HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022CV30661 - Sanctuary Field Neighborhood Network, et al, v. Council of the City of Fort Collins - 004 - Solitaire's Answer to Complaint 10.31.2022DISTRICT COURT, LARIMER COUNTY,
COLORADO
201 La Porte Ave., Suite 100
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80521
720.865.8307
Plaintiffs:
Sanctuary Field Neighborhood Network, a
Colorado nonprofit corporation; and Miranda
Spindel;
v.
Defendant:
Council of the City of Fort Collins
COURT USE ONLY
Counsel for Solitaire Homes East, LLC and
Solitaire Homes, LLC
Andrew J. Petrie, #11416
Andrew Valencia, #54691
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
1225 17th St., Ste. 2300
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 292-2400
petriea@ballardspahr.com
valenciaa@ballardspahr.com
Case Number: 2022CV30661
Division Courtroom
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT
TO C.R.C.P. 106
Solitaire Homes East, LLC and Solitaire Homes, LLC (collectively “Solitaire”)
answer the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Complaint as follows:
DATE FILED: October 31, 2022 4:57 PM
FILING ID: BCEFD75DF25CB
CASE NUMBER: 2022CV30661
PARTIES, VENUE, AND JURISDICTION
1. Plaintiff, SFNN, is a nonprofit corporation organized in the State of
Colorado, has its primary place of business located at 330 North Taft Hill Road, Fort
Collins, Colorado 80521, which is located within Larimer County, Colorado, and is
organized to assist the members of the Sanctuary Field Neighborhood in responsibly
developing the area incorporated into the Northwest Subarea Plan, as adopted by the
Council of the City of Fort Collins in Resolution 2006-120, on December 19, 2006 (the
“NWSAP”), that has been annexed into the City of Fort Collins, Colorado. A copy of the
NWSAP is attached with this Complaint as Exhibit A.
ANSWER: Solitaire is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations regarding the SFNN’s stated purpose, and the contents
Exhibit A, and therefore denies those allegations. Solitaire denies each and every other
allegation contained in paragraph 1, except to admit only that (a) the Colorado Secretary
of State’s website identifies Plaintiff SFNN as a nonprofit corporation organized in
Colorado, with its principal place of business located at 330 North Taft Hill Road, Fort
Collins, CO 80521, (b) that this address is located in Larimer County, (c) the Council of
the City of Fort Collins adopted the Northwest Subarea Plan in Resolution 2006-120 on
December 19, 2006, and (d) the City of Fort Collins annexed at least some of the
Northwest Subarea designated area.
2. Plaintiff, Miranda, is an owner of real property in Larimer County, Colorado.
ANSWER: Solitaire admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2.
3. Defendant City of Fort Collins (the “City”) is a home rule municipality located
in Larimer County, Colorado.
ANSWER: Solitaire admits the allegations contained in paragraph 3.
4. Defendant Council of the City of Fort Collins, (the “Council”), which
exercises authority pursuant to C.R.S. § 31-4-101, et seq., sits as a quasi-judicial board
on land use matters pursuant to Section 2-48 of Ordinance No. 020, 2020, City of Fort
Collins Municipal Code (the “Code”) and the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (the
“LUC”) Art. 2, § 13.8.
ANSWER: Paragraph 4 states a legal conclusion to which Solitaire is not
required to respond. If and to the extent paragraph 4 contains factual allegations to which
Solitaire would be required to respond, Solitaire denies each and every allegation
contained in paragraph 4, except to admit only that the Council addresses land use
matters.
5. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-1-124(1)
and C.R.C.P. 106.
ANSWER: Paragraph 5 contains a legal conclusion to which Solitaire is not
required to respond.
6. Venue is proper in Larimer County because this action involves a quasi-
judicial decision by an elected body of the City and a representative of the City, which
concerns land use, including without limitation the approval of a plan of development on
real property located in Larimer County, Colorado, a subsequent appeal thereof, and the
interpretation of the LUC which was promulgated and is enforced in Larimer County,
Colorado.
