Title: City and County of Denver v. Redding-Miller, Inc.
Citation: 347 P.2d 954
Docket Number: 19023
State: Colorado
Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court
Date: December 14, 1959

347 P.2d 954 (1959) CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, a municipal corporation and J. D. Arehart, as Zoning Administrator of the City and County of Denver, Plaintiffs in Error, v. REDDING-MILLER, INC., a Colorado Corporation, and John F. Mueller, Thomas W. Bean, Harry W. Bundy, Michael Pomponio and Nicholas G. Borelli, as individuals and as jointly constituting the Board of Adjustment in and for the City and County of Denver, Defendants in Error. No. 19023. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. December 14, 1959. Rehearing Denied January 11, 1960. Donald E. Kelley, Earl T. Thrasher, Hans W. Johnson, Denver, for plaintiffs in error. Robertson &amp; Danks, Patricia H. Maloy, Denver, for defendant in error, Redding-Miller, Inc. MOORE, Justice. J. D. Arehart, Zoning Administrator of Denver, and the City of Denver seek review by writ of error of a judgment entered by the district court affirming the holding of the Board of Adjustment of the City and County of Denver. This judgment granted certain variances under the zoning ordinance of the City and County of Denver, and strict compliance with said ordinance was not required. The trial court dismissed the claim of the City and County of Denver on the ground that it had not participated in the proceedings before the Board of Adjustment, and hence was not a proper party. In so ruling, the trial court committed no error. Board of Adjustment of City and County of Denver v. Kuehn, 132 Colo. 348, 290 P.2d 1114. The variances applied for by Redding-Miller, Inc., related: (1) To the ratio of floor area to ground area as set forth in the ordinance; (2) a reduction of the space requirement between buildings; and (3) the amount of space to be devoted to the use of off-street parking. The holding of the trial court was that the Board of Adjustment had acted within the powers granted to it by the applicable ordinance in that its determination was based upon specific findings of fact and that it did not appear that there was abuse of discretion or excessive exercise of jurisdiction. *955 With reference to the variances granted in connection with requirements other than off-street parking, we agree with the conclusions drawn by the trial court. With reference to the question of off-street parking, our opinion in City and County of Denver v. Denver Buick, Inc., 347 P.2d 919, announced December 5, 1959, fully disposes of the contentions of the parties on that subject. The judgment is affirmed. SUTTON, DAY and DOYLE, JJ., dissent. KNAUSS, Chief Justice (concurring). I concur in the foregoing opinion and desire to state the following as an additional reason for affirmance of the trial court's judgment: The City and County of Denver and John D. McLucas, later succeeded by J. D. Arehart, entered this proceeding for the first time when the complaint herein was filed. The parties before the Board of Adjustment were Redding-Miller and any persons who objected to the variance which that board granted. In Board of Adjustment of City and County of Denver v. Kuehn, 132 Colo. 348, 290 P.2d 1114, we held that the Board of Adjustment could not appeal a judgment of the district court reviewing its decision. McLucas, appointed under an ordinance, is clearly an employee of the Board of Adjustment and in no position to prosecute an appeal from the decision of his superior, the Board of Adjustment. The latter is a creature of the Denver Charter and the Administrative officer appointed pursuant to an ordinance is in no better position to prosecute an appeal than would the administrative officer of this court in taking a decision of this court to the Supreme Court of the United States. DOYLE, Justice (dissenting). I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which holds that the Board of Adjustment acted properly in granting variances to the defendants in error in respect to the maximum floor area provisions and the provisions regulating the space between buildings. In order to make clear my grounds for concluding that the Board's action was improper, it will be necessary to supplement somewhat the statement of facts as set forth in the majority opinion. On April 29, 1958, Redding-Miller, Inc., applied to the Denver Department of Zoning Administration for permits to build several buildings on land situated between First and Second Avenues and Fillmore and Milwaukee Streets in Denver. This area is within a commercial development which is known as the "Cherry Creek Shopping Center." Under a zoning ordinance of the City and County of Denver adopted November 8, 1956, the land in question is classified as B 3. The application was denied by the Zoning Department and thereafter