Langer v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Larimer Cnty.

• Decision Date: 27 April 2020
• Docket Number: Supreme Court Case No. 19SC650
• Citation: 462 P.3d 59
• Parties: Peter E. LANGER III, Linda W. Langer, M. Marsha Sypher, Dennis D. Sohocki, Dena L. Sohocki, and Janet Lynn Gehlhausen, Petitioners, v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY, Colorado and Yakutat Land Corporation, Respondents.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

462 P.3d 59

Peter E. LANGER III, Linda W. Langer, M. Marsha Sypher, Dennis D. Sohocki, Dena L. Sohocki, and Janet Lynn Gehlhausen, Petitioners,

v.BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LARIMER COUNTY, Colorado and Yakutat Land Corporation, Respondents.

Supreme Court Case No. 19SC650

Supreme Court of Colorado.

April 27, 2020

Attorney for Petitioners: Rebecca L. Urquhart, Estes Park, Colorado

Attorneys for Respondent Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County, Colorado: Larimer County Attorney’s Office, Jeannine S. Haag, William G. Ressue, Fort Collins, Colorado

Attorneys for Respondent Yakutat Land Corporation: Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., Nathan K. Davis, Denver, Colorado

En Banc

JUSTICE GABRIEL delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 This case is a companion to Yakutat Land Corp. v. Langer, 2020 CO 30, 462 P.3d 65, also decided today, and like that case, the present case is before us on a transfer from the court of appeals pursuant to C.A.R. 50. Here, we must decide whether the Larimer County Board of County Commissioners (the "BOCC") misconstrued applicable law and abused its discretion in finding that defendant Yakutat Land Corporation’s ("Yakutat’s") mountain coaster project was properly classified as a Park and Recreation Facility, rather than as an Outdoor Commercial Recreation or Entertainment Establishment.

¶2 We now conclude that the BOCC correctly construed the applicable code provisions, and, applying the deferential standard of review mandated here, we further conclude that the BOCC did not abuse its discretion in classifying the mountain coaster project as a Park and Recreation Facility. Accordingly, we affirm.

I. Facts and Procedural History

¶3 The facts and procedural history of this case are more fully set forth in Yakutat , ¶¶ 4–13, and we need not repeat all of those facts here. Instead, we will constrain ourselves to the facts pertinent to the present appeal.

¶4 Yakutat sought to place a gravity-driven roller coaster and related infrastructure (e.g., a coaster storage building, ticketing office, restroom facilities, and parking area) on its property. To that end, Yakutat submitted a proposed development plan to the Estes Park Community Development Department (the "Department"), seeking approval for its mountain coaster project.

¶5 As pertinent here, the Department determined that the project was properly classified under the Estes Valley Development Code (the "Code") as a Park and Recreation Facility, which was a use by right (or permitted use), rather than as an Outdoor Commercial Recreation or Entertainment Establishment, which was not a permitted use under the Code. Randy Hunt, Estes Park’s Community Development Director, and his staff arrived at this determination for three reasons. First, the property at issue had previously been classified as a Park and Recreation Facility because it had long been used for horse trail rides offered by a neighboring stable. Second, the proposed use of the property for the mountain coaster was deemed to be "a less intense use" in terms of proportionality, scale, and density than would be typical of an Outdoor Commercial Recreation or Entertainment Establishment. In support of this finding, the Department noted that the proposed mountain coaster would occupy a total footprint of no more than eight acres in the interior of Yakutat’s 160-acre tract of land, leaving the vast majority of the property undisturbed. Accordingly, the expansion in the use of the property resulting from the mountain coaster would be modest. Finally, the Department considered the fact that the common law rule was to construe property restrictions in favor of the free, as opposed to the more restrictive, use of land.

¶6 The plaintiffs, a group of owners of neighboring properties (the "Neighbors"), appealed the Department’s determination to the BOCC. After a public hearing, the BOCC affirmed the Department’s decision, concluding, for the reasons cited by the Department’s staff, that the mountain coaster project was properly classified as a Park and Recreation Facility. In so ruling, the BOCC stated that it was most persuaded by the following facts: (1) the mountain coaster would be a low-intensity use, given that it would occupy a total footprint of eight acres near the middle of a 160-acre tract and that the number of vehicle trips and the visual and noise impacts that it would generate would be minimal; (2) the coaster would essentially follow existing horse trails and would therefore effect only a modest intensification of use; (3) the definition of Park and Recreation Facility had been amended to remove the prior requirement that the use be for non-commercial purposes; (4) the coaster would be a single attraction and thus would not qualify as an amusement park (which would justify classification as an Outdoor Commercial Recreation or Entertainment Establishment); and (5) the common law favors construing property restrictions in favor of the free use of land.

