Beaver Meadows v. Board of County Com'rs of Larimer County, State of Colo., 83SA313
| Decision Date | 02 December 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 83SA313,83SA313 |
| Citation | 709 P.2d 928 |
| Parties | BEAVER MEADOWS, a partnership; Donald B. Weixelman; Diane Weixelman; O.J. Harvey; Mary Christine Harvey; Charles B. McKibben; Louise S. DiLuzio; Ronald H. Fox; Roberta M. Fox; Allen Zohn; Ruth Zohn; Ronald Lee Sell; Joann Sell; Christopher J. Cannon; Becky J. Cannon; Steven W. Hanson; Marilyn M. Hanson; Rosemary Simone; Robert Simone; Vernon L. Rider; William Melvin Dewar II; Pat D. Boyd; Shirley J. Boyd; Gerald Wayne Moore; James E. Moore; Donald Giaque; Dorothy Giaque; E.H. Barker; Patricia R. Barker; Kenneth W. Ronkainen; Helen Ronkainen; Kenneth E. Cline; Jean F. Cline; Terry R. Minton; Claudia Minton; Gary L. Vance; Erick W. Weiss; Richard Bivens; Adrianna Bivens; Kenneth L. Barker; W. Sam Rogers; Kenneth E. Cline, Jr.; Steven E. Cline; Peggy E. Cline; H. Buckhorn Estates, Inc.; Orville Hawkins; and Shirley Hawkins, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF the COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO; Courtlyn W. Hotchkiss; Nona Thayer; James D. Lloyd; and the County of Larimer, State of Colorado, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Calkins, Kramer, Grimshaw & Harring, Susan E. Burch, Charles E. Norton, Denver, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Harden, Schmidt & Hass, P.C., George H. Hass, Fort Collins, for defendants-appellees.
Appellant Beaver Meadows is a partnership that proposes to create a planned unit development (PUD), to be known as Beaver Meadows, in western Larimer County, Colorado. The additional appellants (landowners) are other owners of property in that prospective development. The appellants seek reversal of a district court order that upheld two requirements imposed on the developer by appellee Larimer County Board of County Commissioners (Board) as conditions of approval of the master plan for the Beaver Meadows PUD. These requirements were that the developer provide for the improvement of a 4.73 mile off-site access road and for emergency medical services. Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4), the district court reviewed the Board's findings and resolution, and held that the Board had acted within its jurisdiction and had not abused its discretion. Because we find that the county's regulations are insufficient to authorize either of the two conditions imposed by the Board, we reverse the judgment of the district court.
A master plan of the proposed PUD was submitted by Beaver Meadows to the Board in 1980, after having been recommended for approval, subject to certain conditions, by the Larimer County Planning Commission. 1 The plan was discussed at public hearings on February 2 and February 4, 1981. Following the February 4 hearing, the Board voted to approve the PUD plan subject to several specified conditions. Beaver Meadows and the landowners brought an action for review in Larimer County District Court pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4), asserting that the Board lacked jurisdiction, abused its discretion, or both, in imposing certain of the conditions. The district court concluded that Beaver Meadows had not been accorded due process of law during the hearing process. In the court's view, the Board had not allowed Beaver Meadows adequate opportunity to address certain of the Board's concerns after those concerns became identified in the course of the hearings. The district court remanded the matter for further consideration.
Following the remand order, the appellants and the Board's staff met to arrange a new hearing before the Board. The appellants also supplied the Board's staff with information tending to rebut the Board's original findings. By the time a hearing was held, on March 4, 1982, only two major issues remained to be resolved: (1) the Board's requirement that the developer improve County Road 73C (Creedmore Lakes Road), a gravel road 2 4.73 miles long that provides access to the proposed Beaver Meadows PUD, and (2) the Board's requirement that the developer arrange emergency medical services for the PUD. The March 4 hearing did not resolve these issues, and the Board held a further hearing on April 29, 1982. On June 16, 1982, the Board issued revised findings and a resolution.
The resolution conditioned approval of the Beaver Meadows master plan on the improvement of Creedmore Lakes Road. In the findings, the Board concluded that the development would have a significant adverse impact on the road in terms of safety hazards and dust pollution. The Board conceded that the road eventually would be improved by the county but noted that the Beaver Meadows PUD should not be developed until safe access is available. After stating its findings, the Board resolved that:
The 4.73 miles of Creedmore Lakes Road from its intersection with County Road 74E to the entrance of the proposed development shall be paved to the minimum standards as required by the Larimer County Engineering Department.... Upon presentation by the applicant to the County of the necessary pre-engineering data to the satisfaction of the County Engineer, the County shall pursue formation of, and hold a public hearing on, a local improvement district which shall, if approved, construct the improvements to the above standards. Upon holding a hearing for such district, the Larimer County Commissioners may or may not approve a resolution ordering the improvements, depending upon evidence produced at the hearing relative to ordering the improvements.
The resolution further provided that the improvement district envisioned by the Board would be formed only if it was supported by the majority of area property owners and residents, and that the resolution providing for the district would be null and void if the district were not formed and financed within eighteen months. Beaver Meadows could not begin development of the PUD until the district was formed and the financing was guaranteed. However, the resolution also provided the developer with two alternative methods of improving the road if the improvement district concept failed. Under the first alternative, Beaver Meadows could construct the improvements in phases, completing in each phase a percentage of the road improvements corresponding to the percentage of the total lots then existing in the PUD. The second alternative would require Beaver Meadows to pay a "per living unit fee" to the county to cover the cost of the road construction. In that case, at the end of five years the total unpaid amount would be due, regardless of how many lots ultimately were platted or how many living units ultimately were approved.
