Rangeview, LLC v. City of Aurora
381 P.3d 445
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- BFR owned a 1.894-acre corner parcel in Aurora; Mitrah proposed to develop it (gas station/convenience store on Lot 1; future commercial on Lot 2) and sought rezoning to Aurora’s Sustainable Infill Redevelopment (SIR) district.
- Aurora Planning & Zoning Commission denied the rezoning; the Aurora City Council reversed and approved rezoning and Lot 1 site plan after hearings and evidence submission.
- Rangeview (a neighboring homeowners group) and two neighbors sued under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4), claiming City Council exceeded jurisdiction and abused discretion by (1) approving a site plan lacking a required outdoor gathering space and (2) rezoning to SIR when the parcel did not meet the municipal-code definition of an “infill development parcel.”
- The district court affirmed City Council; Rangeview appealed. The appellate panel sua sponte raised standing; after supplemental briefing the court concluded Rangeview had standing to pursue its claims (though a concurring/dissenting judge would limit standing on the outdoor-gathering-space claim).
- The panel reviewed whether City Council abused discretion or misapplied law: it held (a) the SIR handbook’s guidance and Code language support discretionary application of an outdoor gathering-space requirement on this small, high-traffic site, and (b) the SIR ordinance’s reference to "infill development and redevelopment" does not import the separate, defined term "infill development parcel" (with its 75% boundary-developed/10-year requirement).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City Council abused its discretion by approving a site plan that lacks an outdoor gathering space required by SIR design standards | The Code requires an outdoor gathering space ("shall"), so approval without one was unlawful | The SIR handbook (incorporated guidance) uses "should" and is explicitly flexible; the Code also conditions the space to be "appropriate to the situation and scale" — here the lot size, adjacent busy street, and gas-station use make such space inappropriate | Affirmed: Council did not abuse discretion; handbook and Code permit flexible, discretionary application given site context |
| Whether rezoning to SIR was improper because the parcel is not an "infill development parcel" under the Code (75% boundary-developed for ≥10 years) | The SIR purpose references infill/redevelopment; the defined term should apply, so parcel fails statutory threshold and rezoning was improper | The defined term "infill development parcel" appears in general definitions but is not referenced in the SIR section; SIR uses the generic concept "infill development and redevelopment," meaning fill-in of vacant land without importing the 75%/10-year boundary test | Affirmed: Council did not abuse discretion; SIR language does not incorporate the specific definition and no boundary-percent requirement applies |
| Standing to raise claims | Rangeview: neighbors and adjacent-property owner testimony and expert evidence of decreased home values support an injury-in-fact | City: complaint lacked specific allegations of injury re: the outdoor gathering-space omission; standing should be limited to injuries actually pled | Court: Rangeview had standing overall based on record testimony and expert evidence that adjacent properties would be harmed; separate concurrence would have limited standing on the gathering-space claim for lack of a specific pleaded injury |
| Standard of review for municipal zoning decisions | N/A (procedural/legal framing) | N/A | Review is for abuse of discretion (no de novo factfinding); ordinance interpretation is de novo legal review |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen/Edwards Assocs. v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 830 P.2d 1045 (Colo. 1992) (standing inquiry may look to complaint allegations plus other evidence; injury-in-fact shown by threatened impact on plaintiffs’ present or imminent activities)
- Lamm v. Colo. Gen. Assembly, 700 P.2d 508 (Colo. 1985) (standing framework; complaint must allege injury)
- Canyon Area Residents for the Env’t v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 172 P.3d 905 (Colo. App. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion review; decision lacks support if devoid of competent evidence)
- Ross v. Fire & Police Pension Ass’n, 713 P.2d 1304 (Colo. 1986) (no competent evidence standard explained: arbitrary and capricious decisions lack evidentiary support)
- Ainscough v. Owens, 90 P.3d 851 (Colo. 2004) (aesthetic injury can support standing)
- Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. City of Thornton, 629 P.2d 605 (Colo. 1981) (adjacent-property owners may have standing to challenge rezoning that adversely affects them)
- Wells v. Lodge Props., Inc., 976 P.2d 321 (Colo. App. 1998) (diminution in property value and obstruction of views can support standing)
- Garrido v. Dudek, 731 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir. 2013) (administrative handbook incorporated by reference may inform interpretation of an implementing regulation)