ANSWER: Paragraph 6 contains a legal conclusion to which Solitaire is not
required to respond. If and to the extent paragraph 6 contains factual allegations to which
Solitaire would be required to respond, Solitaire denies each and every allegation
contained in paragraph 7, except to admit only that Plaintiffs’ allegations involve land use,
including the approval of a plan of development on real property located in Larimer
County, Colorado, a subsequent appeal of that approval, and the interpretation of the
Larimer County LUC.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
7. The City, through the Council, has adopted the LUC and uses the same to
govern the use of land within the boundaries of the City.
ANSWER: Solitaire admits the allegations contained in paragraph 7.
8. The LUC dictates uses that are permissible and delineates certain zone
districts within the City and whether additional review, such as an administrative review,
is required for a particular use.
ANSWER: Paragraph 8 contains a legal conclusion to which Solitaire is not
required to respond. If and to the extent paragraph 8 contains factual allegations to which
Solitaire would be required to respond, Solitaire denies each and every allegation
contained in paragraph 8, except to admit only that the LUC, among other things, has
provisions relating to permissible uses, zone districts, and reviews for particular uses.
9. In addition to and incorporated within the LUC, the City, through the Council,
identified and adopted certain planning and development priorities for specific areas
within the City and the Growth Management Area between the City and Larimer County,
Colorado (the “County”) through the NWSAP, which is designed to assist in the
implementation of City planning by tailoring City-wide policies concerning land use, open
land and trails, transportation, infrastructure, and community appearance in the NWSAP
area.
ANSWER: Solitaire denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 9,
except to admit only that the Council of the City of Fort Collins adopted Resolution 2006-
120, which it developed to assist in the implementation of the City Plan by tailoring City-
wide policies concerning land use, open trails and trails, transportation, infrastructure, and
community appearance to the Northwest Subarea Plan area.
10. Solitaire Fort Collins, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (the
“Developer”), is the owner of an approximately 41.34-acre parcel of vacant land described
as Parcel Nos. 9709104001, 9709104002 and 9709103020, as recorded with the Larimer
County Clerk and Recorder, which is entirely located within the portions of the NWSAP
annexed by the City (the “Subject Property”).
ANSWER: Solitaire denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph
10, except to admit only that the identified parcels are located within portions of the
NWSAP annexed by the City.
11. Developer’s first plan of development, designated as PDP 190003 (the
“Initial Plan”), was submitted on February 15, 2019.
ANSWER: Solitaire denies each and every allegation contained in
paragraph 11, except to admit only that it submitted a plan of development designated
PDP 190003 on February 15, 2019.
12. The Initial Plan fell under a Type 2 review, which requires approval from the
City’s Planning and Zoning Board (the “P&Z Board”) due to the mix of housing types,
pursuant to LUC Art. 2, § 1.3.
ANSWER: Paragraph 12 contains a legal conclusion to which Solitaire is not
required to respond. If and to the extent paragraph 12 contains factual allegations to which
Solitaire would be required to respond, Solitaire denies each and every allegation
contained in paragraph 12, except to admit only that PDP 190003 underwent a Type 2
review.
13. On July 17, 2021, the P&Z Board held a hearing regarding the Initial Plan.
ANSWER: Solitaire denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 13.
14. The Developer withdrew the Initial Plan prior to a P&Z Board vote.
ANSWER: Solitaire denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 14,
except to admit only that it withdrew PDP 190003 prior to a P&Z Board determination.
15. Upon information and belief, the Developer amended the Initial Plan
sometime between June 18, 2021 and September 13, 2021 to avoid rejection by the P&Z
Board.
ANSWER: Solitaire denies the allegations contained in paragraph 15.
16. The amended Initial Plan included the removal of structures defined as
multi-family housing, resulting in a plan designated as PDP 210018 (the “Amended Plan”).
ANSWER: Solitaire denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph
16, except to admit only that it filed a revised application designated PDP 210018 that did
not include multi-family dwellings.
17. Because of the nature of the Amended Plan, the Developer was able to
avoid another hearing in front of the P&Z Board and, instead, go through a Type 1 review
and proceed through an administrative review, which requires an administrative hearing,
pursuant to LUC Art. 2, § 1.3.
ANSWER: Paragraph 17 contains a legal conclusion to which Solitaire is not
required to respond. If and to the extent paragraph 17 contains factual allegations to which
Solitaire would be required to respond, Solitaire denies each and every allegation
contained in paragraph 17.