The Board's resolution also conditioned approval of the Beaver Meadows master plan on action by the developer to assure the availability of emergency medical services, as follows:
The developer shall insure that adequate provision is made for emergency services for this development, including maintenance of the existing private telephone line at Beaver Meadows to be available for emergency purposes and provision for emergency medical services by entering into a written agreement with the Red Feather Emergency Response Team to remain in effect until such time as such services are available from any other entity acceptable to the Larimer County Health Department. Said signed agreement shall be provided to the County for review and approval along with the submittal of preliminary phase plans.
Dissatisfied with the road improvement and emergency medical services conditions, Beaver Meadows and the landowners filed an amended complaint in Larimer County District Court, again alleging that the Board had exceeded its jurisdiction and abused its discretion in imposing the conditions. Beaver Meadows took the position in its amended complaint that it should pay an equitable share of the expense of road improvements but should not bear the entire cost. This was consistent with the position maintained by Beaver Meadows throughout the proceedings before the Board. The district court entered an order on May 2, 1983, addressing the two controverted conditions individually.
The court concluded that since the Board had the authority to "make reasonable regulations in regard to the public health, safety, and welfare, especially when dealing with a large development of this nature in the remote mountain county [sic] of western Larimer County," it was within the authority of the Board to require the developer to submit an emergency medical services proposal. The court, however, deleted from the resolution the requirement that Beaver Meadows obtain a signed contract for emergency medical services, and replaced it with a requirement that the developer submit an acceptable proposal for such services.
On the issue of the required improvements for Creedmore Lakes Road, Beaver Meadows argued that it was unfair for the county to impose the entire cost of the road improvements on one development when many existing residences and subdivisions also used the access road and would benefit if it were resurfaced. The Board countered that the PUD would have a significant impact on the road, which was already inadequate to meet the needs of the existing developments. The court found that the Board, as the trier of fact, had determined that use of the road posed substantial air pollution and safety concerns such that improvement of the road would be required even if it were to be used only by the Beaver Meadows PUD. The court determined that there was evidence in the record to support the Board's finding despite contrary evidence submitted by Beaver Meadows. In addition, the court held that the Board's action did not exceed its jurisdiction, abuse its discretion, or take property of the appellants without due process of law.
Addressing the apparent injustice of placing the road improvement burden entirely on the developer of one PUD, the court noted that the Board had suggested alternative solutions to the developer, that the developer was free to submit its own compromise...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Thornton v. Bijou Irr. Co., 2
......Brighton; City of Broomfield; City and County of Denver, . acting by and through its Board of ...Co.; Jackson Ditch Co.; Larimer & Weld Irrigation Co.; . Larimer & Weld Reservoir ...and State Engineer (by motion to intervene); Public ... Conservation District, 734 P.2d 627, 635-36 (Colo.1987), and Pueblo West Metropolitan District v. ...Castle Meadows, Inc., 856 P.2d 496, 505 (Colo.1993); In re ... See also Beaver......
-
AVSG v. Board of County Com'rs of La Plata
......v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 8 P.3d 522 (Colo.App.2000) . Palazzolo makes clear that a ...At the time of purchase, no county, state, or federal regulations governing sand and gravel ..., 644 P.2d at 950 ; see generally Beaver Meadows v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 709 P.2d 928 ......
-
Messiah Baptist Church v. County of Jefferson, State of Colo.
...... COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO, the Board of . County Commissioners of the County of ... Church relies upon the Colorado case of Beaver Meadows v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 709 P.2d 928 ......
-
Hawes v. Colorado Div. of Ins., 01SC743.
...... today is not a broad declaration that a state agency has available to it all powers of a court ... determination of the selection of advisory board members. Finally, counsel state that their ...of Insurance, 45 P.3d 763, 767 (Colo.App.2001) (citing section 10-1-101). The court ... Colorado Municipal League and the City and County of Denver intervened and opposed the increase in ... of the delegated power.'" ( quoting Beaver Meadows v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 709 P.2d 928, ......
-
Land Development Conditions
...in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. Id . 241. McKenzie , 112 F.3d at 318. 242. Beaver Meadows v. Board of County Comm’rs, 709 P.2d 928 (Colo. 1985). 243. Id . at 931. 244. Id. ; see Bethlehem Evangelical Lutheran Church v. City of Lakewood, 626 P.2d 668, 671-74 (Colo. 1981). ......
-
Case List
..., 141 Conn. 79, 103 A.2d 814 (1954) Beasley v. Potter , 493 F. Supp. 1059 (W.D. Mich. 1980) Beaver Meadows v. Board of County Comm’rs , 709 P.2d 928 (Colo. 1985) Benchmark Land Co. v. City of Battle Ground , 94 Wash. App. 537, 972 P.2d 944 (1999) Benchmark Land Co. v. City of Battle Ground ......
-
Regulatory Takings Since the Supreme Court Trilogy, Continued
...1990); N.J. Shore Builders v. Mayor, 561 A.2d 319 (N.J. App. 1989). 27. See, e.g., Beaver Meadows v. Board of County Commissioners, 709 P.2d 928 (Colo. 1985); C.R.S. § 29--1--801 et seq. 28. See, e.g., Balch Enterprises, Inc. v. New Haven Unified School District, 268 Cal.Rptr. 543 (Cal.App.......
-
Local Government Exactions from Developers After Beaver Meadows
...the King's Mill and Bethlehem cases nor the basic test for valid legislative delegations embodied in Cottrell has been changed. NOTES 1. 709 P.2d 928 (Colo. 1985). 2. 192 Colo. 305, 557 P.2d 1186 (1976). 3. Id. at 1191. In City of Colorado Springs v. Smartt, 620 P.2d 1060 (Colo. 1980), the ......