¶7 Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4), the Neighbors then filed a petition for review in the Larimer County District Court. In a lengthy and comprehensive written order, that court ultimately affirmed the BOCC’s determination.

¶8 As pertinent here, the court began by noting that "Park and Recreation Facilities" and "Outdoor Commercial Recreation or Entertainment Establishments" are distinct classifications in the Code. A Park and Recreation Facility is a low-intensity use that includes, among other things, parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities, and open spaces. An Outdoor Commercial Recreation or Entertainment Establishment, in contrast, is a high-intensity use that includes go-kart tracks, riding academies, and amusement parks.

¶9 Finding these definitions unambiguous, the district court ultimately concluded that competent evidence in the record supported the BOCC’s finding that the mountain coaster fell within the Park and Recreation Facility classification. In so concluding, the court found that the BOCC had (1) properly considered the enumerated characteristics in the Code, focusing on the amount of activity or intensity; (2) correctly found that the visual, noise, and traffic impacts of the coaster would be minimal; and (3) rightly distinguished the mountain coaster from the higher intensity uses of an Outdoor Commercial Recreation or Entertainment Establishment. The court thus determined that the BOCC’s interpretations and applications of the Code were reasonable in light of the evidence presented.

¶10 The Neighbors then appealed the district court’s determination to the court of appeals. In both this case and in the Yakutat case, however, the court of appeals filed C.A.R. 50 motions in this court for a determination of jurisdiction. As pertinent here, the court of appeals noted in the Yakutat case, that the district court had found a portion of the Code to be unconstitutional. This, in turn, raised a question under section 13-4-102(1)(b), C.R.S. (2019), as to the court of appeals’ jurisdiction to hear the Yakutat case, because that statute restricts the jurisdiction of the court of appeals in cases in which a municipal charter provision has been declared unconstitutional. The court of appeals asked us to determine where jurisdiction of the Yakutat case properly lay, and if we accepted jurisdiction in that case, to accept jurisdiction in the present case as well, because this case involves the same parcel of land and the same zoning determination as the Yakutat case. We accepted jurisdiction in both cases.

II. Analysis

¶11 We begin our analysis by setting forth the applicable standard of review. We then discuss the pertinent provisions of the Code. We end by addressing whether the BOCC properly construed these provisions and whether it abused its discretion by classifying the mountain coaster project as a Park and Recreation Facility, rather than as an Outdoor Commercial Recreation or Entertainment Establishment.

A. Standard of Review

¶12 "Our review under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) is limited to ‘a determination of whether the [governmental] body or officer has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, based on the evidence in the record before the defendant body or officer.’ " Ad Two, Inc. v. City & Cty. of Denver , 9 P.3d 373, 376 (Colo. 2000) (alteration in original, quoting C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4)(I) ). Accordingly, in reviewing an administrative decision under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4), we sit in the same position as the district court. Id.

¶13 In conducting our review under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4), we apply a deferential standard, and we may not disturb the governmental body’s decision absent a clear abuse of discretion. Stor-N-Lock Partners #15, LLC v. City of Thornton , 2018 COA 65, ¶ 22, ––– P.3d ––––. A governmental entity abuses its discretion only when it applies an erroneous legal standard or when no competent evidence in the record supports its ultimate decision. See id. We will conclude that no competent evidence supported an administrative decision only when that decision was "so devoid of evidentiary support that it can only be explained as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority." Freedom Colo. Info., Inc. v. El Paso Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t , 196 P.3d 892, 900 (Colo. 2008).

B. Applicable Law

¶14 Yakutat’s property falls within an RE-1 Rural Estate Zoning District. The Code defines such a district as one "established to protect and preserve some of the most rural areas of the Estes Valley in which significant view sheds, woodlands, rock outcroppings, ridgelines, other sensitive environmental areas and low-density residential development comprise the predominant land use pattern." Estes Valley Dev. Code § 4.3(A)(1) (Apr. 2020).

¶15 Under the Code, certain uses are expressly permitted in an RE-1 Rural Estate Zoning District. Id . at § 4.3(B). As pertinent here, a Park and Recreation Facility is one such permitted use. Id. An Outdoor Commercial Recreation and Entertainment Establishment, in contrast, is not. See id. (not listing such a use as...