Redding-Miller, Inc., applied to the Board of Adjustment for a number of variances from the requirement of the ordinance. Under the ordinance definition of a B 3 district, the ratio of ground area to floor area of a building is 1 to 1. The land in question contains 92,280 square feet. The proposed buildings would have a floor area of 138,798 square feet or an excess square footage of floor area amounting to 45,518 square feet, or a variance of approximately 50%. The second variance requested pertains to the ordinance requirement of off-street parking. In order to comply with the off-street parking requirement of the ordinance it would be necessary for Redding-Miller, Inc., to supply 200,277 square feet of space for this purpose. The application for variance from this requirement requested that the applicant be allowed to furnish 131,456 square feet of off-street parking space leaving a deficiency of 68,821 square feet. The third variance which Redding-Miller, Inc., sought involved the location of the buildings. Request was made to authorize reduction of the space requirement *956 between buildings from the required 55 feet to 24 feet. The main contention of the city can be summarized as follows: That the multiple variances granted by the Board of Adjustment were not in truth variances, but rather constituted an exercise by the Board of legislative power and were so substantial that they amounted to rezoning. Another contention of plaintiff in error City and County of Denver was that the district court erred in ruling that it was not a proper party. On the other hand, Redding-Miller, Inc., has urged in this Court that McLucas is not a proper party. The motion to dismiss the writ of error as to the City and County of Denver has been heretofore granted on the ground that it failed to participate in the proceeding before the Board of Adjustment and thus lacked standing in the district court and in this Court. Although the majority does not consider whether the zoning administrator, representing the public interests, can properly prosecute this writ of error, its determination of the merits of the case indicates a belief that the zoning administrator does have standing to seek review. See Sec. 219 G (3) of the Charter of the City and County of Denver. Cf. Board of Adjustment of City and County of Denver v. Kuehn, 132 Colo. 348, 290 P.2d 1114 and cf. also Sec. 611.5-3 (1) (a) of the Ordinances of the City and County of Denver. My disagreement with the reasoning of the majority opinion that off-street parking is unconstitutional is set forth in my dissent in City and County of Denver, et al. v. Denver Buick, Inc., et al., No. 18699, decided December 5, 1959, and further comments on this are unnecessary. Since I would reverse the judgment of the district court and would uphold the ruling of the zoning administrator, I consider it necessary to give my reasons for this viewpoint. The zoning ordinance has made specific provision for elaborate findings of fact by the Board of Adjustment and the plaintiff contends that this requirement has not been observed. The Board of Adjustment failed to comply with the requirements of the ordinance in this regard, but its action was not merely formally insufficient. It also exceeded its jurisdiction and abused its discretion in allowing the requested variances, and I shall address myself to the substantive question rather than the procedural one. The Board of Adjustment does not possess an unlimited discretion with respect to the granting of variances. Sec. 611.6-4 (2) (a), Municipal Code. Specifications and standards are set forth there to guide the Board and to insure against substantial deviations from the general purpose and plan of the zoning ordinances. These standards are as follows: The strict limitations within which the Board of Adjustment is empowered to act in variance matters are apparent from a reading of the above provisions. The Board is authorized to issue a building permit notwithstanding that the application does not meet the strict letter of the zoning ordinance where observance of the strict letter would work an unreasonable hardship. It is contemplated, however, that there shall be observance of the basic purpose of the ordinance and it is assumed that the Board shall refrain from granting substantial relief which modifies the entire character of the area. These legislative limitations are in accord with traditional variance definitions found in the cases. Rhyne, Municipal Law, p. 855, § 32-17 describes the meaning and purpose of variances as follows: In People ex rel. Grommon v. Hedgcock, 106 Colo. 300, 104 P.2d 607, 610, the Court defines a variance as follows: In Cross v. Bilett, 122 Colo. 278, 221 P.2d 923, 924, the Court made some further observations with respect to the purpose of variance provisions as follows: "* * * that the purpose of that provision of the