When Denver City Council passed a new law limiting where gas stations can be built in the city, the convenience chain QuikTrip promised to sue.
Promise kept.
The new zoning law, passed in February, will block any proposal submitted after May 13 of last year – a retroactive law that would kill four QuikTrip projects and a few others already in the development pipeline. Those developments had already cost the company more than $750,000, BusinessDen reported.
The proposed QuikTrips would be in Chaffee Park, University Hills, Hampden and Central Park at:
- 1595 W. 48th Ave
- 2100 S. Colorado Blvd
- 5500 E. Yale Ave
- 12225 E. 39th Ave
On Monday, the Oklahoma-based gas-station giant filed its lawsuit in Denver District Court. The complaint is not an attempt to block the entire Denver law. Instead, QuikTrip wants to proceed with the projects it had already proposed before the law passed. The company argues the retroactive nature of the law is illegal.
“It just seems patently unfair — and according to the legal analysis, unconstitutional — to suddenly say, ‘Oh, just kidding, we're changing the zoning back to a date before you started your process.’” said Kathie Barstnar, the executive director of NAIOP Colorado, a commercial developers’ association, at the time the law was passed.
The law set several requirements about where new gas stations could be built — blocking their development near existing stations, rail transit stops and low-density neighborhoods.
The effect: The law blocked the four QuikTrip proposals, which had been drawing complaints from residents.
Sponsors of the new limits argued that blocking new gas stations would open up more land for housing development. They said Denver has enough gas stations already.
Real estate investors who had hoped to sell to QuikTrip and other companies accused the council of destroying their investments – and, in at least one case, her retirement plan.
What council members said:
Only one council member, Flor Alvidrez, opposed the law.
Councilmember Paul Kashmann argued during a council meeting the bill may not do enough to limit gas stations.
Councilmember Kevin Flynn raised concerns over the retroactive law, but ultimately supported it.
In the council meeting, the City Attorney’s Office argued that the law was still constitutional, even if it was retroactive.
Why? They didn’t say.
