-102(1)(b),6A GRS•(1987L . I K � � , - �Jj�_:� . . �,'. / i � ' . \ �' ; i" • '� � �. .___.�.....___ l5• �.._ --_.-�_.. _ ._ .. __ _— . - . 1�_�..,�_"at �. - _ � :;;; .. -- _ - .�1 ...s � i . ��. � q ': �, . � . r,�•',,:� � . . � � . �1-:'`.;5�:•. ZAV�1L,1 r.CITT:1ND COW'fY OF DE:NER Co1o• fi67 ' qle u 739 P.�d 66a(Cola 198l1 =e iaving but occupadon use Eacn depeads upon :he ruling gursuant ;a C.R.C3. 106(ax4) (r� ',� �singie kitchen economic rnnaiourion of t6e other m main- view of raling by an inferior tnbunal)and '.xrsons bear- tain the premises. The record coarains no secuon ?�-i-106, 10 C.R.S.(1978)(review ;:ia�onsnip of: evidence :o suggesc their presence has in of agency action). The appellanca also ` • "aL�er, grand- - aay manner adverselq affected the neign- soughc declarstorp relieP pursuaat W C.R. ' � iaughcer,sis- f� borhood or iis residents. C.P. 57(a). The C.R.C.P. 106(ax4) claim ::�¢hcer,sten- Secdan i9-102(1)(b) of t6e Code antho- alleged,iater alia,that sections 59-2(131) ::-�er, stepta- - riyes as a use by right in RS-�1 iones the �d 59-102(1)(b) oi ihe Code violaced the - _cLer, mocher- j- use of land and struccures for smgle unic appellanu'rights under the liniced States ' •:^-�a�'.broTh- k dwellings. On June 1, 1984, t6e Deparo- and Colorado Consriwtions w ireedom oi - �son-in-law,un• '- ment issued an order to the apoellants di-. �ssociadon, due process of law and equal ? :��ng togecher recting them a cease and desut��olaring proucrion oi the laws and that the aeci- %i: '_e4ee?ing unii. � secsions 59-102(lxb) and 59-2(131)oi:he sions and orden oi the appellees were arbi- . ':niuyed:or se*- � Code oa or beiore June 30, 1984. aary,caoricions and rnnstiwced abuses oi ',idea,nowever. • T}ie aopellanrs aonealed this arder ra the ��AOn. The declazacorp judgment ;:d ssuance by �'� Baard of Zoniag�djustment for the Citp B: ��m reauesred a declararion that these adminisu�arion Couatc of Denver(rhe Board). Following �a ordinances violated:he United Staces � ` iddirional]dtcn- _ � a hearing,:he Boazd unneld the order,con- and Colorado Constiturions on the grounds � cluding chac it lac3ced jurisdicGOn"to add or alleged in the nrsc claim and on the addi- § 59-?(131) �' eifecL cnanges ro the uses enumeraced in a nonal grounds thai the ordinances violared ' :�e residendal �5 disaicc" However, because the Bo2rd �e aupellancs' righss of nrivacc, use and ;.�ermirs from ''-� concluded:6ac r.he anpellanss would eeperi- enjoyment oi cheir propercp, and associa- • i or savcnues ';. ence nardsnin oecause they would have co aon "avithouc am reasonable reiarionshin ; occuparions in either sell:6eir house or alter their person- �a nrional stace purpose"in violadon of , ! :on of a single al reladoasnip,i's grsated the appellants a ar�ide II of the Colondo Constituuoa adon uses aze six-moaih stay oi�he ruling,piusuant to The claim ouroorcedly based on section 24- , + iendal disuicu: --- - --•--- -� �9-�4(6)-of the Code?... � .. d-106 alleged that the Baara s decision was 3- "aroiu�an, eanricious and v�olace(d] the ` _ ` ` :_:;r uses also The aopellanss then 51ed a complainc in � Colo.Rzv.�fun. the Denver Disaicc Conrt againsc the �anneilanu'J constitnriona3 righss." g h Denver,Colo. x Board.iis membe:s,the City and County of Beiore oral ardumenc, the oarties sub t . i! (1982). In '� Denver (the Cicr) and ;he Ciiy�s Zoning mit.ed a joint sdnulation of faess. The j isc-:.s in whic:z �dmiaisaawr :or jumcial review oi chis sdnvlarion indicarzs chac:he anoellants are i �?ermiited, land �,�1 Ioi"rooming � Z �'�°�i�g=3'�'K6),the Houd may gcant a rccorded in t6e office oi:3�e elerk and record- � six•mon�h dday oi eaiorcemen[uncn tfie foi- er of thqdn•. Sucn my shall no[be a vari• � • �.oCe aeIIDPS lowinY cinvmsta¢cc: � mce on the use oi a premises,sball be person• j � t ��3ing with ar ' Sis•month dday af u�jorcemenc Whenever zl to cne�ooticant[hesvor and znall noe be [ .aooa to pe*ma- the deparcmmi oi zoning adminismcion has ffansierabla � c �� b.Rev.'_Kun.COde - issxd m orde to cease and desiu from any Denver,Coio.Rev_Nun.Code§i9-i4(6)(3982). ' use ao[wihorized by chis chapec.exae[az � � provided in z�i�osee.ion(5).above,tLe board. 3. The review provisions of see[ion 2C--i106.IO : t^_eiVed a tele upon aponL may nnd t6at�6e li[eral enforco- C.RS.(1982),apply m cenain[ypes oI proceed- -.::ed ealler com- mem oi clx provisions will resilt im m�eces- ings candvaed 'oy wme s�ate agendes. The -j ' sary nardsnip by rnson of u¢ique and ezceo- record does not indimm the buis Eor she appe4 . } :.he:orntei 0�• '� vonai circvassssnccs iocluding owoei s pnysi- lancs'reiian«on this porrion oi the Adminis�ra- E ^ouse. W�hile ml wnditioa age. md/or othtt haon as eive Procedure Aa for review of che Hoard's ��, DeDaz'anent dewed by the board io be unique or uap- order. See, eg., §31-2"r307(1), 12°_ GRS. i� tional. In f6ai evrnt the board may order a .(1986) (dccisions oi boards of adivumm[oi � ::ne anoellants - municioali[ics sub en�o cenionri review '. delay,for a paiod of no[to exeeed six(6) 1 bY , �z oi by blooa. . mon[hs of the eniorcement of such cnse and dis[ria court): §59-56(a), Denver, Colo.Aev. . • ^welling ahd oo- � �- duis�ordc. Uoan expiration of any orcer Alun.Code(1982)(aggrievec persons may have , ::sze0in uAl � delayiag enforeemmt oi wcn cnu and desia decisions of Denvv Hoard of Adjustmen[re• . � '� � � order, the board may review,ae a regular �iewed in t6e manmr prorided by rules rdating ;?chemselces as h�aring beiore the board an applicanis rc- w civil proceedings). She appellanu ihird . o[sought a oer ' quese ior an additional six(6)mon[hs'uten- � claim, hoaveva:, appcars m smk the ideatical - . ;O[ 2nc hOme - sior. and grant onfy one such utnuion relief requated by the aepellanu' C.R.C.P. snould the ooaru Fnd that the wnditions s[ill 306(aI(�)claim.and we conside:only the C.R � .!t9b:). �cis�. AII wcn attions by the board shall be � C.P. 106(a)(s)daim. . 1 � � i � , , / `,' ' ; .. i � . .�,. 1. � • J . �.'.. . �k - __ . .__....-_.