The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022CV30661 - Sanctuary Field Neighborhood Network, et al, v. Council of the City of Fort Collins - 006 - City's Answer to Complaint 11.01.20221 11/1/2022 Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS\LITIGATION\SANCTUARY\PLEADINGS\ANSWER-110122-FINAL.DOCX DISTRICT COURT, LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO 201 La Porte Ave., Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 ▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲ Plaintiffs: SANCTUARY FIELD NEIGHBORHOOD NETWORK, a Colorado nonprofit corporation; and MIRANDA SPINDEL, v. Defendants: COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO. Attorneys for Defendant: Attorney: Corey Y. Hoffmann, No. 24920 Katharine J. Vera, No. 53995 Firm: Hoffmann, Parker, Wilson & Carberry, P.C. 511 16th Street, Suite 610 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 825-6444 E-mail: cyh@hpwclaw.com kjv@hpwclaw.com Case No.: 2022CV30661 Division: 5A ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR JUDICIAL RELIEF PURSUANT TO C.R.C.P. 106 Defendant, Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado ("City Council" or "Defendant"), through counsel, Hoffmann, Parker, Wilson & Carberry, P.C., hereby submits the following Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint for Judicial Review Pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106 (the "Complaint"). PARTIES, VENUE AND JURISDICTION 1. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint regarding the identity of the Plaintiff, and therefore denies the same. Defendant admits that Exhibit A is a copy of the Northwest Subarea Plan as adopted by Resolution 2006-120 on December 19, 2006. To the extent not specifically admitted herein, Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 1. 2. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegation contained in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same. 3. Defendant admits the allegation in Paragraph 3. DATE FILED: November 1, 2022 3:40 PM FILING ID: B45A968EBF375 CASE NUMBER: 2022CV30661 2 11/1/2022 Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS\LITIGATION\SANCTUARY\PLEADINGS\ANSWER-110122-FINAL.DOCX 4. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 4 to the extent the allegations reference provisions of the City of Fort Collins Municipal Code (the "Code") and the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (the "LUC"). The remaining allegations in Paragraph 4 are denied. 5. Defendant admits the Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106, and affirmatively states that Plaintiffs have failed to name an indispensable party as required under C.R.C.P. 19. 6. Defendant admits the allegation in Paragraph 6. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 7. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 7 that the City through the City Council has adopted the LUC, and affirmatively states that the provisions of the LUC speak for themselves. 8. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 8 to the extent Paragraph 8 alleges that the LUC governs land use and the process for land use review, and Defendant affirmatively states that the provisions of the LUC speak for themselves. All assertions inconsistent with the LUC are hereby denied. 9. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 9 to the extent Paragraph 9 alleges that the Northwest Subarea Plan ("NWSAP") identifies certain planning and development priorities, and Defendant affirmatively states that the provisions of the NWSAP speak for themselves. All assertions inconsistent with the NWSAP are hereby denied. 10. The allegation in Paragraph 10 is prefatory in nature and does not require a response, but to the extent that a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 11. The allegation in Paragraph 11 is prefatory in nature and does not require a response, but to the extent that a response is required, Defendant denies the same. 12. The allegation in Paragraph 12 is prefatory in nature and does not require a response. While the terms and provisions of the LUC speak for themselves, Defendant has not cited to an actual provision of the LUC—there is no Article 2, Section 1.3 of the LUC. To the extent any response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint. 13. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 13. Plaintiffs misstate their reference to the City's Planning and Zoning Commission as the Planning and Zoning Board in this paragraph and throughout the Complaint. Defendant affirmatively states that the Planning and Zoning Commission did not meet on July 17, 2021; however, it met on June 17, 2021, to hold a hearing on Solitaire Fort Collins, LLC's (the "Developer") initial plan. 14. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 14. 3 11/1/2022 Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS\LITIGATION\SANCTUARY\PLEADINGS\ANSWER-110122-FINAL.DOCX 15. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same. 16. Defendant admits the allegation in Paragraph 16, to the extent Paragraph 16 alleges that multi-family housing was no longer included in the Amended Plan and that the Amended Plan was designated as PDP 210018. Defendant affirmatively states that the Amended Plan included other components including without limitation changing two-family homes to single-family attached homes, adjusting the Natural Habitat Buffer Zones, and changing the designation of a clubhouse to a neighborhood center. To the extent not specifically admitted herein, Defendant denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 16. 17. Defendant admits the Amended Plan proceeded through an administrative review process because it was subject to a Type I review, affirmatively states that there is no Article 2, Section 1.3 of the LUC, and therefore denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 17 18. Defendant is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint and therefore denies the same. 19. Defendant admits the allegation in Paragraph 19. 