Cherry Hills Resort Development Co. v. City of Cherry Hills Village

• Decision Date: 27 February 1986
• Docket Number: No. 83CA0428,83CA0428
• Citation: 720 P.2d 992
• Parties: CHERRY HILLS RESORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Colorado limited partnership; Temple H. Buell, as Trustee and beneficiary under the Temple H. Buell Trust, and Richard L. Nathan, as trustee under the Temple H. Buell Trust, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The CITY OF CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE; the City of Cherry Hills Village City Council; Robert St. Clair, Roy A. Watts, Theodore B. Washburne, George Anderman, Ann M. Polumbus, Donald J. Egan and Merle Chambers, as present members of the City of Cherry Hills Village City Council, Defendants-Appellants, and Gary A. Agron and Thomas J. Hilb, Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants. . I
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

Page 992

720 P.2d 992

CHERRY HILLS RESORT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Colorado limited partnership; Temple H. Buell, as Trustee and beneficiary under the Temple H. Buell Trust, and Richard L. Nathan, as trustee under the Temple H. Buell Trust, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The CITY OF CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE; the City of Cherry Hills

Village City Council; Robert St. Clair, Roy A. Watts,

Theodore B. Washburne, George Anderman, Ann M. Polumbus,

Donald J. Egan and Merle Chambers, as present members of the

City of Cherry Hills Village City Council, Defendants-Appellants,

and

Gary A. Agron and Thomas J. Hilb, Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants.

No. 83CA0428.

Colorado Court of Appeals,

Div. I.

Feb. 27, 1986.

Rehearing Denied April 10, 1986.

Certiorari Granted (Company) June 9, 1986.

Holme, Roberts & Owen, G. Kevin Conwick, Lawrence L. Levin, Larry S. Schwartz, Amelie A. Buchanan, Englewood, for plaintiff-appellee Cherry Hills Resort Development Co.

Davis, Graham & Stubbs, Robert L. Morris, Edwin G. Winstead, Allan L. Hale, Denver, for defendant-appellant The City of Cherry Hills Village.

Arnold & Porter, Norton F. Tennille, Jr., Andre M. Reiman, Mark H. Boscoe, Denver, for intervenors-defendants-appellants.

PIERCE, Judge.

The Cherry Hills Resort Development Company (developer) submitted to the City of Cherry Hills Village City Council (Village) a master plan containing two alternative plans for the development of a resort hotel. It requested a preliminary approval of either of the plans prior to proceeding with the preparation of its final and complete plans to be ultimately submitted to the Village for approval. Under the Village zoning ordinances, the developer, after receiving such final approval, would have to apply for a building permit.

The Village passed a resolution granting preliminary approval of one of the plans but specified certain conditions. Developer sought judicial review pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). The trial court reversed and modified some of the conditions. The Village initiated this appeal from that ruling.

This court, on its own motion, issued an order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to review an administrative decision which is neither judicial nor quasi-judicial. Both the Village and developer have responded; two individuals seeking intervention did not respond. We conclude that the resolution passed by the Village was neither judicial nor quasi-judicial, and therefore, the trial court had no jurisdiction to review it under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). Accordingly, we dismiss and remand for dismissal of developer's complaint.

The three factors which must exist in order to find that an inferior tribunal has acted in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity are:

"1) A state or local law requiring that the body give adequate notice to the community before acting; 2) a state or local law requiring that the body conduct a public hearing, pursuant to notice, at which time concerned citizens must be given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and 3) a state or local law requiring the body to make a determination by applying the facts of a specific case to certain criteria established by law."

Snyder v. Lakewood, 189...