�_�"_.._-. � �_. _ ... _ .... __ ._� _ :� • '=�.: r,�. �� ,� . �. Cola. 759 PACIFIC REPORTER.?d SERIES � `~ 668 ' � . related neither by blood nor marriage,that form whicD was fz7ed on behalf of:6e a� 3_" �^,t 4 theq operete che residence as a siagle pellanu by Yheir attomeq. ' housekeeping uai't. rhat they are t6e sole • -� occupaats oi :he nouse and that aeither [1,21 The aQpellant+ appeared at :he ' . �'. would be able co live ia.rhe honse withont Angnss 1�,1984,hearinq and iai)ed to 0o- '- • the 5aancial ronQCnurions of the os.her. jeec to the adequacv of the notice. 11se § � - � Follawing briei oral azgvmen¢,the discict erroneous statements here challeaged did ' courc enternd a aarictea order"dactin['mg} not dearive the Board of jurisdicdon and g = � w aoid:he ordinance unconstituaonal"on did not arfecc the appellanu'abiiiry ta sair • � � - the ground that it m�s"bound by the case guazd their interesrs. See Su�cdance Hitls y. �.' of Rademaa u City&County of Denver, Hovnen�aners.4ss'n. v. Board oj Couaty j � 18fi Coio. ?50 f �26 P.:d 1325 (1974)j." Comm'ra, 188 Colo. 321, 534 P.Sd 1312-- � , 3 The rnurc made no :5ndings of fact.and (1�7; Titus o.Zondn.g Bd aj Review,99 � 2 staced ao ocher conciusions of law. This R.I. ?ll, 306 �..^_d 630 (196n); Whi1s v. " apoeal ioUowea %meing Bd of.4djustme�zf,363 S.W.`3d 9b5 ; � (Tex.Civ.�po.1962). F�u-chermore,bv fuilc par.icinacin¢in the hearing and faulin¢m � _ � The aoueUans assert that their rights to objecc to any notice orovisions, the aonel- �� . ' procedural due process of law under the ��u waived any riQht;n lacer claim chese 1 ; Sf`,h and :ouneeath ameadmenu to the deiecu constituud a vioiarinn oi their due Uniied Suus Consutudon and aztiele II, py�� righu. Hendricicson v. Depart- " seccion 25. of rhe Colorado Constiiurion ��t oJ�sverzue,i IB P�d dS9(Colo�pn. c � were violared becsuse the notiee they rr 1986); .Naitivegly v. Charnes,700 P.?d 9?7 � i ceived was deiecdce. They also �serc ((]piO.1DD.19HJ�. � thas their rignrs ro eaual proceciion oi the law under borh wnsritnrions were violated [3.�{J The anpellaacs also useri thac en- - ' � because Denve�'s eniorcement of the ordi� forcemenc oi the ordinances against the:a ' I nances was azbitrary and capricions. _11• was arhivar•and ranricious because other - - thougn:he disaicc rnurt's order made no unrelated persons tesiding mgether ia urh- snecinc:eference w these legal atgnments, er properdes in RS-1 residendal :nnes - �. t6e record on anneai oermits the rnnclusion have noc been orosecuced 'uy the Denaxs- ! thas ther•are wiihouc meric ment. Discriminatory enionement of zon- The aQoeilanrs aciaowledged that they �B reguladons may well result in a denri- j received aorice oi �he �ugnsc 14, 1984, vadon of equal protecoon rignts. 'Earl dc Board oi�djuscment heariag,but mntend Smu Tire Center,a. Citp ojBoslder, 192 that che norice they reeeived was defective Colo.360,.So9 P?d •Z36 (197�). However, - � berduse iL iadiraud;hat the Internaaonal pe:sons asserdng eaual prorecvon denrira- ; �lfissionarr Sociesq oi;he Seventh Day�d• trans of this cppe musc estabiish incenconal ' venrist Church was the owner ai the umo� discriatinatocy eaforcemenc of regulaaons � •a ercy in auesrion. The record contains only against them; the fact thac some othe �� a �; two doeumeau wnicn iisc the Seventh Day individuals escape prosecudon under an or• _ f �-� Advenast Churcn as ;he owner of Ne ap- dinance is insuificient w estabiish incen- i �; peAanu' home. One is a "Veighborhood tional selecdve eaioreemenc of the ordi- w � �"i Organizarion Reierral Form" which aori- nance. Snawdtn w Hughes,�21 li.5.1,64 � � fied aa earicy descrioed as'.he Rangeview 5_CL 39i, 88 L.Ed. 497 (1844�; Mag v. ��' � �? Homeownen�ssociarion of the dace,loca- People, 636.°.2d 672(Colo.1981); Parrack " � tion and sub}ec:matcer of the appellants' v.Town ofEsies Park,623 P�d 1614 fColo. ' appeal. The ocher is a typewricren"mning 1981); Eari&Sans?'ire Cerzter u City oj "i appeal auplication"iisring the appellanu u Boulder,192 Colo.360,�09 P.3d 23&. The � tenants oi the properry. V4ith the exce� appellanu oifered no etiidence w esrablish _ ; iion of rhe designation of the owner, the their claim of intentional disc:iminacory en- =� apolindon is subsrantially sim�7ar W a forcemeat of the ordiaance againsc them. _ ` � handwrittea "zoning appeal application" To :he rnntrsrs, thec sdoulaced that the '�., �,.� 'f.... �� ' � j �� _ - �- �� i i , / ., ti . • - .. r„�,�.�.�—___._--- _^.�_ _ - . �� -��-. _»_„_,_w.,�___-,�-� _._... �m-�°,�-�.,�..�__ __ . ��.....�� :t� ,..._ �'e ; — _� . �• � � � ; , � . � !^� ZdVAL3 v. CITY:�ND COUYTY OF DENVER Cola &69 M�., Clte v 739 P3d bM ICntn 19li1 �. >. =re 2D- Department proceeded wiih respect to t]�e 1536, 39 i..Ed_'d i97 (1975). Since tnea, , complaiat initiadng:his nroceeding in :he the Conrs hss considered consciturional �' same manner it resoonded :o oxher com chailenges to tocal.zoning ordinances ia �� tie plaints of alleged mning ciolauons. Moore ro.City of East Clevelaad.d31 U.S. A'0,�e , The record does not suppors the appeb ��. � �-CL 1932, a2 LEd.2d 531 (•1977y , :::� �id lants' clauns that their rigars :o due pra (P»�S'oninion},and City af Cleburne v. JY cess of 1aw and eaual prorecrion of Ctte Iaw ��Living Center,473 li.5.:3'r'.105 �on and were infringed by the manner in which the S.Ct 3249,37 L.Ed.?d 313 (19851. Those • "0'�� otdiaaaces were enforced againsc them. decisioas must aiso ee cansidered in assess- •, I:E.Y2ILS ��equentlp,m the ettenc:he jui3gment �L��fecss oi P.ademaa ander che cir � .� � �ourzcy ' of the disiricc court denied the appeitanu' �Tances presenced by this rase. :'d 121? claims thac the acpellees'acrions in eniom The,e disparace iaccwzl and legal c•:rcum- �K�'99 in :he ordinances were aznitra g ry, canri• ssances'distinguisn Rademan and render �'�' �";_� "' cious,aad consriiuced abuses oi disGedon. i� authoriiq insffucrive buc not u the __ - .'"°4a or vio}arzd procedural due ptrocess and Qisuicc cours heid oinding. In rhe absence ' °�iIl�j� e ual rocecaon ri hts, �e ub enc is ' ' ..��g� q p g ] � oi any_indings oi tacs bp the districs courc . �:ne anpe!- �'�' in supporc of iis decision,the case must be E_,� ;hege . i� remanded far :urther considerauon. The • :neir due fotlowing discussion suggesrs the aame- { �eDQ� The appell�nss also concend that the dis- work Wiihin wnicii the annei]anB' claims :oio_�po. �'+�court erred in nolding cnac our deci- snould 6e evaivaved. . �„Q�� sion in Rademan u Ciiy & CounCy of � r, ' ' Denver, 186 Colo. 250, 526 P.Zd 1820 �l (1974�required the conclusion Thac che ora [�j Deaver is a home rule ciiti.