20. Defendant admits the allegation in Paragraph 20. 21. Defendant admits the allegation in Paragraph 21 and affirmatively states that Section 1.4.9(E) of the LUC authorizes the delegation of the Director's decision making authority to an attorney with experience in land use matters. 22. As to the allegation in Paragraph 22, Defendant admits that the Hearing Officer was not employed by the City, and affirmatively states that the Hearing Officer was assigned to the Hearing as a result of a delegation of the Director's authority under Section 1.4.9(E) of the LUC. 23. As to the allegation in Paragraph 23, the Defendant states that the terms and provisions of the LUC speak for themselves and affirmatively states that there is no Article 2, Section 2.7(A)(1) of the LUC. To the extent any response is required, Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 23. 24. As to the allegation in Paragraph 24, the Defendant states that the terms and provisions of the LUC speak for themselves and affirmatively states that there is no Article 2, Section 1.1 of the LUC. To the extent any response is required, Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 24. 25. As to the allegation in Paragraph 25, the Defendant states that the terms and provisions of the LUC speak for themselves and affirmatively states that there is no Article 2, Section 1.2 of the LUC. To the extent any response is required, Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 25. 4 11/1/2022 Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS\LITIGATION\SANCTUARY\PLEADINGS\ANSWER-110122-FINAL.DOCX 26. As to the allegations in Paragraph 26, the Defendant states that the terms and provisions of the LUC speak for themselves and affirmatively states that there is no Section 2 of the LUC. Defendant also states that Section 1.4.9(E) of the LUC authorizes the delegation of the Director's decision making authority to a hearing officer. To the extent not specifically admitted herein, Defendant denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint 27. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 27. 28. Defendant admits the allegation in Paragraph 28 that the Notice of Hearing was mailed on or about April 13, 2022, and denies the remainder of the allegations of Paragraph 28. 29. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 29 and affirmatively states that there is no Article 2, Section 2.5 of the LUC. 30. Defendant admits the allegation in Paragraph 30. 31. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 31 and affirmatively states that there is no Article 2, Section 2.7(D)(1) of the LUC. 32. Defendant admits the allegation in Paragraph 32 and affirmatively states that the Hearing Officer issued his determination in accordance with the requirements of the LUC. 33. As to the allegations in Paragraph 33, Defendant states that the cited excerpts of the Hearing Officer's findings speak for themselves. To the extent any response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 33 because they are incomplete and do not reflect the Hearing Officer's full findings. 34. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 34, Defendant affirmatively states that the provisions of the NWSAP speak for themselves. Furthermore, Defendant affirmatively states that the provisions of the LUC govern development in the City of Fort Collins. Defendant further states that the NWSAP also provides that the area reflects an eclectic mix of styles and types of development where neighborhoods vary in type, density, design, and age of housing. Plaintiff's Exhibit A, p.4. To the extent not specifically admitted herein, Defendant denies the remainder of the allegations contained in Paragraph 34. 35. As to the allegations in Paragraph 35, Defendant affirmatively states the NWSAP speaks for itself. While the NWSAP may provide guidance to land uses, activities, and density levels, it is not regulatory. Plaintiff's Exhibit A, p. 49-50. To the extent not specifically admitted herein, Defendant denies remainder of the allegations contained in Paragraph 35. 36. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 36, Defendant states the Council Resolution speaks for itself. To the extent that any response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 36. 5 11/1/2022 Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS\LITIGATION\SANCTUARY\PLEADINGS\ANSWER-110122-FINAL.DOCX 37. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 37, and affirmatively states that there is no Article 1, Section 2.2 of the LUC. 38. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 38, and affirmatively states that there is no Article 1, Section 2.4 of the LUC. 39. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 39, and affirmatively states that there is no Article 4, Section 5(A) of the LUC. 40. The allegations contained in Paragraph 40 are legal argument for which no response is required, and to the extent any response is required, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 40. 41. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 41. 42. Defendant admits that a Notice of Appeal was filed on a form provided by the City on May 31, 2022, by several individuals who asserted they were parties-in-interest, denies the reminder of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 42, and affirmatively states that there is no Article 2, Section 11.2 of the LUC 43. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 43, and affirmatively states that there is no Article 2, Section 11.2 of the LUC. 44. