HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022CV30661 - Sanctuary Field Neighborhood Network, et al, v. Council of the City of Fort Collins - 017 - Solitaire's Answer BriefDMFIRM #406945129 v2
DISTRICT 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; and
Intervenors Solitaire Homes East, LLC and
Solitaire Homes, LLC COURT USE ONLY
Counsel for Intervenors, 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 5A Courtroom
SOLITAIRE’S ANSWER BRIEF
Solitaire Homes East, LLC and Solitaire Homes, LLC (collectively, “Solitaire”)
submit their C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4)(VII) Answer Brief and response to Plaintiffs’ Opening
Brief. Solitaire also adopts all of the arguments of the Council of the City of Fort Collins
(“Council”).
2
SUMMARY OF POSITION
Plaintiffs bring two challenges to the application for the Sanctuary on the Green
Development (“Application”).1 While the Northwest Subarea Plan (“NWSAP”) on which
they hang their hats expressly contemplates that future developments in the area “may
be larger in scale than past developments and could be very different in character from
existing neighborhoods” and notes it is not possible to keep all open land in that state,
Plaintiffs ignore both and bring their challenges as not-in-my-backyard complainers.
Their challenges lack support in the Record facts and applicable law.
Proving the error of the first challenge, the Application and Record set forth the
name of the applicant, the owner and manager of the development, as well as the
record title holders, which together have the required “power, authority, clear title, good
standing, qualifications and ability to carry out the development” as required by the City
of Fort Collins Land Use Code (“LUC”) Art. 2 div. 2.2.3(C)(1). The Director that
considered the Application and materials the applicants submitted, using the discretion
the LUC affords him, determined the Application was complete and satisfied the
requirements of the LUC. Plaintiffs’ assertion that the City abused its discretion when
approving the development because the applicant was not the listed property owner is
an irrelevant aside in which they misinterpret the LUC and seek to supplant the
Director’s discretion to determine the completeness of the Application.
Contrary to the settled, and repeated, position of the Colorado Supreme Court,
Plaintiffs’ second challenge seeks to elevate the broad advisory statements of the
NWSAP master plan to the level of a zoning regulation where it lacks the required
1 Plaintiffs include the Application as Exhibit A to their Opening Brief.
3
specificity. The City’s Land Use Code (“LUC”) provides the governing regulations, and,
consistent with the express comments of the NWSAP, applies its Low Density Mixed-
Use (L-M-N) zoning classification to the Property and Application. Thus, the Hearing
Officer and the Council properly determined the Application complied with the LUC, and
the NWSAP did not provide the required specificity to regulate development in the City.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Solitaire Fort Collins Applies for City Approval for the Sanctuary on the
Green Development Project
1. On November 5, 2021, Solitaire Fort Collins, LLC (“Solitaire Fort Collins”),
and Sam Coutts of Ripley Design, Inc., as applicant, submitted to the City of Fort Collins
the Application for the development of Sanctuary on the Green (Project Development
Plan #PDP210018).2 R, pp 6, 997.3 Sanctuary on the Green is a proposed housing
development located near the northwest corner of N. Taft Hill Road and LaPorte
Avenue on 41.34 acres zoned for residential use (the “Property”). R, pp 18, 62.
2. The Application proposes a total of 212 dwelling units with a maximum
density of 5.13 dwelling units per gross acre. R, p 62. The development will include
three housing types, outdoor amenity areas, walking and biking paths that connect to
existing neighboring streets and existing trails, open space, natural habitat buffering, as
well as a neighborhood center and small park. Id. In addition, 24.08 acres (or over 58%
2 Solitaire Fort Collins and Ripley Design, Inc. previously submitted PDP
application no. PDP190003 for Sanctuary on the Green, but subsequently withdrew the
application and submitted the substantially different Application. R, p 19.
3 Solitaire uses “R” to refer to the record on this appeal, and follows the record
citation formatting in the August 4, 2017 Policy on Citation to the Record,
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Court_Of_Appeals/Record
%20Citation%20Policy%208-4-17.pdf
4
of the development) are devoted to open and wetland areas with native grasses, as well
as wetland restoration and pollinator gardens, with the net result of open land that is of
higher habitat value than what currently exists. R, p 63.
3. The land parcel numbers associated with the project are parcel
nos. 9709104001, 9709104002, and 9709103020 (the “Property”)—references to the
Larimer County property records. R, pp 62, 997.