� See = i " I� � ':�c that en- eisions of these ordinances do not imoer- ��o,��„ar t_"Y,§ 6; Lekman v.Ciiy ' � �ainsc r.hem missbiy impair their consricurional rights. & County of Denver, I�14 Colo. 109, 355 = ' :use other' We agree. P.2d 309(1960); Colby ti.3oard of 4djust- ' ` :i;er in oth- _ In Rademan v. City&�County oj Den- nunk Sl Colo.^rtA.25b P.#43(1927). 9s e iaa! zanes ver, 186 Coio.'r50,526 P_°d 13?�,we held snch,its zoning authorin•.is gavemed bp ` - ;' ,� r 'ne Deoar.- that rhen e.vstiag seccions fi12.1-3(lxb}�d iis owa enarcer and ordinances. Sellan'ti:'_ •-�,�._,,. " ,E;s' : 'ieac af�on- 619.400 oi the Code,wnich oersnicrzd only City of.Narcitou Sprinys, T45 P?d � 'c �: ' i;: . J;in 2 denri- single anit dwellings in cerrain Denver (�10.1987); CiL_v of Colo. Spriags v. �: e . ::-s. Eur!� neighborhoods, did noc iniringe upon the Svnart� 620 P�d 1060 (Cob.1980}. Seo �. ? �' ''oa;der, lg? fourteenc4i amendmeuc:ignu oi two maz- dons 31.13 an6 31.14 oi the Charcer of the � 3owever, ried couples aad hvo iadivid¢als who as- Cit}-and Connn•oi Denver delegate zoning " f, ' ;;:on deuriva- serted�ioYations oi:heir rignts oi nrivacy PoR�'� �e Denver Cir• CounciL , [ ' i�intenuona! and sheir rignts w associace aeely wirh ° �� . (6,i) Imnlicii in this constiturional del- ; •; + c_;uladous whomever they wisued. The two appel- ega�on oi au�horicy s the recogaitioa thac �`�� i � the Ciis possesses broad egislaove discrN '�> ' some ocher 1anCS bere assert thac secdons 59-2131) i �ia6er an or• � and 39--102(lxb) of tne nresent Code ¢e� aon w decermine now iest co achieve dr •�,•�' ; � nsh incea- � prive them not only oi associational rights clazed municinal oojec��•es. Vopro Co.v. ;i che ura'r. ' � aad tl�eir rigi�ts "noc w marry," but aJso ro� oj Cher.y Hills yiliage, 180 Colo. "{��,` t`O-'.�.$.I.Bq " their rign�s as nropercq owners to use their 21i,�?5,b04 P yd 344.348(1972). Conse� '`-` ; ��); ,1qay s, � pzopertc u they desire. The number oi yuentty,zoning ordinances aze:requendy •-"'r I _,); p¢��k plaintiffs in R¢demarz, their relauonships. unheld as caiid ezercises oi poIiee nower w �'f� :a:Ol:(Colo. , � and the nanue of the righcs assercedlq �� matters of publie health, saiery �'r�' �er v.City oj � infrinBed are subsranriaity differen�t2tan and wetfare. Village of Ev.clid r.Ambler .��`� .tc 336. The , t6e cireumse3nces nresenced'nere. Rea11y Ca.. ?7°U.S.36�,4i S.Ct 114,71 �to esubiish � In.addition,Rademan relied e.ccensivelr LEd.300(1926); Baum v. Cit3r�Couaty ' ' .-iminatarr en- , on the then quiie recent decision of the oi De�ven 147 Colo. 104, 3&3 P2d 688 j,.. r .;ains::hem. i� United Staces Sunreme Courc in ViUage nj (?961); Colby r.Board of 3djustme�t{Sl ` iva ckac the $efle Tern v.Boraas,416 U.S.1,94 S.C. Colo.34A,25o P.413• ZoninB decisions of I.' ` CaaA�O.]5�>SY P.26-d � ; �` , I. . . . . ' .'�, �� _ � l , `•� .11' ..:Z•i ' . .ti: .1 r . ; . � • ` . . _ ' ,''�� . � + ':. � �• i ' .* . , .}w�'�--_"' _'.,..�,�... ... _�� . ` � . �� . �� ..._ � . _-. � i� �`: r � � .-,t,i:,,.., . 670 Colo. i"o9 P�CIFIC REPORTER, ^_d SERIES _':.. a muaicinal authoriry aze presumed eaiid, 1005(Colo.1982). Sn ardiaance of this type Board of County Comm'rs v. Nouatain will sun�ve a constiturional c6allenge ��;t .4ir Ranek, 192 Colo. 364. 563 P?d 341 mounced on substanrine due procxss or . (1977); Wright n City of Littleton, 174 equal procection grouads only upou a show- -� �.;;' Colo. 318, 483 P.2d 953 (19i1); Baum v. �yg by tS�e government thac�e regularion ' � City&•Cauniy ofDenver, 14i Colo.104, � y�tably tailored W serve a compelling 363 P.?d 688,and a parcy:hallenging d�e state interest City of Cfeburne n Cle- ' eonsrituaonaGty of a zoning ordinance nor- �� Living Center, 473 li.S. 432, 105 mally bears the burden oi proving rhe as- S.C�3249,87 L.Ed.2d 313 f1981; Yillage serted inva6dity beyond a reasonable a f Be[le Terre u Boraas. �116 U.S. 1, 94 daunC Sellon n. City of_ITaniiou Spri�rega S.CL 1536, 39 LEd2d i97 (1974); P.ade- �'y'`, - 745 P.°_d 229; Tri State Genemtion & Trarrsmission Co.v.City ofThornivn;64i man v. City & County oj Denver, i86 • P.?,�l 670 (Colo.1982�; Holcomo u City& Co1o' �' �Z6 P?d 1325 (19741. Zoning , Courziy of De�ruer,199 Colo.351,606 P2d ��rions whicn do not iniringe unon , 858(1980); Ford Leasireg and.Deu. Co.v. madamenul rignu or creace suspecc claui- Board oj Cau�ty Comm.'rs.286 Colo.418, ��DOUS are generally measured bp rhe 523 P.?d 2.°.7 (19r4); Baum v. CiEy � ��s demanding rationalit}-;randazd, lin- F, � County oj Denver,14'r Colo.iO4.36"o P.?d der this standard, rhe legisiadon wiil oe F 688. The discredon of a aunicinalicy w upheld ii the purpose oY�he enacmienc's ,, �promuigate zoning regniarions is by no valid aad che terms oi the ordiaance aze � � means ansolute,however,ouc is subjecc m mrionall,r• related to cha� governmearai i i eansriiurional lunitacions anoiirable ro atl goal. Y"illage of Beile Terre v. Boraas, r� governmearal legislarive decisions. See ?l6 t.5. ?,94 S.Ct 1536,39 Lid.2d 797: 4. Noore v. City oj Gast Cleveland-131 ii.S. Tassian�:.Peoale,731 P.?d o72; Peopie o. �� 494,97 S.Ct 1932, 52 L.Ed.°_d o31(1977). Yelasw.e=, 666 P.?d "aoi (Colo.1983), aa- � In view oi:he cension ianernat in these Peal dismissed }� II.S. 1001, 104 S.C: general priaciples,determinadon oi the atr 989, 79 L.Ed.Bd 223 (19841; Rademan v. •, _ '` olicsble test by whicn cnaFlenged.zoning Ciiy& Coun.iy of Derever, 136.Colo.?50, .,_ legislation is :o be evaluaud becomes a �z6 P.2d 1375.' Because zoning ord'mances cidcal ihreshold ssue. If aa ordinance by necessit}]imit the eaerrse of individual j . resaicu a 5uidamenral rignc or ezeaws a conceots of aooronriace uving arrngr � _, susnecc class,its consdivaonalitp is ro be menrs,decisions as to wnicn inurpersonal j< : measured by awlicarion oi a neigntened reladonships snould be coasidered funda- �: sraadard oi inquir�•inco che nurposes and menral righu for purposes oi consdiudonal effec� of the ardinance. See, eg., San procecdon aze of the u�osi imnorance. I' Antonio Indeg School Dist v.Rodrigue:. i' �11 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct :273. 36 L.Ed.Bd i6 � (1973); Shapim v. Thompson, 394 li.S. B j: 618.89 S.Ct 132.'