Oh good, Denver Post
published the Sloan's Lake complaint.
TL;DR brief:
Facts:
Paragraphs 1-17: We had an original plan for Sloan's Lake, in which we wanted the tallest future buildings to be along Colfax. We started working with the city in making this plan back in 2004, and we continued to be a stakeholder throughout. Later, that whole area was rezoned, and that rezoning didn't reflect the earlier agreements. After the 2015 council meeting, the Denver City Council put the tallest part of the future buildings on 17th. We're mad.
Venue:
Paragraphs 18-21: Civil procedure states we can sue, but we must sue in this court.
Parties:
Paragraphs 19-33: A who's who of people and the injuries they will suffer. Injuries include increased traffic, shadows, increased use of the park without increased parking, and the consequences stemming from those 3 injuries.
General Allegations:
Paragraphs 34-50: We, and the city, had "guiding principles" for the St. Anthony's site. Those principles came about in 2006, and they were part of a larger plan. The plan and principles stipulated where the future buildings should go, and why they should go there. The city approved this plan, which we think makes it a legal requirement to put those buildings in those spots. Later, the area was rezoned. In 2015, the city council ignored the 2006 plan and principles, putting the future buildings elsewhere. Now the tallest future buildings will not be on Colfax, like we thought in 2006. They will be on 17th. We're mad, and Councilwoman Shepard stepped outside her duties as councilwoman. We're mad, and the 2006 agreement should stand inspite of new zoning, because this new agreement is bad under the guise of "courtesy zoning".
First claim for relief:
Paragraphs 51-63: Undo the 2015 Denver City Council meeting. By law, that meeting was supposed to be quasi-judicial, which means that meeting needed to look at legal precedence. Specifically, the meeting should have looked at the 2006 plan. It wasn't quasi-judicial, because it ignored the 2006 plan and other plans we've cited in this complaint. So undo the 2015 meeting.
Second claim for relief:
Paragraphs 64-67 (end): We want declaratory relief. That means we want this court to use its powers to compel the city to do something. Specifically we want the court to compel the city to do the following:
1. Tell the city it screwed up the zoning.
2. Undo the 2015 meeting.
3. State the rezoning that occurred was bad precedent.
I merely skimmed the items in the brief. Someone else should double check my interpretation of what the brief said.
Prev
Linear Mode
