On Friday, May 15, 2020, Colorado Governor Jared Polis issued Executive Order D 2020 065, temporarily suspending certain statutory requirements governing the distribution, signing, and certification of ballot measures for the November 2020 election. The Order would, among other things, permit campaigns for ballot measures that have titles set or pending before the Colorado Supreme Court to collect signatures electronically by e-mail or by mail, rather than requiring a petition circulator to obtain signatures in person. It would also give campaigns additional time to collect and submit the required number of signatures. The Order directed Colorado’s Secretary of State, Jena Griswold, to issue temporary rules to accommodate these changes. A coalition of business organizations immediately challenged the Order in court, questioning whether the Governor has the power to unilaterally alter the state’s election laws.
Continue Reading Colorado’s Governor Issues Executive Order Relaxing Requirements for November 2020 Ballot Measures; Business Groups Sue
Denver Replaces General Development Plan Process and Standards for Large Projects
On July 8, 2019, Denver’s City Council approved sweeping changes to the approval process and standards for large development projects. The Amendment to the Denver Zoning Code replaces the General Development Plan (GDP) process and standards with new Large Development Review (LDR) and Infrastructure Master Plan (IMP) processes and standards.
An approved LDR will now be required for projects in excess of 5 acres, prior to proceeding with an IMP, site development plan, rezoning, subdivision, or other project approvals. Existing GDPs may also be impacted, as discussed below. Developers evaluating larger sites and landowners within existing GDPs in Denver should be aware of the new LDR and IMP processes and familiarize themselves with the Code Amendment.
Continue Reading Denver Replaces General Development Plan Process and Standards for Large Projects
Supreme Court Rules That Takings Claims Can Be Brought In Federal Court, Reversing 30-Year-Old Precedent
On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Knick v. Township of Scott, in which the Court ruled that a plaintiff in a takings claim need not first exhaust state-court remedies before bringing the claim before a federal court. The decision, addressing a largely procedural matter, is expected to lead to an increase in federal court litigation involving takings issues, and likely increases the chances that local governments may be required to compensate landowners where regulation devalues private property.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Rules That Takings Claims Can Be Brought In Federal Court, Reversing 30-Year-Old Precedent
City Prism: Dining Out in Denver Highlands
Law is what we do and a part of who we are, but our lives are fully immersed in the people, places and perspectives that create Denver’s identity. Deeply entwined with our legal practice is our love of place. This is our opportunity to share our personal insights.
An impressive number of Denver’s best restaurants
Colorado Court of Appeals: Court Should Defer to City Council’s Code Interpretations, But No Bond for Rule 106 Defendants
In May, the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the City of Thornton’s approval of a specific use permit for a self-storage facility against a challenge brought by a competitor self-storage facility. While the court’s decision in Stor-N-Lock Partners #15, L.L.C. v. City of Thornton was a victory for the defendants, including the city and the developer, the court ruled that defendants in Rule 106(a)(4) actions may not recover delay-induced damages through the imposition of a bond. Otten Johnson attorneys Brian Connolly and Bill Kyriagis represented the defendant landowner and developer, CenturyLink and Resolute Investments, Inc., respectively, throughout the proceedings.
In the case, Resolute obtained the city’s approval of a specific use permit for its project. A neighboring self-storage facility challenged the approval under Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 106(a)(4), which allows for judicial review of quasi-judicial decisions by local government bodies. The plaintiff alleged that the approval of the specific use permit did not improve the welfare of its property, which was one of the Thornton code’s criteria for the issuance of a specific use permit. The district court affirmed the city’s decision but denied the defendant’s motion to require the plaintiff to post security in an amount that would cover the defendant’s losses incurred as a result of litigation-related delays.
Continue Reading Colorado Court of Appeals: Court Should Defer to City Council’s Code Interpretations, But No Bond for Rule 106 Defendants