�,-?�L.cd�d 600(1969} [3] In Village ofBelle Terre v.Boraas, - ; � United States v.OBrien.391 li.S.367,88 416 U.S. 1, 94 S.CL 1536, 39 LEd.2d 79i � � S.CL 1673,20 LEd.Ed 6i2(19681; Tassiaa (197�)(hereinafter Belle Terre),a landlord i: v.People,^31 P.4d 672(Colo.198'�; Lujan who had received an "Order m Remeap ' ' v. Colorado State Bd ol Educ, 649 P.2d Violarions" after renting vs house to siz � E �� 4. A t6ird s�andard,that of imermcdiate review. 52 LEd.2d 31(19T). l7ade-his snndard.the _ � � � has been employed by the Supreme Coun ro govcrnmmc muse es*abiisb t6u a classi6mrion - . review a varieer oF ot6er classincauoos which scrva an imoortaa�govemmennl in�eres�and . ere do na impinge a iuntiamenul rignt or ecam a ��escanuapy relaud eo che achievemea�of , , � svspec,class,but w6ic6 iniringe uoon impor• �ose objectives This cour.uas previousiy uti- � - � �r tan[in[cresu. SCC.Ll..P.CXL[I v.Browx,a62 lized [his intermediate smndard of review in . ��' G5. 1, 103 S.CL 2199.76 L:.Z?d 3:2 p983); Ptvler v.Doe,457 US.202.10?S.Ct 2382.72 nzluaiing cGallenges co statucory ciassificuom _: E �d baud on gendv. S�Arunn v.lirvak 682 P2d �.' .I; � LEd2d 786(19B?): Kirchbc»v.Fv�str2�50 sl(Colo.1984): RMcC.v.l.W...00 Cola J45. I. US.455,101 S.C:.1195.6i L'cd2d 328(1991J; 615 71d 666(1980). ` i 'i T�imefe v.Cordnrb 430 U5.762,97 S.Ci 1459, -i ; •. t ' Y � r�- ,�.:,, . � . r . r t . _ ,: — -- - — - _ _ __ _ �,,.,,,�.r_'_�— — 'to... �:._ . .. i, . . �''��. .j " .,,.fyt*}•,. . • ZAVALA v.CITY:1ND COUNTY OF DEPTVER Colo. 67j �,��'"�„:��.; Cite u 759 P]d 6bf(Cala 19Y1 `�.�;. ;tnpe wllege scudencs challenged che validih oi relaud m :he head of the household by �; ' i ,lenge an ordit�ance restricring land use chmngh- consangniaity or marriage. Grandchldren �:¢, i', .e ;ss or ont the encire vt7lage to those re7ated by or either a head of a household or che e: .. ti, ): .shoW- blood,adopcion or marriage. Three of the spause oi a head af a househoid wem un- '�; ✓ =F :siacon Lenants Joined the laadlord's challenge der cercvn circumsunces de�ed as fam�7y ''.' , ^. lim The ordinance also allowed use of land in s , - ' •pe � g membecs. Other grandc2u7dren oi a head :.; ,, .�� oz n. Cle- the v�age b}not more than two unrelaced oi :he household, sucn as the grandson �:�`:,, '� G. :32, l0a persoas Gving Wgether as a single hovsr 9nvolved'w;he.Noore case,wno did nos iall ` �i? ViUage keeping w�it The plaintiffs azgued that ��;�� narrow elassificatian wern not --- ;1 3. 1. 94 �e orninance violated their aghts oi,irzter deemed;amily memners. . .�'•,„ + : p�e, ali¢, equal procecrion and CaveL The '' ` i.,.c:...::. Cours re ecxed a Ucarioa of a hei hiened Four memoers of ;.he Court annlied a t- ! r ;:er, 186 � �p g heignuned scrudny analysis and coneiuded �',.>�..' 15:-�. Zoaing standard of review because it determined �at Fast Cleveland's ordinance violaced oc infrir e unon _ �t the c?aims involved "no fundamencai , , g � right guaranceed 6y the Constitudon,such �e homeowners subsranrive due nrocess :ce susoec:_3assi- -� ��e rignc of association,or any right oi =�gh� � mai:e choices coneeming iamiip ` �>_asund by the �- living arrangemenu. Belle Terre and its - ;candard. Un- •.; P��Y," 3eile Terre, �116 U.S. at i, 94 S.Ct at 1540(cisations omitted). 3ppiying conciusion ;hac :he ndona! relariansaio �� • gisladon wdl oe - eesc averned che consriturional cnallen es ��" !,-�e enacr.neac is �. tbe rrtional relarionshin ;es� the Cour. g g �s, asserced x insc:hat aonin �' • concluded thac :he challenged restricdan � g ordinaace was �e ordinance are � ��Qaa'vly related io a va2id gavern- �SnnBwsned on che ground ihat:1ie Belle �: ac govenmencal - � menral puroasti-iurchering U�e iamiiy Terre ordinance �overned onlp unreiaced k: "• .''erre v. doraas, '�� needs oi the village. The majoritc oninion �ndi�iduais. The;our jusdces decermined :�r. �9 C,.;d2d i9i; ��u�y �j�.,,ed the ugumect:hac the �ac EasL Cleceland's resul�rion oi whai ;�; '�072; People v. w ordinance disulayed animosity toward un- famflr memben could live toeecher only ��f iColo.1983), ap- T married counies living togecher by.noring minimally `urchered the stated oojec�ves 1� - '_001. :G4 S.CL thaz the ordinance's de5nidon oi"family" oI�e ordinance m reduce Qaffic and part- 4); Rademan v. iacluded cwa unmarried peonle. ing congesrion,prevenc overcrowding aad 1�!� r, 1R6 Colo.250,. Ia Sfoore v. City of East Cleroetan.d 431 ��O7Q undue:mancial burdens on the cic,.'s :oning ordinaacs ? : sc:�ool scsrem. Jusrice 3tevens,in a wn- ' : _.._... U.S. 394 � S_Ct 1932, 52 L.Ed?d 53I ? •cse of individual curring ooinion. ;ound ;he ordinanee in- ' !ivin arraa �- (19Tn,[he Courc applied a neightened scru- g g- dqy standazd'a holding unconsrixucional z Precedenced in its resmcrion oi tae Puada- }icn inte:pecsonal menral riqnc of pmQe:cy owners to deade municipal otdinance unde;whica a homr onsidered funda- � wno may reside on cheir pzaoerl-. � t owner was convicted of crimiaal conducc .of consritndonal � for tting ner �:nosc imnorance. perm� gxaadson u live in her In City nf Cleburne v. Cleourne Lirring household. The ordinance resuicted occu- Cerzter. di3 L.S. 422 105 S.CL 32d9, � , paney of siuqle#amilq residentlal dwelling L.Ed?d 3:3 (1985), the Coru�t coar.luded r;,� nniis tq certain cluses of family members thac a zoning ordinance requiring an owner �'Terre v.8oraaS, i. ihe Eaan Cleveland ordinance pmvided as fol• (d)Noewi�hsunding che provisions of suo- su �. 39 LEd.Zd i?7 �O� se�rion{b)oermi.a iamily may ineiuce not . :^e),a IantilOid ' "Femi�y" me�ns a numeer of individvals moce�nan one dcprndeai marricd or unmar• i� � rela�ed io�he nominal bead of[he houscuold ried ciuid�oi ihe nominal head of the noux- i[de: to Remed} or to�he soousc of[be nominal Lrsd oi[he hold or oi the spouse of the nomina!bead oi � his house [o si7c ' � houseuold living u a sin�e nouukeeoing unit che nousenoid and�he spouse and denrnden[ , � ia a singie dwelling unit,but limited w tne ��aren o[sucn deQenden[chi(d. For the u chis snndard.the �uo�S purmse oi:his uiosr_sioa i dexndmt per• .eha[a ciauififa[ion (a)Husbaad or wife oi tiie nomina!head oi son is one w�o hu morc than i�fn�orscear oi :menczl imeresi and the housenold � � ��he unievemrne oi - (b)Unmarried chifdren of [he nominal � �is m�al support ivruishcd for him by ihe 6od of che 6ousehold or of[6e s x oi che �ominal ixad nf che nousehold and �be :nas prcviousl}�uu• - PO1 spouse oE the nominal hesd oi the house6oid . • ndard oi rc��ew in � oominal head of ihe houunold pravided. � �:urory ciusi6e+tions . 