charter was not to provide for substantial changes in zoning districts for nonconforming uses which result in virtual rezoning of certain property therein; but, rather, to permit minor departure from the literal terms of the statute where justice *958 so requires. As stated by the court in Lee v. Board of Adjustment, 226 N.C. 107, 37 S.E.2d 128, 132, 168 A.L.R. 1: The note at 168 A.L.R. 1 which is cited in Cross v. Bilett, supra, is a very extensive one which collects hundreds of cases and analyzes the entire variance problem. The conclusion to be gleaned from a review of these cases is that the variance is to be granted only for the purpose of relieving from hardship and only under conditions which will not change the basic character of the area. Its mission is to alleviate the hardship which results from the mechanical and sometimes unjust decisions of the zoning administrator who must deny the application for building permit where it fails to comply with the exact requirements of the law. If used sparingly and properly, this power to grant variances preserves the integrity of the area and at the same time eliminates injustice which flows from strict interpretation. See 168 A.L.R. pp. 21-23. The B 3 District described in the ordinance 612.8-1 calls for a shopping center area. It contemplates a complex of retail stores. It does not embrace a plan which calls for a complex of office buildings such as that of Redding-Miller, Inc. The substantial deviations which were here granted are not variances, but rather, are legislative changes. This is apparent from the testimony of the Planning Director, Mr. George Nez: "And then finally, we come to the request for separation of buildings from each other as designed now, and we have a couple of tight spots where we have separation of only 24' and 31', respectively, which should be around 60' separations between these buildings which have exposures and circulation around them. In other words, there's about a fifty per cent deficiency on the spacing. However, that deficiency can be remedied by design. I think it would be possible to cut out some of the separations and join these buildings, and then you don't have the problem of narrow gaps. You just solve it by eliminating the gaps altogether so that isn't what we would call extremely *959 critical. In fact, we have laid out a design just as an illustration of the maximum that these people could build in terms of floor area balanced with adequate amount of parking that would have no deficiency on the spacing of buildings. We have that here if it is of any interest to you people later." The very substantial deficiencies in ground area and parking space lead me to the conclusion that the requests which were here submitted to the Board of Adjustment do not qualify as variances under the zoning ordinance or under the legal conception of variances as established by court decisions. The Board of Adjustment was not granting relief with respect to minor hardship, but rather, was legislating so as to change the entire character of the area from what has been essentially a shopping center to a concentrated floor space office building scheme. This latter use, although not prohibited, would as proposed result in a general character change. See Bacon v. Steigman, 123 Colo. 62, 225 P.2d 1046; Harte v. Zoning Board of Review of City of Cranston, 80 R.I. 43, 91 A.2d 33; Adams v. Zoning Board of Review of the City of Providence, R.I., 135 A.2d 357; Antrim v. Hohlt, 122 Ind.App. 681, 108 N.E.2d 197; Van Meter v. H. F. Wilcox Oil &amp; Gas Co., 170 Okl. 604, 41 P.2d 904; Stavola v. Bulkeley, 134 Conn. 186, 56 A.2d 645; Bray v. Beyer, 292 Ky. 162, 166 S.W.2d 290; Yokley, Zoning Law and Practice, Sec. 138, etc.; Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning, Chap. 41, p. 647, etc., and the cases there collected. The record fails to reveal that there have been other like deviations in the Cherry Creek center. Therefore, to recognize the contention of Redding-Miller, Inc., that due to the present value of the land it can realize on its land investment only if it can proceed in the manner proposed would be unjust to the other property owners in the area, all of whom have complied with the B 3 zoning requirements. It seems to me that the Redding-Miller, Inc., argument itself points to the conclusion that the proposed changes are legislative rather than minor administrative variances. In conclusion, therefore, it is my opinion that the off-street parking requirement is valid and that the action of the Board of Adjustment in this instance was contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the ordinance requirements. In my opinion the district court erred in affirming the rulings of the Board of Adjustment and thus the judgment of the district court should be reversed. I am authorized to say that SUTTON and DAY, JJ., join in this dissent.