4. The Property is zoned L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use. R, pp 62-3.
Plaintiffs admit the L-M-N zoning properly applies to the Property. Pls.’ Br. at 12. They
also acknowledge the purpose of the L-M-N zoning, as set forth in LUC § 4.4.5, is to
ensure that property is “developed and operated in harmony with the residential
characteristics of a neighborhood.” Id. Property zoned L-M-N may have a density of up
to nine (9) dwelling units per gross acre. R, p 26; LUC Art. 4 div. 4.5.
5. Under Solitaire’s Application, the Property would have an overall
maximum density of 5.13 dwellings units per gross acre and a net density of 7.13
dwelling units per acre. R, p 63.
B. The Advisory Guidelines of the Northwest Subarea Plan
6. The Property falls within the boundaries of the NWSAP, which the City
adopted as part of the City Plan. R, 2030. When promulgated in December 2006, the
NWSAP provided broad guidelines for future development in the Growth Management
Area (“GMA”), including how the City would handle development in areas that were at
that time unincorporated Larimer County but would later be annexed to the City. R,
pp 1936, 1940.
5
7. The NWSAP expressly validates the City’s approval of this development
under the L-M-N zoning category. The NWSAP recommended that, when the City
annexed property located within the GMA, it change the zoning to L-M-N. R, p 1941.4
Looking across LaPorte Ave. to the south of the Property, the NWSAP notes:
Since there was not a consensus among residents of the area, this Plan
recommends no changes to the Land Use Code zoning, use and
development standards in this area. The LMN allows an overall residential
density of up to 8 dwelling units per acre . . . . A variety of housing types are
allowed.
R, p 2028. And, more generally, “[t]he [NWSAP] recommends that the density for L-M-N
zoned properties within the subarea should not exceed ‘8 units per acre overall.’” R,
pp 26, 1940.
8. Recognizing the unreasonable nature of what Plaintiffs are attempting
here in seeking to keep the Property as open space, in the Overview for the Land Use
and Neighborhoods section, the NWSAP expressly comments:
Some future development is likely to occur in the Northwest Subarea. Most
of the area is currently planned and zoned for very low or low density
development (on City Structure Plan and Existing City/County zoning).
While residents have indicated interest in keeping vacant and
agricultural properties “open,” it is not possible to conserve all lands.
Therefore, as new development occurs, it should be of low intensity to be
compatible with the diversity and semi-rural feel of the area.
R, p 1957 (bold added). Importantly, it recognizes compatible development does not
mean identical to existing development: “As new development occurs, subdivisions may
4 When the NWSAP was implemented in December 2006, the Property was
located in the GMA. The NWSAP specifically recognizes: “Larger parcels will be zoned,
upon annexation, as Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) allowing up to eight
(8) units per acre . . . .” R, p 1941.
6
be larger in scale than past developments and could be very different in character from
existing neighborhoods.” R, p 1968.
9. While the NWSAP provides guidance for new development, it is merely an
advisory document. It repeatedly states that it is providing goals; not mandates:
“This Plan includes goals and policies for retaining and restoring corridors
for recreation and wildlife movement; including along canals, ditches, and
Soldier Creek . . . .” R, p 1928;
“Subdivisions and neighborhoods have filled in over the years, resulting in
an eclectic mix of styles and types of development intermixed with fields
and farms. . . . This Plan provides guidance to new development through
the Framework Plan, residential design guidelines, and various goals and
policies, as to the desired future location, density, and site and building
characteristics.” Id. at 4;
“The Plan provides guidelines for how new development can be designed
to fit the character of the area.” Id. at 5;
The Framework Plan provides “policies” to address development
proposals and should be used with “guidelines for designing context-
sensitive developments” Id. at 11, 43; and
In setting forth guidelines for development and residential design in the
northwest area, the Plan states: “The guidelines, as part of the Plan, are
not mandatory at his time.” Id. at 43.
C. The Hearing Officer Approved the Application
10. On May 2, 2022, a Type 1 Administrative Hearing was held to consider the
Application. R, p 19.
11. On May 16, 2022, the administrative officer issued a written opinion
approving the Application, with two modifications (the “Hearing Officer’s Decision”). Id.
The Hearing Officer’s Decision incorporated the Development Review Staff Report,
which recommended approval of the Application, as well as recognized input from the
general public. R, pp 999, 1002-1003.
7
12. In the Hearing Officer’s Decision, the Hearing Officer made a number of
findings, including:
“Where a development plan meets all of the applicable zoning
requirements, a decisions maker [sic] may not prevent the development by
relying on extraneous considerations. See, e.g., Cherry Hills Resort Dev.