18. The Developer continued to amend the Amended Plan several more times
with minor changes, prior to the impending administrative review hearing.
ANSWER: Solitaire denies the allegations contained in paragraph 18.
19. A neighborhood meeting was held on the Amended Plan on September 13,
2021.
ANSWER: Solitaire denies each and every allegation contained in
paragraph 19, except to admit only that on September 13, 2021, a neighborhood meeting
was held on PDP 210018.
20. The Developer submitted the Amended Plan, as amended, to the City on
November 5, 2021.
ANSWER: Solitaire denies each and every allegation contained in
paragraph 20, except to admit only that on November 5, 2021, Solitaire submitted PDP
210018 to the City.
21. Upon information and belief, sometime between November 5, 2021, and
May 2, 2022, a representative from the City appointed Marcus McAskin as the hearing
officer (“Hearing Officer”) for the Developer’s administrative hearing, which was
scheduled for May 2, 2022 (the “Hearing”).
ANSWER: Solitaire is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 21, and therefore denies them,
except to admit only that the administrative hearing was scheduled for May 2, 2022 with
Marcus McAskin appointed as the hearing officer.
22. Upon information and belief, the Hearing Officer is not employed by the City
nor the Director of the City’s Community Development and Neighborhood Services
Department, or a subordinate thereof.
ANSWER: Solitaire is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 22, and therefore denies them.
23. Per LUC Art. 2, § 2.7(A)(1), “[a]n administrative review process is hereby
established wherein certain development applications shall be processed, reviewed,
considered and approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Director pursuant
to the general procedural requirements contained in [LUC Art. 2, § 1.1].... For those
development applications that are subject to administrative review, the Director shall be
the designated decision maker.”
ANSWER: Solitaire admits only that LUC Art. 2 § 2.7(A)(1) contains, among
other things, the excerpts quoted.
24. Per LUC Art. 2, § 1.1, “[f]or those development applications subject to
administrative review (sometimes referred to as ‘Type 1 review’), the Director is the
designated decision maker.[”]
ANSWER: Solitaire admits only that LUC Art. 2 § 1.1 contains, among other
things, the excerpt quoted.
25. Per LUC Art. 5, § 1.2, the “Director” is the director of the Community
Development and Neighborhood Services Department.
ANSWER: Solitaire admits only that LUC Art. 5 § 1.2 contains, among other
things, the identified language.
26. Per § 2 of the LUC, the Hearing was to be presided over by the Director and
the findings therefrom were to be issued by the Director within 10 working days.
ANSWER: Paragraph 26 states a legal conclusion to which Solitaire is not
required to respond. If and to the extent paragraph 26 contains factual allegations to which
Solitaire would be required to respond, Solitaire denies each and every the allegation
contained in paragraph 26, except to admit that only that LUC Art 2 § 2.2.7 contains
language indicating that, among other things, the Director shall issue a written decision
within ten working days.
27. The City failed to comply with the LUC by appointing the Hearing Officer to
preside over the Hearing.
ANSWER: Paragraph 27 states a legal conclusion to which Solitaire is not
required to respond. If and to the extent paragraph 27 contains factual allegations to which
Solitaire would be required to respond, Solitaire denies each and every allegation
contained in paragraph 27.
28. Notice of the Hearing was mailed on or about April 13, 2022, however, the
staff report and Amended Plan documents were not made publicly available until shortly
before the Hearing.
ANSWER: Solitaire admits the allegations contained in paragraph 28.
29. Per LUC Art. 2, § 2.5, “[t]he [s]taff [r]eport shall be made available for
inspection and copying by the ... public prior to the scheduled public hearing on the
development application.”
ANSWER: Solitaire admits only that LUC Art. 2 § 2.5 contains, among other
things, the excerpt quoted.
30. On May 2, 2022, the Hearing was held at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins,
CO 80521 (“City Hall”), in a hybrid fashion, and was presided over by the Hearing Officer.
ANSWER: Solitaire admits the allegations contained in paragraph 30.
