## Facts

- In July 1973, the City of Manitou Springs adopted a master plan for property known as Crystal Hills, contemplating development of 194 home sites.
- On September 1, 1981, the City annexed Crystal Hills.
- In March 1982, David R. Sellon, Kris J. Kovalik, and Crystal Hills Development Co. purchased Crystal Hills.
- Manitou Springs contains many steeply sloped areas, and the City had recurring concerns about erosion, drainage, maintenance, and emergency access associated with hillside development.
- On May 4, 1982, after public debate, the City Council enacted a “hillside ordinance” to address these hillside-related problems.
- The hillside ordinance created a special hillside low-density residential zone and established an equation for calculating minimum lot sizes for property placed in that zone; steeper slopes generally required larger lots and reduced density.
- The ordinance’s equation distinguished between “platted” and “unplatted” land, requiring larger lots for land designated “unplatted” at the time it was zoned or rezoned into the hillside category.
- In September 1983, the City Council adopted a resolution placing Crystal Hills in a low-density residential zone and authorizing 108 residential units.
- Following public opposition, the City submitted the rezoning issue to the voters; in November 1983, a majority approved rezoning Crystal Hills as hillside low-density residential.
- The City held public hearings in December 1983 and January 1984. The landowners were informed that applying the hillside equation would limit development to 60 units; at the hearings, one landowner objected but offered no supporting evidence.
- In January 1984, the City Council rezoned Crystal Hills to hillside low-density residential, limiting development to 60 units under the ordinance.
- The landowners sought district-court review. After a two-day hearing, the district court upheld the ordinance and affirmed the City Council’s action. The landowners appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the hillside ordinance violated substantive due process because it lacked a reasonable or rational relationship to the City’s public health, safety, and welfare objectives.
2. Whether the ordinance was void for vagueness because it did not define “platted” and “unplatted,” terms used in the density/lot-size equation.
3. Whether the City Council acted arbitrarily and capriciously, or abused its discretion, in adopting the ordinance and applying it to Crystal Hills (including the 60-unit limitation).

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment.
- The court held the hillside ordinance bore a rational relationship (and, under state law, a reasonable relationship) to legitimate governmental interests tied to hillside conditions, including erosion, drainage, maintenance demands, and emergency access.
- The court rejected the vagueness challenge, concluding “platted” and “unplatted” have commonly accepted meanings in land-use and subdivision practice and provided sufficient notice and enforceable standards.
- The court held the City Council’s adoption of the hillside ordinance and its application to Crystal Hills were not arbitrary or capricious and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Zoning enactments and rezoning decisions carry a presumption of validity; a party asserting constitutional invalidity bears the burden of proving it beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Substantive due process is satisfied where a zoning regulation is reasonably/rationally related to legitimate public health, safety, morals, or general welfare objectives; the reviewing court does not decide whether a different regulatory approach would be better.
- A law is impermissibly vague if it fails to provide fair notice of what is required or prohibited, or if it lacks sufficiently definite standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement; mathematical precision is not required.
- When an ordinance does not define a term, courts may apply the term’s commonly accepted meaning; technical land-use terms may be understood by their established usage in planning and subdivision contexts.
- Municipal land-use action will be upheld against “arbitrary and capricious” challenges when the record shows reasoned consideration through hearings and deliberation and the decision has support in the purposes addressed by the regulation.

## Conclusion

Sellon held that Manitou Springs’ hillside zoning ordinance—using a slope-based lot-size equation and a platted/unplatted distinction—was a valid police-power measure addressing hillside erosion, drainage, and access problems; the court found no due process violation, no unconstitutional vagueness, and no arbitrary or capricious municipal action in rezoning Crystal Hills and limiting development to 60 units.


Sellon v. City of Manitou Springs, 745 P.2d 229 (1987)