6owevv.�ha�sueh unmarried children have (<• '�%��y may consise of one individual. n u Iltvaic 55??.?d . �children residing with[hwL Moore s�. Cfty o/East C7eveland<31 US.{94. � (c]Fa�hcr or mother of�he nomina!head 496 n.?.97 S.Ct.19i2,l934 n 2,52 L'cd2d 531 �!.W..?00 Colo.3C5. of the house6old or of the spoux of the nom- �19�• � iaal hnd oi du houschold . ]59PZ�18 `. "f ' ' � .�-t �,/ � . f ♦ � �� .. ,� • . • . - �.,�.___. ... . . ... __ ... __ __— . ..' . '"'."'�'_'�_"" . "�'S?n„ � _ ._....__�—.✓'.. �._,� . ,.,._.,s..._,_._._.— _,.. �.""- P -'°�.-` � .. �:�.:��:: �- , 672 Colo. 7fb PACIFIC REPORTER.=d SER[ES of a bm7ding designed tn pravide resi- appronriace fur measuriag t6e challeaged �. dencial unitr for menully retarded pe=snos legislacicn. Our commenc in Radcmaa �: ,,� to obtain a special uxy ��t �ja� y�t"(e]ven chouuh t1�e rignu oi�eedom �� equal protection righw of t(ie handicauped of associadon and of prinaeY are cherished ;� persons wha wern its �xrtkntial residents. righss, cheY �nw+r y�e1d as we view the `.i The Courc re)ected the•rryNmenc that men• Constitution. to ti^�lid zoning regnlarions;' � ta1 retardation consriwv:�t a quasi-suspect Radevnaa 136 G�to. at 254, a26 P�d at r �, classi5cation requirinq xpplicarioa of a 1327. maY be �a� merely recognizing i; heightcaed standard of n;view. :�pplying thac evea fundamenml rignrs may be rn8v- � the rational relauonship t«x��however,the ��co some extens by anorooriate]egisia- jCourc eoacluded rhat the nrdinance did not 9oa, so long as �e legislauaa suzvives ?� ' ftu-cher any legitimace int,.re,yt of the cicp anniicacian af a hrighcened srandard of re�- . and, therefore,detied�Y{ua!protection of Ne�y�a is,chereiore.consti4monally per- sthe law tn the nlainriffx. in a cencurring missrble. 'C1�is di�u��y aLso he read as ' - opinion,dustace Stevens uhxen•ed that the mereiy refleccing �e ��ate cronciusion •� Couit's selection of swmlards bv whicii to �aL the particular rignu�serced by tLe � raeasure zoning legisladnn should nac be g��an niaindff� were noc imnermissi• _ viewed as rigid :armulae but rather as bly restricced hy che cnallenged ordiaaaces. � eiforts co arciculaxe judicial responses W �e comment does not snggess 26as any ' k:' earyiag class'u`�ca�on schemee, In a sepa- �o�g oro�nance n+usc be uooeid auwmari- � � . race concurring and dinnrnvng opinion, �ly�a�•aiid e��e oi legisiative au- � . �I. - three jnsrices arccuiared the view cfiai a thorit9 in ;ne iac° ai any consdsuuonal �!; heighcened scrurins test xhould have been �allenge. ��e"eauires carenil as- , �l� applied to invalidau Cleburne's ordinance g��ent�_ �e P�cu�''g°t assecud � on its iace. and spec'u�c concluvons regatding the nur- ' j Our decision in Rademc�n u City & poses oi �e aitin»ce. ao matmr wnat Couxity oJDenver,186 G�lo,Z50,a26 P?d �nsrituriun�5��deemed approuri- . : 1325 (1974),was issued prior tn Lhe deci- a� _ " , sions m 11oon and CleGurne. In Rade- - • ma�n, tl�e olaintiffs asaerv:d v�olations of C allegedly fundamenul :ighrs W privacy ue sDpey}an�s� allegarions and to associate"seeiy with whomever they �9� �� 1.,1)of � wished. They also assert�a violaaon of �at sec�ons�°-l�lxb)anfl�9--1 ' ' E tye�e�ioiau ihru'rnusIIpidoaal rights . equal Qrocecrian righrs tx,manse oi the al- w-�¢vie�ved$om the - } legedly azbiirarc disdnction y¢tween famii- �due nromss of 1a ��ework,it j ;F ial and non-iam�lial mlaraonxhips conrained P�D�rice of th�s�c��s order faiLs . within the urdiaances. R+:lying ou Be11e is ciear thst:he diau . - t Terre, we canciuded that th¢ plaint�fs' m amviae'�nG�'c�a eQial couc=aneed � clauns involved no ivndamental righss aad �� re`�e�' ��'� �d coAClusions ; that the ordinance should}ie measured by not make deculed=' €� _ ' the rationa] relarionsnip ;��d�, ge. in everp c%+p•a fi:�ludgmeac must con- } � cause we conciuded thac th,:a�(nance was �S�t��Oy'don ta permit a rn _ ; k reasonauly relaced w ia cxxerced legisla- viewing mur.m dez�mine whethe:proper " E tive purpoees of promodnK famiiy values legal staadues�="1°Iacs anolied. :Xarz- j � and creating places iree trom rnn estion os Yail Co�domir.:jm�x v. Town of � �' and over•populadan,we rejected the plain- Y"ait, 1°4 Caio. 62� P-'d !168(19801. E � , F i tiffs' c3aims. qye y��:c:com:z�simoly held:hat as tt�e decisions of:he Su reme faarc in onr decisiaa in Ra°-`'''un v'City�County - �= BeLfe Terrc, Moore and Cleburne reveal, oj Derzvt' 1S6 C� �� 6 P.2d 13?S �: asserdons thac a parricular wning ordi- (:974)� =�e4uued dr�1 oi the apne!]anu' f_ naace violares due proceax or equal protec- constturions� csa"�` We have alreadr • k: tion guarantea must bc ezamined with noced that P.cdcmaz d�t with a di.`fercat G� gteac care co determine what atandards are licing arn=SE'aep1^�L its comment eon- _ F. . . - k� � ' � ,. , .,��:' �„ `Y w. �;., . � /� y , • � . . ------- - -- - i.�"""..--..___-----"—'... - - ' �"!4w_. �,,._ . � �:.p�,;..��cY• . ' . � � � k Y :, � j . . ,,^,..., • zavata Y. ciTr axn cou�oF nE�rvER Co1o. 6i3 <�� '}; � tlteuT59 PJ bN(COb.19l61 .�' :ing :he challenged cerniag t6e reladonsaio becween zoning or- Fluthermore, even fundamenul righLs :�ent in R¢deman dinances and fundamenul righss does noc may ia some circumstances be limited by ^ resolve be issue resenced 6 the a ! ovemmenrai action. See:indersos u Ce- ' �� -.=aghrs oi'seedom P Y PPe- g >rivacy are ciierished lanrs,and thac due process aad eqnal pro- kbn�e, d60 tiS.T80, 103 S.C� 1569,75 '.�• id as we view ;lie teccon ccallenges to municioal mnipg ordi- LEd2d 547 (1983); Rademan u Cik� & ' . nances deinand careful aaal is w deur- �- � �oning regalations," YS County oj Denver.186 Colo._od,526 P...d ac 254, 526 P.2d at mine�he anpiieable constiat[ional standard. 