31. Per LUC Art. 2, § 2.7(D)(1), “[w]ithin ten (10) working days following the
public hearing, the Director shall issue a written decision to approve, approve with
conditions, or deny the development application based on its compliance with the [LUC
standards]. The written decision shall be mailed to the applicant and any person who
provided testimony at the public hearing.”
ANSWER: Solitaire admits only that LUC Art. 2 § 2.7(D)(1) contains, among
other things, the excerpt quoted.
32. On or about May 16, 2022, the Hearing Officer issued his determination,
which included his findings (the “Hearing Officer Decision”). A copy of the Hearing Officer
Decision is attached with this Complaint as Exhibit B.
ANSWER: Solitaire admits only that on May 16, 2022 the Hearing Officer issued
Findings and Decisions approving the Amended Plan. Solitaire is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief regarding the contents of Exhibit B, and therefore
denies the allegation.
33. In the Hearing Officer Decision, the Hearing Officer made the following
findings:
a. The “vast majority of the public comment received ... is property
characterized as against the approval of the [Amended Plan], for various
reasons including noncompliance with certain provisions of the [NWSAP],
....” See Exhibit B, pg. 7.
b. “[T]he [NWSAP] lacks sufficient guidance as to how to alleviate negative
effects caused by development which otherwise complies with the City
zoning regulation” and that “[a]bsent clear guidelines or standard set forth
in the [NWSAP] against which the [Amended Plan] may be judged, the
[NWSAP] is insufficient to provide ‘all users and potential users of land with
notice of the particular standards and requirements imposed by the [City]
for [development plan approval’” and therefore, “lack[s] sufficient guidelines
or standards on which to deny the [Amended Plan].” See Exhibit B, pg. 8.
c. That the Hearing Officer lacked the authority to deny the Amended Plan
based upon the evidence reviewed. Id.
ANSWER: Solitaire admits only that the Hearing Officer Decision contains,
among other things, some of the quoted language; there are, however, typographical
errors in Plaintiffs’ reproduction of the Hearing Officer Decision.
34. Despite the Hearing Officer’s assertion that the NWSAP is insufficiently
drafted to implement or otherwise inform his decision, the NWSAP makes numerous
references to the nature and characteristics of the area and the vision for future
development maintain the semi-rural or country feel thereof and to involve the community
in such development, including its unique image and identity.
ANSWER: Solitaire denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph
34, except to admit only that the NWSAP makes references to, among other things, the
nature and characteristics of the Northwest Subarea, future development in the area, and
community involvement.
35. Further, the NWSAP identifies the City’s role and responsibility in
implementing the NWSAP as, among other roles and responsibilities, to “[r]eview
development proposals (in City limits) to make sure new development projects are
consistent with [the NWSAP].” See Exhibit A, pg. 50.
ANSWER: Solitaire admits only that the NWSAP contains, among other things,
the quoted language.
36. When the Council adopted the NWSAP in 2006, the Council stated the
reasons for adopting the NWSAP as to “assist in the implementation of City Plan by
tailoring City-wide policies concerning land use, open land and trails, transportation,
infrastructure, and community appearance in the [NWSAP] area.” See the “Council
Resolution 2006-120,” attached with this Complaint as Exhibit C.
ANSWER: Solitaire admits only that Resolution 2006-120 contains, among
other things, the quoted language. Solitaire is without knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief regarding the contents of Exhibit C, and therefore denies the allegation.
37. LUC Art. 1, § 2.2 states that the purpose of the [LUC] is to improve and
protect the public health, safety and welfare by, among other things, (i) ensuring that all
growth and development is consistent with the LUC, including its adopted components
and associated subarea plans; (ii) minimizing adverse environmental impacts of
development; and (iii) ensuring that development proposals are sensitive to the character
of existing neighborhoods.
ANSWER: Solitaire admits only that LUC Art. 1, § 2.2 contains, among other
things, the identified language.
38. Per LUC Art. 1, § 2.4, “all development shall comply with the applicable
terms, conditions, requirements, standards and procedures established in [the LUC].”
ANSWER: Solitaire admits only LUC Art. 1, § 2.4 contains, among other things,
the excerpt quoted.
39. Per LUC Art. 4, § 5(A), Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Districts are
to be “developed and operated in harmony with the residential characteristics of a
neighborhood.”
