Sellon v. City of Manitou Springs
745 P.2d 229, 1987 Colo. LEXIS 640 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipal zoning ordinance is constitutionally valid under due process requirements if it bears a rational relationship to legitimate public health, safety, and welfare concerns, is not impermissibly vague by using commonly understood terms, and does not preclude all reasonable use of the property.
Facts:
- In July 1973, the City of Manitou Springs (the City) adopted a master plan for the "Crystal Hills" property, adjacent to the City, allowing for 194 home sites.
- On September 1, 1981, the City annexed the Crystal Hills property.
- In March 1982, David R. Sellon, Kris J. Kovalik, and Crystal Hills Development Co. (the landowners) purchased the Crystal Hills property.
- On May 4, 1982, the City Council adopted a hillside low density residential zoning ordinance (the hillside ordinance) to address concerns of erosion, drainage, and access on steeply sloped terrain, establishing an equation for calculating minimal lot sizes that required larger lots for steeper and "unplatted" land.
- In November 1983, a majority of the City's voters approved the rezoning of Crystal Hills as hillside low density residential property after the City Council placed the question on the general municipal election ballot for an advisory vote.
- On November 18, 1983, City representatives advised the landowners that, based upon the hillside ordinance's density equation, residential development of the Crystal Hills property would be limited to sixty units.
- On December 6, 1983, and January 3, 1984, the City Council held public hearings to consider the appropriate zoning for Crystal Hills, where one landowner attended and opposed the rezoning but offered no evidence.
- In January 1984, the City Council voted to rezone the Crystal Hills property as hillside low density residential.
Procedural Posture:
- The landowners appealed the City Council’s decision to rezone Crystal Hills to the El Paso County District Court, alleging abuse of discretion under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) and seeking a declaratory judgment that the ordinance was unconstitutional.
- Following a two-day hearing, the El Paso County District Court affirmed the City Council’s action.
- The landowners (plaintiffs-appellants) appealed the district court's order to the Supreme Court of Colorado; the City of Manitou Springs and its City Council were the defendants-appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does the City of Manitou Springs' hillside zoning ordinance violate the due process clauses of the United States and Colorado Constitutions because it is not rationally related to public health, safety, and welfare objectives or because its terms "platted" and "unplatted" are impermissibly vague? 2. Is the hillside ordinance unconstitutional as applied to the Crystal Hills property, violating just compensation and due process, because it is confiscatory by precluding all reasonable use of the land? 3. Did the City Council abuse its discretion by submitting the rezoning question for an advisory vote and by ultimately rezoning Crystal Hills as hillside low density residential?
Opinions:
Majority - Kirshbaum, Justice.
No, the City of Manitou Springs' hillside zoning ordinance does not violate due process for lack of rational relation to public welfare or for vagueness, nor is it confiscatory as applied to the Crystal Hills property, and the City Council did not abuse its discretion. The Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed the district court's decision, holding that a strong presumption of validity attaches to municipal zoning decisions, placing a high burden on challengers to prove invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt. The ordinance was found to be rationally and reasonably related to legitimate public health and safety concerns, specifically addressing problems of erosion, drainage, maintenance, and emergency access on sloping terrain, despite the possibility of alternative solutions. The court rejected the vagueness challenge, concluding that the terms "platted" and "unplatted" were not impermissibly vague because they are commonly understood terms of art in the planning profession, and the legislature's definition aligned with this common meaning. Furthermore, the court determined the ordinance was not confiscatory as applied, reiterating that landowners are not entitled to maximum profits or the highest and best use of their property, and the ability to build at least sixty residential units constituted a reasonable use. Finally, the City Council acted within its charter authority by seeking an advisory vote on rezoning and its decision to rezone Crystal Hills was not arbitrary or capricious, as it was supported by competent evidence reflecting long-standing concerns over hillside development problems and was consistent with the property's geographical configurations.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high burden on parties challenging municipal zoning ordinances, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt for constitutional claims. It clarifies that zoning ordinances need only a rational relationship to legitimate public interests (like health and safety) and need not represent the "best" solution. Furthermore, it establishes that terms used in such ordinances are not void for vagueness if they have a commonly accepted meaning within the relevant profession or statutory context. Finally, it reiterates that a reduction in potential profit or highest/best use does not render an ordinance confiscatory, so long as some reasonable use remains for the property.