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 44, and affirmatively states that there is no Article 2, Section 2.12 of the LUC. 45. Defendant admits that an appeal was taken by the City Council and scheduled for August 16, 2022, denies the remainder of the allegation set forth in Paragraph 45, and affirmatively states that there is no Article 2, Section 11.2 or Section 2.12 of the LUC. 46. Defendant admits the allegation in Paragraph 46 that the appellants asserted in their Notice of Appeal that the Hearing Officer improperly interpreted the LUC. Defendant denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 46. 47. Defendant admits the allegation in Paragraph 47. 48. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 48 that the City Council heard from the appellants' and the Developer's representatives and that City Council members asked questions, including but without limitation, some questions that concerned "Ramblewood Apartments." Defendant denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 48. 49. As to the allegations in Paragraph 49, Defendant states that there is competent evidence in the record to support the City Council's finding that the Hearing Officer properly interpreted and applied relevant provisions of the LUC in accordance with the project 6 11/1/2022 Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS\LITIGATION\SANCTUARY\PLEADINGS\ANSWER-110122-FINAL.DOCX development plan review procedures in the LUC. To the extent not specifically admitted herein, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 49. 50. As to the allegation in Paragraph 50, Defendant states that the Council Hearing minutes speak for themselves. To the extent that any response is required, Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 50. 51. As to the allegation in Paragraph 51, Defendant states that the Council Hearing minutes speak for themselves and denies that the Council members' comments implied that any subarea plan should be disregarded. To the extent not specifically admitted herein, Defendant denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 51. 52. As to the allegation in Paragraph 52, Defendant states that the Council Hearing minutes speak for themselves, and that Council Member Gutowsky was the only member of City Council who voted against the finding that the Hearing Officer conducted a fair hearing. To the extent not specifically admitted herein, Defendant denies the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 52. 53. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 53 and affirmatively states that City Council had the authority under Sections 2.47 and 2.48 of the City Code of Fort Collins, and inherent authority, to hear the appeal. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 54. Defendant adopts and incorporates all responses by reference as set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 53, inclusive. 55. Defendant admits the allegation in Paragraph 55. 56. Defendant admits the allegation in Paragraph 56. 57. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 57. 58. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 58. 59. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 59. 60. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 60. 61. Defendant denies the allegation in Paragraph 61. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 62. Defendant adopts and incorporates all responses by reference as set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 61, inclusive. 7 11/1/2022 Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS\LITIGATION\SANCTUARY\PLEADINGS\ANSWER-110122-FINAL.DOCX 63. Defendant admits the allegation in Paragraph 63. 64. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 64. 65. Defendant admits the allegation in Paragraph 65, but denies that declaratory judgment or decree is necessary or proper in this case. GENERAL DENIAL In addition to the specific responses asserted above, Defendant denies each and every allegation not specifically admitted herein. ANSWER TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF Defendant denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any of the relief requested in their Prayer for Relief, and therefore, denies all allegations and requests for relief contained therein. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the fact that the City Council's decision to affirm the Hearing Officer's findings was based on a review of the relevant provisions in the LUC and supported by competent evidence in the record. 3. Plaintiffs' claims are barred as Defendant did not exceed its jurisdiction or abuse its discretion. 4. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) because Plaintiffs have failed to name an indispensable party as required by C.R.C.P. 19. 5. Plaintiffs' claims are barred or limited by the Court's lack of jurisdiction. 6. Plaintiffs' claim for declaratory judgment is barred by the fact that Rule 106(a)(4) is the exclusive remedy for challenging a quasi-judicial decision of a governmental body. 8 11/1/2022 Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS\LITIGATION\SANCTUARY\PLEADINGS\ANSWER-110122-FINAL.DOCX REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Court enter judgment in its favor, and against Plaintiffs, for Defendant's attorney's fees and costs, and for any such relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated this 1st day of November 2022. HOFFMANN, PARKER, WILSON & CARBERRY, P.C. By: Corey Y. Hoffmann Katharine J. Vera ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 9 11/1/2022 Q:\USERS\FORT COLLINS\LITIGATION\SANCTUARY\PLEADINGS\ANSWER-110122-FINAL.DOCX CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this 1st day of November 2022, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR JUDICIAL RELIEF PURSUANT TO C.R.C.P. 106 to be served via CCES, electronic mail, and/or U.S. mail on the following: Frascona, Joiner, Goodman and Greenstein, P.C. Andrew Pipes 4750 Table Mesa Drive Boulder, CO 80305-5500 Attorney for Plaintiffs Jenny Latta, Legal Assistant