ANSWER: Solitaire admits only that LUC Art. 4, § 5(A) contains, among other
things, the excerpt quoted.
40. As is clear in the “Hearing Transcript,” the vast majority of the interested
public opposes the Amended Plan and testified that its development is incompatible with
the nature, character, historic and unique image and the natural habitat that defines and
comprises the area, as referenced and contemplated in the NWSAP. A copy of the
Hearing Transcript is attached with this Complaint as Exhibit D.
ANSWER: Solitaire is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 40 and the contents of Exhibit D,
and therefore denies those allegations.
41. The Hearing Officer failed to find or otherwise identify how the Amended Plan
satisfied the standards and vision set forth in the NWSAP and failed to properly interpret
applicable provisions of the LUC by disregarding the NWSAP due to his inability to reconcile
the same.
ANSWER: Solitaire denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph
41.
42. On May 31, 2022, the “Notice of Appeal” was filed by several members of
the community, including Miranda, on a form provided by the City, pursuant to LUC Art.
2, § 11.2. A copy of the Notice of Appeal is attached with this Complaint as Exhibit E.
ANSWER: Paragraph 42 states a legal conclusion to which no response is
required. If and to the extent paragraph 42 contains factual allegations to which Solitaire
would be required to respond, Solitaire admits only that on May 31, 2022 a notice of
appeal was filed by several individuals, including Miranda. Solitaire is without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the contents of Exhibit E, and therefore
denies the allegation.
43. Per LUC Art 2, § 11.2, “[a]n administrative decision shall be processed
according to, in compliance with and subject to the provisions contained in [Art. 2, § 1] and
Steps 1 through 12 of the Common Development Review Procedures ([Art. 2, § 2.1
through 2.12], inclusive).”
ANSWER: Solitaire admits only that LUC Art. 2, § 11.2 contains, among other
things, the excerpt quoted.
44. Per LUC Art. 2, § 2.12, unless the City is the applicant, appeals of the
Director’s or other decision maker’s final decision shall be appealed to the P&Z Board.
ANSWER: Paragraph 44 states a legal conclusion to which Solitaire is not
required to respond. If and to the extent paragraph 44 contains factual allegations to which
Solitaire would be required to respond, Solitaire denies each and every allegation
contained in paragraph 44.
45. Despite LUC Art. 2, § 11.2 and 2.12, the appeal was taken by the Council
and scheduled for August 16, 2022. See the “Appeal Notice,” attached with this Complaint
as Exhibit F.
ANSWER: Paragraph 45 states a legal conclusion to which Solitaire is not
required to respond. If and to the extent paragraph 45 contains factual allegations to which
Solitaire would be required to respond, Solitaire denies the allegations contained in
paragraph 45, except to admit only that the Council took the appeal and scheduled the
appeal for August 16, 2022. Solitaire is without knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief regarding the contents of Exhibit F, and therefore denies the allegation.
46. In the Notice of Appeal, the appellants asserted that, among other things,
the Hearing Officer improperly interpreted the LUC.
ANSWER: Solitaire denies the accuracy of the matters asserted, and admits
only that Plaintiffs made them as alleged in paragraph 46.
47. The appeal hearing was held at City Hall in front of the Council on August
16, 2022 (the “Appellate Hearing”).
ANSWER: Solitaire admits the allegations contained in paragraph 47.
48. At the Appellate Hearing, the Council heard from the appellants and the
Developer and asked a series of questions, many of which centered around a development
built in 1970 located at 155 Briarwood Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80521, known as the
“Ramblewood Apartments.”
ANSWER: Solitaire denies the allegations contained in paragraph 48, except to
admit only that (a) at the Appellate Hearing, the Council heard from the appellants and
the Developer, and (b) the Council asked questions, some of which concerned the
Ramblewood Apartments, located at 155 Briarwood Rd, Fort Collins, CO 80521.
49. Though the Ramblewood Apartments are in the NWSAP area within city
limits, it was developed and built on or before 1970, well before the creation and adoption
of the NWSAP and was used by the Developer and the City as a comparable development
upon which their analysis was based. See “Appellate Hearing Minutes,” attached with this
Complaint as Exhibit G.