1325(1974). The absence of specinc 5nd- ' merely recognizing For examnie, w►u7e ihe appenanrs'general �gs �� regxrd to the excent the ordi- , �Qnu�y��- � allegarions of violations of righss of auoci- nances here chailenged in iacc a6ridge the , - ':qnrooriate legisia• arion, nmacy and use of propercy may anpellaats' asserred righu prevents any , easiarion survives abpeaz ideasiczl to she �gars alleged w resolurioo of this issue ax;his time. ':�"M1 :eaed sTandard of re� have been imm�ged in Rademan, claser :oasdsudonall oer examinacon oi:he apQepanrs'ciaims sug- �ndings concerning the ourposrs served �'• by the ordinancrs are alsa inscrucdve in - �ay also be read as gesss there ue signifieans di£ferences. decermining co ahat e:cceac�e ordinances . ultimace conclusion The annellana here appear [o equare aoridge the aooeilanss' constiinrional ' ��cs asse:ted by che - t6eir oardculaz righrs oi usociation and rights. The anoellanu ar;ue chac the ordi- are noc 'vr.�ecmissi- __ privacs a an asserced right W be free aos nances were adooted ta reguiace a parricu- 4 • �,:a31en d ord'mances. = ta mar.r each orher. The anoellans also � 1:,c sug esc ;.�ac any - apnear m assers a su6scanove due process �az ende oi mnraury. The Ci�c indirates in ' x soneld aacomaa- = rigni co use:heir oroner.y as they choose, �u briei an anoea .hat;.he ordinances were : se oi]egisiative au- - �.r"' althougn :he e�ccent oi this right is noc aesigned w encoeuage:am"uc ralues. The gene�l buis;ar adoncian ai che Code is,of ' any rnnsricutiona. � ciear firom the pleadings. They find suo- couxse, the Cin,•'s authoricy a "�eserve � , >auires cazeiul as- � port for:heir argument thac the rignt aoc and promore:he�ublic heaith.saiecy and :r right assercec to mar_s is a fundamencal rigat requiring ,pelfaze oi che innabiianu oi:ee aty,and � egardiag:.ie nur- applicdon oi a Beighcened levei of scrud- : � oi the nubiic generally,and m encoursge ' io matter what ay to secsons 59-102(1)(h)and 59-_(131)oi �d `acilitare crte orderlc growch and ec- deemed annropri- _ the Code.in :he decision of the Court oi - � .�npeals ,in Beeson v. Kiowa Cou�ty Pansion of che ciiy." Dencer, Cob.Rev. School Discrict It�1, 3P Colo�pa 174, Mun.Code ; b9-; (1952). In view of this ' 567 P.�SOl(19?^). In Bewo�e, the eourc �sagreemen;, ;he discricc cour is in the F deEem�ined that che decision W ereate z besc posirian w determine precisely what �Lan¢` allegations _ purooses these ordinance Aere desi ed.m � marriage relarionship is a iundamenral g° I _nd a9-2(131)oi serve.' � jI�onsdtnflonal rignss rignc;3nalp grounded in the pub6c poiicy . � - - oi this srace,as arriculared by the Geneni The oarcies aLso dispuu.the esce¢c m ; +:ra viewed:tom cEie - ��moic See § 14-13-101, 6B C.R.S. which the siagle unii flweiling provisions of ; !yacal framework.it (1987). ;7�e court then held rhac a senool the Code rescicc che anpeilanss'ab89tc tn � i �._:onr?s order iai7s _ ��nolicy prohibiting married scudenss own and occuoy a residence in Denver. � ;�idelines ;or anpel- �m paracioa�ng ia ecuacurricnlar acavi- T'he appellancs asserc chac Secause the den- 4 :� a hiai court need �es s�'ved no comnelliag stace inceresc niaon oi "singie unit dwelling" found in y .:c2s and conclusions and chereiore, improoerly disr.iminarzd secrion 5�-2(1S1)oi the Code aoolies W�1 j uagment must con• against mar.ied scudenu on the basis of residentiai zoninq clazsincsrions, they ° .��n to per.ait a re- ' their muried sracus, in violarion oi che couid noc own and ocennc a siaglefamilp � �_�whecher proper �ual pro�ec;ion clause of the four[eench home anywnere�n Denver. �lthough they � ]:M aDDli2d. �a7e• � • E amend�enc co che liaited Staces Consdtu- acknowiedge tnac cercain residenoal zoning :a.:ss`n u Toum of i, p� � tioa Beeson dces not, therefore, sunnly disaiecs inciude as a"pe.-micted'nome occu- ! J4 d 16S (19801. direct sunpott ior :he asserdon chat the paoon"che"rooming and/or boazdin�'of ere simoly neld thai right aot to marry is a sundamenta!righc a eercain number of peaple,�they suggwt . an a. :dty,&Couaty ��2.;.�, 526 �.2d 1325 a. For example.the ordinancu app ar ro parmit 7. Four of the raidrndal zoniag districcs ia Den. a man aod a woman,�oe married to each ocher, ve:do not allow ior permitted home occupa- - �.l Oi the anpellants' . and,unaps even married io ot6cr pe.sou,co tions, indudinq 'rooming and/or boarding' � - � `iie have ali_aGy reside in an 0.-+zone if[hcy 6apprn alw to be See Denver, Coto.Rev.MuaCode §59-233 � � ?eali tviih a Oiff¢reni [he fa[her and mather af a child and the etfitd (19B2) (R-X disvi�tc): §59-'� Q962) (R-5 :;ac:u comment con- rai6cs wiih chcm. di:•.riccz); §=�;(<) <19sz1 (RS-z dissr;cssl; �. � " ! � , 1,' --. . , . � �:. � . � i. � ' .� � " � .._--•--. . .. __ ... -- -- . -' . ._ . _.._.__...._., . i..ee�-""'�_.. . ''�9;w..`,%�t• �... _ � - - -.r� - - - --_- - " - . �� :�ury� ,t� 6 i� �lo. i 59 P�CIFIC REPORTER _d SERIES • _ .f�:: `;1.;' ! !%'::'''-,::., . such exception dces not apoly w cheir Gv- ordinances, and the exr.ent oi che ardi- = ��*' �i�`.:' ing azrangemenc Even if a hame occupa- nances' nrotubitions throughouc Denver, � '''_ tiou use exception mig�t be avai7able to the further review of the dissricc courc's judg- � ��.' v a ,, appellanrs m some ocher azea of Denver, ment is iaappropriate. — :t�'' `' neither the discie[ rnutt's oxdet� nor the ' " ' �'% For tfie foregoing reasons, the disaicc ' recotd indicaces the octent w which per- cour�s jndgment is aifirnied in oart and '�!' : �.,, mits for such a use are in praerice avai1a61e reversed in parc,and the case is remaaded � • to persons such as the appellanrs or how ��e disffict murc for further proceedings ' dif5cult the applicatian process might be. consisr.em,with this opinion. . i � '� We,therefom,cannot determine hom mucn = , of the City's residendal dwelling azeas m ERICSSON,J.,specially concurs. , - " main inaccessible to the appellants. Faccu- �,pgR and VOLLa,Cg.T,J.,join ;he -� ' al findings concerning the pervasiveness of � ''':z � the asserted resuicrions are, of course, concuxrence. highly relevanc w any determination oi ERICSSON,Juscice,soecially ~ ��' l whether the means chosen by rhe City to COD�� ;. ; achieve its policy are consotuoonaUy per- I specallc concur in che judgmenz reve:s- :: � ' `� missble. The dis4ict eourc is in the besc ing the disaicc court and remandin¢ cne � � position to make sucn Sadings. case ior"vrcher proceedin�s. I wrice sena- . ntelp beeause. as I view;he record. ii s � �,' . � Xr' i IV onlp necessarg :or the dismcs eour on � The discrict court erred in conciudiag 'remand u derermine the a�aiiab�7ic?oi otfi- - �t` thac our decision in Rademan u City& er zoning discicss where cne anne!lancs Couniy of De�catr,186 Cob.250,526 P.3d could conanit as an unmarried counle in a � � ';:i• � 1325(1974),auumatirsllp barred the aopei- singirunic dwelling. It is unnecessarc:or _ � > � Iaats' claims that secrions 59-2(131) and �e � courc m maice :ursne- 3n6ings a9-102(lxb)of the Code violaud cheir con- conceraing the nanire and exteac ai ihe :.