Moreland Properties, LLC v. City of Thornton, Civil Action No. 07-cv-00716-EWN-MEH.
| Decision Date | 04 June 2008 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 07-cv-00716-EWN-MEH. |
| Citation | 559 F.Supp.2d 1133 |
| Parties | MQRELAND PROPERTIES, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF THORNTON, a municipal corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
Carrie Sue Bernstein, Wayne B. Schroeder, Jody Harper Alderman, Grimshaw & Harring, P.C., Denver, CO, for Plaintiff.
Steven Jay Dawes, Wendy J. Shea, Light, Harrington & Dawes, P.C., Denver, CO, for Defendant.
This is a civil rights case. Plaintiff Moreland Properties, LLC, alleges that Defendant City of Thornton violated its Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process by, inter alia, enacting an ordinance that deprived it of certain uses of its land without providing adequate process. Plaintiff additionally seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendant's ordinance is ultra vires and void, although (as discussed below) its current briefing effectively subsumes its request for a declaratory judgment into its procedural due process claim. This matter is before the court on "City of Thornton's Motion for Summary Judgment," and "Plaintiffs Motion for Interlocutory Summary Judgment on Liability," both filed on December 6, 2007. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
On June 20, 1967, the City of Thornton, Colorado, adopted a home rule charter (the "Charter") pursuant to article XX, section six of the Colorado constitution which is included in the Thornton city code (the "Code") and which provides for a city council (the "Council") consisting of nine members. The Charter requires that, in all legislative matters coming before it, the Council shall act only by ordinance, resolution, or motion, and recites that a majority of the members of the Council in office shall be a quorum for the transaction of Council business. (Id., SOF ¶¶ 4-5; admitted at Pl.'s Resp., RSOF ¶¶ 4-5.) With respect to the passage of ordinances, the Charter provides:
An ordinance may be introduced at any regular or special meeting and shall be read in full at the time it is introduced or, in cases where copies of the ordinance are available to the Council ... said ordinance may be read by title only. It may be passed on first reading by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the members elected to the Council at the meeting at which it is introduced.
(Id., SOF ¶ 7; admitted at Pl.'s Resp., RSOF ¶ 7.) With respect to posting and publication of ordinances, the Charter provides:
The full text of each ordinance after passage on first reading and before second reading and final passage, and after second reading and final passage, shall be posted in six (6) public places in the City as such places are designated by resolution of the Council. The title of each ordinance and a statement that the ordinance is on file in the City Clerk's office for public inspection shall be published in a newspaper legally qualified for City publications as provided in the Charter after first passage and before second [passage] and again after second and final passage.
(Id., SOF ¶ 8; admitted at Pl.'s Resp., RSOF ¶ 8.)
Defendant's development code — which addresses zoning and land development issues — is set forth in chapter eighteen of the Code, and provides that zoning amendments shall be initiated as follows:
(1) The Council or the City staff may propose amendments to this chapter or request changes in a zoning district classification or boundary. The City staff shall deliver or cause to be delivered a proposed amendment to this chapter for a change in a zoning district classification or boundary to the Council with staff recommendation.
(2) A person may request a change in the zoning district classification or boundary by filing an application with the Director on a form furnished by the City.
(Id., SOF ¶¶ 9-10; admitted at Pl.'s Resp., RSOF ¶¶ 9-10.) The development code further provides that Council review and action on amendments to chapter eighteen and/or zoning district changes shall be subject to the following:
(1) An amendment to this chapter may be proposed by Council or City Staff. A request for a change in zoning district classification or boundary requires the director to give notice of the public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the community at least ten days before the hearing.
(2) The District shall send proper notice of a public hearing on a request for a change in zoning district classification or boundary to the proper owner of record and all owners of real property lying within 600 feet of the boundary of the area of the request.
* * *
(4) The Council shall hold a public hearing on a request for a change in a zoning district classification or boundary. The Council is not required to hold a public hearing on an amendment to this Chapter.
(5) An amendment to this chapter or request for a change in a zoning district classification or boundary shall be approved by the favorable vote of a majority of the quorum of the Council.
(Id., SOF ¶ 11; admitted at Pl.'s Resp., RSOF ¶ 11.) The development code encourages persons considering application for a development permit "to contact the Director and discuss the proposal with the Department." (Id., Ex. A-2, Part 2 at 10 [Code].)
In 1993, Defendant enacted an ordinance approving the annexation of approximately twenty acres of property generally located at the southeast corner of 144th Avenue and 1-25 in Adams County. That same ordinance approved "regional commercial" zoning for the property which, under the Code, includes "auto service center" and "vehicle display, sales, and service" as permitted uses, and "vehicle display, sales and service" as permitted uses by right. (Id., SOF ¶ 2; admitted in relevant part at Def.'s Resp., RSOF ¶ 2.) A permitted use by right under the Code is a use that does not require a specific use permit or a temporary use permit. (Id., SOF ¶ 3; admitted in relevant part at Def.'s Resp., RSOF ¶ 3.)