ANSWER: Solitaire denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph
49, except (a) to admit only that the Ramblewood Apartments are in the NWSAP area
within city limits, those apartments were built on or before 1970, 1970 is before the creation
and adoption of the NWSAP, and those apartments were one of the developments the
Developer and the City used as a comparable development upon which they based their
respective analyses, and (b) to state that Solitaire is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the contents of Exhibit G, and therefore denies
that allegation.
50. During the Appellate Hearing, Council member Ohlson stated that the City
should avoid creating any additional subarea plans as they are not followed or observed
and that the intent of the NWSAP was to keep things as they are in the area. See Exhibit
G, pg. 15.
ANSWER: Solitaire denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph
50, except to admit only that the minutes from the Council of the City of Fort Collins’
August 16, 2022 Regular Meeting include, among other things, language that
Councilmember Ohlson “desire[d] to stop doing these subarea plans because they are
often not respected.”
51. Several Council members stated that the LUC takes precedence over the
NWSAP and that the LUC is the regulatory framework for which to review all development,
implying that any subarea plan is to be disregarded if the Hearing Officer is unable to
reconcile the same. Id.
ANSWER: Solitaire denies each and every allegation contained in
paragraph 51, except to admit only that the minutes from the Council of the City of Fort
Collins’ August 16, 2022 Regular Meeting indicate that, among other things, Mayor Arndt
stated that the Land Use Code takes precedence, and that Mayor Pro Tem Francis stated
that the Land Use Code is the regulatory framework that must be followed.
52. During the Appellate Hearing, Council member Gutowsky stated that the
Hearing was unfair and that the Hearing Officer was unqualified to render such a decision.
Id.
ANSWER: Solitaire denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph
52, except to admit only that the minutes from the Council of the City of Fort Collins’
August 16, 2022 Regular Meeting include, among other things, language that
Councilmember Gutowsky “did not feel it was a fair hearing.”
53. The City failed to comply with LUC Art. 2, § 11.2, wherein appeals of
administrative decisions are to be heard by the P&Z Board.
ANSWER: Paragraph 53 states a legal conclusion to which Solitaire is not
required to respond. If and to the extent paragraph 53 contains factual allegations to which
Solitaire would be required to respond, Solitaire denies each and every allegation
contained in paragraph 53.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Judicial Review Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4))
54. The allegations above are incorporated herein by reference.
ANSWER: Solitaire incorporates by reference all of its responses to the
preceding paragraphs 1-53 of the Complaint as if set forth fully here.
55. C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) provides for a district court to review a final, quasi-
judicial decision of a government agency.
ANSWER: Paragraph 55 states a legal conclusion to which Solitaire is not
required to respond. If and to the extent paragraph 55 contains factual allegations to which
Solitaire would be required to respond, Solitaire admits only that C.R.C.P. 106 provides
for district court review of certain governmental decisions.
56. The Council reached a final, quasi-judicial decision on September 6, 2022.
ANSWER: Solitaire denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph
56, except to admit only that on September 6, 2022 the Council issued resolution 2022-
095.
57. The City’s appointment of the Hearing Officer to preside over the Hearing and
make a determination of findings regarding the Amended Plan failed to comply with the
LUC and therefore, the appointment thereof was wrong and exceeded the City’s authority
and jurisdiction.
ANSWER: Paragraph 57 states a legal conclusion to which Solitaire is not
required to respond. If and to the extent paragraph 57 contains factual allegations to which
Solitaire would be required to respond, Solitaire denies each and every allegation
contained in paragraph 57.
58. The Notice of Appeal being taken and heard by the Council failed to comply
with the LUC, specifically because the LUC requires such appeal to be held in front of the
P&Z Board, and therefore, the Appellate Hearing and decision made by the Council
exceeded their jurisdiction.
ANSWER: Paragraph 58 states a legal conclusion to which Solitaire is not
required to respond. If and to the extent paragraph 58 contains factual allegations to which
Solitaire would be required to respond, Solitaire denies each and every allegation
contained in paragraph 58.
59. The Hearing Officer and the Council failed to properly interpret the LUC and
failed to implement the NWSAP into their analysis of the Amended Plan and therefore,
abused their discretion and/or exceeded their authority by wrongfully approving the
Amended Plan.