�; - , stitutiooal righrs. The record dces not sun- rignrs asserred by sopellans and :he pur- x '.1 � port t6e anpellanrs'asserdon that the en- Po�of the zoning ordinances. ', r '�I - fomement of the ordinance against them I agree with che majoriic chac our nold- . :� resulted in violations of:heir rignss to nro- ing in Rademan v.City&County of Den- cedurel due process of lam or equal protec• ver, 186 Cola. ?50, 526 P.?d :S25(1979), Uon of the Iaw under the Uniied S�ates or dnes nos wncro! this case. �t :he �me = Colondo Constiturions or thac che anne]- Rademan was decided, we onip nad tii1- ' __ ( lees' acaons in eniorcing the ordinances fage oj Belie Terre v.Boraas 426 liS.?. �� t agains�them were azbitrary,capriaous or 94 S.CL '_536, 39 I.,Ed.?d i9i (1�4), to � , � constitnted abuses oi discrerioa However, guide us. Since Radema�, the linited -` ia the absence oi fmdiags and conciusions States Snnreme Courc has considered cron- wncerning the extent of the rignss usero- stitnrionai cnallenges m zoning ordinane�s " � " ed hy the aopeBanu, the purposes of ihe in dfoon r. City of East Cleveiand d31 - ; =� .i . . §�9-I03l3) (1982) (ItS-i dis¢�ias). In R-S. svan�e oi a permi[,�he"rooming and/or boazc- �i &•-0 aod A�diariers,some home occunauons ing'of mc more than[.vo persons in R-1 dis- !" are authorized upon the issuanae oi a permit, victs if�ne siagi�•unie dwdling docs not conraia ' � howevet,"rooming md/or boacding"is noe one �re tuan ooe (dte6rn}, §59-14i(4)(aH10) Y " of t6ose syecificaliy enumcaied. §§59-lli(3) (�gg2)(autnoriring.umn ismanes of a pu�iG � � G. (i962).59-lii'(4)(1982).59-207(4)(2982:. In � "��m�or boudiag'vf�rot aote � . R-3 and R�diseriees,"roo¢tiag and/or board• � � �o� � R-2 disuieul: - ' ieg could waeeirably be approved as an autho �1 :i� §i4-i62l4xaH10)(1982)(awho�iang,uoon is »k�` riud home oecuoatioo under the croad§§54- N�:oi a permit,"roomieg and/or boarding" " � 177(4Ha)pl) and 59-207(4xa1(10) caich.all �oo[morc[han two petsons in R-2-a dis - r±' �' � home occupauon clauses T6e rcmaiaiag resi- ��. 4;a.192(4)(ax10)(1962)(aui6oriang, �. . �;�� deedil districzz in Dmva do wthorize"rvom- �j �� wg and/or 6oardtng'as a permiaed bome oa upon im�ance of a permi[.the'rooming andior "3 '�'� cupauon uadcr mtaia cireumsnneez See b°ud�°g oE noi morc [han nvo pcson:[n = l� §,59-132(4xaj(10) (1962) (allowing, uoon is R-i-X disaias). _ t; � Z'� . ;l. �c �' j� � .•: � i �'� • r . � ' � • . . �. ^ __ _ .. _ _ _.. .. �.,�-,.•.--- ----� --- . .., _ . .:�4".: ..,. •. . . ..._ .'.. ' ._..-, . . _ .. ' ._.__ . .. ' _ � .. . . ....._.._..._........'-�.,... ":;�i�" -.`,:`�: f : ! .�,� � � �s. i`''� �, yy Z.1V:1LA r. CITY �YD CO[fi�I1'Y OF DEIWER Cola. 67a � Ctls u 7S9 P:d 661(Colo.19Y) . � -ar.: of t�e ordi- li.S. 494, 97 S.CL 1932, 52 LEd.?d 531 RS--t disaicc buc anywhere else in Denver. �� _ghout Denver, (197'n(plurality opinion),and City oj Cle- It is unclear whether sectinn 59-�121), ;r:��c courc's judB- burna u Cieburne Living Center,d73 G.S. which auchor'rces the granring of permits �-;� �32,105 S.Ct 3249,84 LEdyd 313(1985). allowing unrelated parries w xeside in the � '. ssou. the dissricc In 6gnt oi rhese rases,the decerminacion same singlrunit dwelling,applies w appel- �, -:ted in part and whether minimal or suic:scrutinq anplies lanrs'living unngemeaC ln addition,the :rase is remanded in a parbcviar rrse is facs specinc and join�srinularion entered"wto by the parces . eci urcl�er proceedings deoeads solely on the naturn of;he right does noc lacate and delineate thase areas :��. - ituringed by the zoning ordinance,see City zoned :o enable agpellanrs co aeauire a • ' of Cltburne, 4^3 li.S.332. 105 3.CL 3249 ��under seccon 59-2(1?l). .lccording- .::�concurs. _ (rarional basis scrutmy annlied w ordinance ]p,[agxee chu the case mnsc be remaaded ' i.��.,join che ^ d�spaiarely imoacdng ment3py rerarried for audisional faccual5ndings uader C.RC. ' '� personsl; .Koon, d31 tiS. 494. 97 �.CL P. a7 co idenvfy and locate the d'ifferent . c 1932,52 L.Ed?d 531(suict sc.^uriap anoiied ;,oning disfficu in Denver and m derermine �?e=�»P co zonin ordinance resmcdn ireedom oi �' S B ior eacn zoning discriec the excent to which � blood relatives ro associacel,and the degree �e zoning ordinances would permit aopel- �'�.dgmen�revers- to wnich che sracutory scaeme places dis- �anrs co conaoit as an unmartied co¢ple in a � ':c •�manding the proaorconace �urdens ou a susnec[c?ass. ,��t dwelling. ' ^ I avriu sepa- � ' see Yillage oi Bel1e Terre, ll6 liS.ac 6,94. �,n��iew. :his rnurt may resolve the � .v ..e record,it is S.CL ac la?9("T_f che ordinaoce segregzced � . - remaining issues wiihout a remaad w-.ie i-ssict courc on one azea onlg:or one race,ii wauld imme� cal cour_ The majorii}- remands for a } :c-,�ilaciGty oi oth- diarely be suspect....'�; Buciea7+un i• dece^tinarion of bath the nacure and ex- ' e rhe aupellants T�arley, 245 C.�.00, 38 S.Ct.16, 62 LEd , •�ed couole ia a 149(191i7 i�n�alidating city ordinance bu- 'R"�oi :he -igec5 asseried by apuellaau anecESSar}�:or _ riag a black�rom acauiring real ptoner:� and the ourpose of che ordinances. As I uther findings in a wnite residendal azea). Aaording m read s.he record and the brieis.it is uanec- ; essar!%m remand the case for a clazifia- • extent of the the majorir�, "[fjindings concetaing the s aad the nur- purnoses ser:ed by the ordinances are ... ��n oi rhe nacurn aqd ecten�oi the rights - _ :ces_ insQUCrive in de��+n+��g to wnas exter.c �serced bc aopellanu. In their comolaint, r ° ancellans asraciced seetion 59-.(131) far the ordinances abridge the annellancs'con- �" -thac our hold- " :��ounty ofDerz- satutional :ignTS." 