In 1999, Plaintiff purchased a portion of the property annexed in 1993. (Id., SOF ¶ 4; admitted in relevant part at Def.'s Resp., RSOF ¶ 4.) Plaintiff purchased the property because its zoning classification allowed automobile dealerships and auto sales as permitted uses by right. (Id., SOF ¶ 8; deemed admitted in relevant part at Def.'s Resp., RSOF ¶ 8.)1 More specifically, Douglas Moreland, a well-known figure in the automobile dealership and automobile sales industry in the Denver metropolitan area, (id., SOF ¶ 5; deemed admitted in relevant part at Def.'s Resp., RSOF ¶ 5), believed there would be extensive growth of the Denver metropolitan area to the north along 1-25 and determined, with consultants, that the southeast corner of 144th Avenue and 1-25 would be a prime location for an automobile dealership, (id., SOF ¶¶ 6-7; deemed admitted in relevant part at Def.'s Resp., RSOF ¶¶ 6-7.) Moreover, prior to Plaintiffs purchase of the property, Mark L. Von Engeln, a representative and agent of Plaintiff, confirmed that the property's zoning classification allowed automobile dealerships and automobile sales as permitted uses by right by reviewing the Code and by speaking with somebody — probably in Defendant's planning department — whose name Mr. Von Engeln could not remember. (Id., SOF ¶ 9; admitted in relevant part at Def.'s Resp., RSOF ¶ 9; see also id., Ex. 5 at 2 [Von Engeln Dep.].) Mr. Von Engeln further testified that, at the time of the acquisition, Plaintiffs plan was to develop an automobile dealership on the property or to resell the property. (Id., Ex. 5 at 3 [Von Engeln Dep.].) Mr. Moreland similarly testified that, on the day of the closing, he told two business partners that the land was "a great future development or resale property" because of its zoning. (Id.., Ex. 4 at 14 [Moreland Dep.].) A real estate transfer declaration Plaintiff filed with Adams County stated that the sale was "contingent upon the preapproval and exclusive right to a dealership point by the manufacturer." (Id., SOF ¶ 11; admitted at Def.'s Resp., RSOF ¶ 11.)
In 2001, Defendant and the City of Westminster contracted with land use and urban design consultants to prepare a study of the 1-25 corridor in the area bounded by Huron Street to the west, Washington Street to the east, 148th Avenue to the north, and 120 Avenue to the south. (Id., SOF ¶ 13; admitted at Def.'s Resp., RSOF ¶ 13.) Within Thornton, this area was designated the North Washington Subarea ("NW Subarea") and includes the property Plaintiff purchased in 1999. (Id.) During 2004 and 2005, Defendant held approximately twenty-four public meetings to receive input, develop concepts, weigh alternatives, and create recommendations regarding future land use in the NW Subarea. (Id., SOF ¶ 14; admitted at Def.'s Resp., RSOF ¶ 14.) Mr. Von Engeln...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heartland Biogas, LLC v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Weld Cnty.
...and (4) the operation of his business for two years. 70 P.3d 600, 603-06 (Colo. App. 2003); see also Moreland Properties, LLC v. City of Thornton, 559 F. Supp. 2d 1133, 1146 (D. Colo. 2008) (holding that the plaintiff had a vested property interest in azoning classification based on Eason).......
-
Onyx Properties LLC v. Bd. Of County Comm'rs Of Elbert County
...Comm'rs, 506 F.3d 962, 970 (10th Cir. 2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Moreland Properties, LLC v. City of Thornton, 559 F.Supp. 2d 1133, 1145 (D.Colo. 2008). For the purpose of this motion, Elbert County does not challenge that Plaintiffs have a property inte......
-
Jordan–arapahoe v. Bd. of County Commissioners of The County of Arapahoe
...plan. That alone is not enough. We might be at the end of the discussion but for the recent decision in Moreland Properties, LLC v. City of Thornton, 559 F.Supp.2d 1133 (D.Colo.2008). In that case, a municipality had published an ordinance listing allowable uses for a property owner's land,......
-
Petersen v. City
...and effort in the conditional purchase agreement with D.R. Horton. (Doc. 61, at 33.) The Petersens cite Moreland Properties, LLC v. Thornton, 559 F.Supp.2d 1133 (D.Colo.2008), as support for this characterization of their property interest; however, as explained in detail by Riverton City, ......