ANSWER: Paragraph 59 states a legal conclusion to which Solitaire is not
required to respond. If and to the extent paragraph 59 contains factual allegations to which
Solitaire would be required to respond, Solitaire denies each and every allegation
contained in paragraph 59.
60. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law.
ANSWER: Paragraph 60 states a legal conclusion to which Solitaire is not
required to respond. If and to the extent paragraph 60 contains factual allegations to which
Solitaire would be required to respond, Solitaire denies each and every allegation
contained in paragraph 60.
61. Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4), which is the exclusive remedy for reviewing
quasi-judicial decisions, the City and the Council exceeded their jurisdiction and abused
their discretion in appointing the Hearing Officer, interpreting the LUC, approving the
Amended Plan, and in the Council taking and presiding over the Appellate Hearing.
ANSWER: Paragraph 61 states a legal conclusion to which Solitaire is not
required to respond. If and to the extent paragraph 61 contains factual allegations to which
Solitaire would be required to respond, Solitaire denies each and every allegation
contained in paragraph 61.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Declaratory Judgment Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 57 and C.R.S. § 13-51-101, et. seq.)
62. The allegations above are incorporated herein by reference.
ANSWER: Solitaire incorporates by reference all of its responses to the
preceding paragraphs 1-61 of the Complaint as if set forth fully here.
63. This Court has the power to declare rights, obligations, and other legal
relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed.
ANSWER: Paragraph 63 states a legal conclusion to which Solitaire is not
required to respond. If and to the extent paragraph 63 contains factual allegations to which
Solitaire would be required to respond, Solitaire admits only that C.R.C.P. 57 and C.R.S.
§ 13-51-101, et. seq., include, among other things, language that courts may declare
rights, status, and other legal relations.
64. A controversy exists with respect to Plaintiffs’ procedural and substantive
due process rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution, which were denied, as well as Plaintiffs’ rights under the LUC and other
applicable law, code and regulations.
ANSWER: Paragraph 64 states a legal conclusion to which Solitaire is not
required to respond. If and to the extent paragraph 64 contains factual allegations to which
Solitaire would be required to respond, Solitaire denies each and every allegation
contained in paragraph 64.
65. Further relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted
whenever necessary and proper.
ANSWER: Paragraph 65 states a legal conclusion to which Solitaire is not
required to respond. If and to the extent paragraph 45 contains factual allegations to which
Solitaire would be required to respond, Solitaire admits only that C.R.C.P. 57 states that,
among other things, further relief based on a declaratory judgment may be granted
whenever necessary or proper.
After paragraph 65, Plaintiffs assert a prayer for relief. Solitaire denies that
Plaintiffs are entitled to any such relief.
Solitaire denies each and every allegation that it does not specifically admit
above.
SOLITAIRE’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
First Defense
Plaintiffs’ claims fail to state a claim on which this Court can grant relief.
Second Defense
Plaintiffs’ claims against Solitaire fail, in whole or in part, under the doctrine of
estoppel.
Third Defense
Plaintiffs’ claims against Solitaire fail, in whole or in part, under the doctrine of
waiver.
WHEREFORE, Solitaire respectfully request that this Court enter the following
judgment:
1. Judgment be entered in Solitaire’s favor and against Plaintiffs;
2. Plaintiffs take nothing;
3. Solitaire be awarded its costs, expenses and reasonable attorneys’ fees
incurred in defending Plaintiffs’ claims; and
4. Such other just and equitable relief as the Court deems appropriate.
Dated: October 31, 2022
Respectfully submitted,
Ballard Spahr LLP
/s/ Andrew J Petrie
Andrew J. Petrie, #11416
Andrew Valencia, #54691
1225 17th St., Ste. 2300
Denver, CO 80202
petriea@ballardspahr.com
valenciaa@ballardspahr.com
Counsel for Solitaire Homes East, LLC
and Solitaire Homes, LLC
24
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 31, 2022, the foregoing ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO C.R.C.P. 106
was filed via the Courts electronic notification system, which will send notification of
same to all counsel of record.
/s/ Brandon Blessing