14aiorirv opiniou at �'e iollowing:easons: i �..d 1325 (19'f4), - b"T3. :1s I read this laaguaee and Y'illage � Ttie orainances denrive the olainriffs ,csa. �lt the ame of Beile Terre and iis progeny,the narnose �=��nBha oi freedom oi associaton of rhe zoning oxdinance is onlc considered �a Privacv by crearing an unconstitn- 1 �e on[y had V'i1- rional.i;rebuctable nresumurion tliat the ;'orccs, 416 L:S.1, after a cour. ascertains tne aooraor.ace • ., standazd to review che cnasriturionafirv oi olainrifis'snaring oi this house is immor- ..,d 797 (1974), io ai or somehow unsaie for the people of �;-zc�n, the Uniied the legisiarion. See generaUy J. :iowalc. i :onsidered con- R. Rotunda 3•. J. Young, Cmistiturioaa! che 3race oi Colorada.wiihouc shawing a R nin ordinances Lwo 596(?d ed. 1953)(discussing aoplic�• comoelliag srace inceresc 4 � g tion af strict scrutiny stanaazd co review b• The ordinances denrive the plaintiifs ; y:,;t Cleveland, d31 S ennsiitudonalisc oi sracvtesj. oi:he use and enjoymenc oi cheir proper i >>oninq andioc bosrd- ti withouc dne proeess oL law berxuse i 0 oe.�sons in R-t dis- I also agree with :he majoritr ihac we � 'linq does na conwin rannot determine whien ssandard oi scruo- The ordinance is both ov�and under-in- t �" clusive. It cherefore is trot reasonably � ); ,;9-ta�(a)(a�(�o) np applies since the maguimde of che ordi- � :uvmce a a p�rmi� nance's impacs on the alleged rignts oi cne relaced co:he acaievement of a rational � �arcing of noc more appellanrs,V orma L.Docson and Fsidro 1�. S�� g°�' � !in R-? dinricat: 7�yaya, u unciear. The oames do noc c �e ordinance denrives the plaintiffs ` � �a :onzia&unon is- a � oi the¢ri ht m us] rocec�on of the ` •.-. sd/or boardins' Bree,and bazed u n the record we cun- g � p ! <c_rs in R-z-a dis- " noc determine, whether the single-unic laws of the State af Colorado to protect � )(i9az) (auehorizie& •dweUing resaicaon,see Denver,Colo.Rec. tneir prooem because it singled them 5 ,-hC'toomi°g a°d/or Mun.Code § 39-2(131) (1982), pmveau a¢ out.'or eaforcemenc � �. :hzn two persons ia . pellaass:rom residing as an unmarried cou- In their opening brief, apoel]anu clarify � ple in'a sing3�unit dwelling not onlc in an their posirion by arguing chat their rights � - < � ` -_ I _ - � r, \.' . i ' . , r ; � . -. - j a - �"'.'.+--... -_--•�- . �— ._. . �� _. � _ .. .., . . . , . ...._...r.�:.--:----- - - -- :�- ":;.;- � �:�;,,; �• �t i� � �'�.1�'..1�� 676 �i�• 75B P:ICIFIC REPORTER,=d SERIES '�%� � , i i - . ; � of zssocadon aad privary Aere viniaud ac 1541 Srecognizing ";amlp vaiues" ay i� because :ne zoning otdinaace ia�iageti vali� putpose oi wning ordinance). � , t� �j upon :heir:ight cu ehoose nos to be mar• � my viaw, remandiag the ase W the 3 jy ried. They conuad thas aa inherenc ele- �� p� ,or a decerminarion of :he � -"'•,• �i ment oi a iindameatal right co marrp,see �� d ezcent oi righss asserted yy :-� :'`' �� Beesmn i.ifiowa Cauaty School Dist EE- appellancs and che ouroose cehind the zoo- • • iz 1, u�. Colo3pp. 174, b67 P^d ROl ('9i7 �g or6inance is unnecessarp and creaces "�` `' (decision a create maxriage relariaashiu is needless conivsion:or che oardes and the `� '' �� a:nndaznenra]righs grounded in the pubtic �al courc iccordingl�, I wonld reverse, � ," �� policy oi Colorado}, � �e �� m and remand ior she sole nuroose of decer- � ':r-'` ciioose wnerher;o exeicise the righc �a ��q ue availabilitr oi other soning dis- � cording:o annelJanu,by nronibiring cohab• �c5 where the auneilanLS couid cohabit as _� � �, iiacoa o: ;u�married couples, �e zoning an�married counle in a singirwus dwe11- " i ordinance imninges upon that fundamenrai ��_ �� • 11gI1L IL T.[1E d2CL51UR IIOt T4 ID3[C�{S f10L S I zm anri�orizeci ;.o sac :has Jusrice i�ndatnenrai rign[,they asaerc ihac an ordi- LOh'P.and Justice COI.L�ICS join in L`�is �� nance proniniring nnmarried coun3es :rom sper�al concurreacw - ' � . conaoidng ia a single-unit dwelling's un- ' eonstiturional under a minimal srandard oi . i scrvrinq. See Israel v. .4Uen, 1°3 Coio. o Sar.�ue:mu� � ?63.57�°3d 762(!973)Issamte pronibirine � �, .c iJ, �. mar_iag= �et}veen adooted broci�ess znd sisce_s uncoasricudooal uader minimal �+ scandard oi sc�riny). In my view. ;he ` base� of aonellznts'constiiuriona] a�cs:; ,� �' on :he zo¢ing ordinance are clear and do The PEQPLE oi the Stsce of Colorado,� ; �; �.• P:aintiff-Appellee, : I� - noi reouire:urcher iactual ciatutcatioe on , remana. v. -:_ � Basea oo che recora,n u aLso unaeces• Olga�Sae PR�.TT.Defendanc-�ppeLant�.� sarc:a remand:he pse[o dete^aine:ne 1io. 865�401. '� '4 � nurnose be'r.ind:he zoning ordinanca. ?c is -�- � � � zxiomaac_nac issues oi sucutorr iaterprF Supreens Cour.o:Calorrdo, �'_ En Bane �'•�' �.� ;acan and :ne concomiiant decerniir.arion ' �� oi a sra:sra's puroose are quesdons ui laK� . ,iuic 5. 198& "' � wnicn r.�2�•ce resolced by anoetlate cours. --='' {i Reaearing Deaied.�ug.8. ?96&. =-+ �, In c.'�is case, the plain language oi :ne K zonir.g ordinance anti the nnrpose o::ne - �j �: ordinance;tated ia Deaver,.ColotRer•.\fua. Deiendan: wu coavicced in t6e Din- r Code y 59-i unac16iguousip esrablisn:.ia: rric:Cour_�°asa Countr,Jce E Cavno the zonin¢ordinance s inteaded to oromorx J..oi accesson•co cime and consniracu� aad ureserve cradidooal camCn• vaiues o� commic ace�son co erime,and she ap �� t - encouragin¢:amilies w live iu ce:ain zon- ea The Suoreae Cour. 3fu11arkeY�.•� -' r' ing dis�icc;:nronghout clte citr oi Denner. neid tnac (lj prosecswr's improoe: � � �� Th_mning disaicu delineated for?aniiies e�amination oi deiense wimess and'�._ • � 'J oronibic rnmme:�cial uses of prooe_�-, iense caazac:er wimesses was rnv�sb) "' c6e:eby ceacing areas fi�ee i-om crowds. er.ror, (_°)use oi worc"mighc;'in de5tin - �, oazidng nroblems, and �aific con;es�on. :endering assisrance ior aurposes of ' See:}400re,;31 C.S,ac 500,9i S.Cw a:'_936 sor� staracx w +nciude oc farce,:in� � �. (use of zoning ordinance W reduce over- 6aoon.or decenuoa,obsrrucring anYo,n, h C crov:dir.g, �ai_�c congesvon, and n��-ing oe:iormance oi anc acs wi�ica miSht ! 6�, oroolems is caiid legisladve ouroose; b:;- discove:�c, anorenensioa. or conviece ' �.,. lage oj dette Terre,�16 Ti.S.at 9,94�.Ct sucK ne:son,did no:rende:accesso . �1` fs ' 1 - r �F . ,:;,yc� ' . C � �,i� � �,' , / , .. • I -.. � • - 'h ��.._�- .�--+- ' . __ ' � __ .._ . �- . �,�:.