Co. v. City of Cherry Hills Village, 790 P.2d 827, 832 (Colo. 1990).” R,
p 1003 ¶ B;
“PDP[210018] satisfies all applicable requirements of Article 3 and Article
4 of the LUC ….” Id.;
“Although the [NWSAP] evidence[s] an intent that the Northwest Subarea
continue to be a ‘low density residential area at the edge of Fort Collins
with stable neighborhoods’ and that such neighborhoods be protected
from ‘incompatible development,’ the [NWSAP] lacks sufficient guidance
as to how to alleviate negative effects caused by development which
otherwise complies with City zoning regulations (in this case the
applicable provisions of Article 3 and Article 4 of the LUC, including the
City’s Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District regulations. R,
p 1004 ¶ C (citation omitted; fn omitted);
“The Hearing Officer concludes the [NWSAP] lacks sufficient guidelines
or standards on which to deny the PDP for the Project.” Id.;
“The PDP complies with the applicable procedural and administrative
requirements of Article 2 of LUC,” and was complete as of November 5,
2021. R, pp 1004 ¶ E, 1025;
“[T]he PDP complies with the standards contained in Article 3 of the LUC
as more specifically set forth in the Staff Report….” R, p 1006 ¶ H;
“[T]he PDP complies with the standards contained in Article 4, Division 4.5
of the LUC (Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District standards) as
more specifically set forth in the Staff Report….” R, p 1007 ¶ J; and
“The PDP will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code
Section 1.2.2 by: (a) encouraging the development of vacant properties
within established areas, and (b) increasing access to sidewalks, trails,
and bicycle routes.” R, p 1007 ¶ iii.
13. The City’s Staff Report, R, p 1010, et seq., considered the interplay of the
NWSAP and Application in detail, finding that:
“[T]he PDP meets the objectives outlined in the [NWSAP]….” R, 1016;
8
“[T]his PDP was referred to Larimer County’s Planning Department …
however they elected not to provide a formal review and responded with
no comments.” R, p 1016;
For L-M-N zoned properties, the NWSAP does not provide guidelines
other than the Framework Plan found in Chapter 3 of the NWSAP and
identification of L-M-N zoning requirements, while suggesting a slightly
reduced density of 8 units per overall acre; R, p 1018;
“The Framework Plan provides guidance to land uses, activities, and
density levels, but it is not regulatory. It is to be used in conjunction
with City and County zoning and development standards.” R, p 1019
(bold added);
“[T]o comply with the subarea plan, the development needs to meet the
L-M-N zoning requirements and city standards. In past appeals to City
Council of development decisions, City Council has reinforced that
the Land Use Code takes precedence over the Subarea Plan policy
guidance.” R, p 1019 (bold added);
Property zoned L-M-N within the Northwest Subarea Plan (NWSAP) may
be up to 8 units per acre overall. R, p 1020;
The NWSAP does not have specific guidelines for L-M-N. “For L-M-N, the
specific guidance is to follow the zoning standards and also to limit the
density to 8 units per acre overall.” R, p 1021;
The Application has a maximum density of 5.13 dwellings per gross acre
and 7.13 dwellings per net (or overall) acre, R, p 1053. Both meet the
minimum and maximum density requirements. Id.;
The Application complies with LUC Art. 2 div. 2.2 – Common Development
Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 –
Administration. R, p 1058; and
The Application “complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.5
(L-M-N) Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District of Article 4 –
Districts, subject to approval of the two Modification Standards.” R,
p 1059.
D. The City Council Properly Denied Plaintiffs’ Appeal
14. Plaintiffs appealed the Hearing Officer’s Decision and the Council heard
that appeal on August 16, 2022. R, pp 1454-69. The Council denied each of Plaintiffs’
seven arguments, including Plaintiffs’ assertion that the Hearing Officer failed to
9
properly interpret and apply LUC Art. 4 div. 4.5.D.1 concerning the application of L-M-N
and NWSAP density standards. In doing so, Mayor Arndt confirmed that “the Land Use
Code takes precedence [over the NWSAP] and therefore she will not find in support [of]
the appeal.” R, pp 1468, 2070, at ln 13-14. Similarly, Mayor Pro Tem Francis “stated her
finding that the Land Use Code is the regulatory framework that must be followed in
evaluating the project.” Id., 2070, at ln 20-21.
15. Several Councilmembers voiced like opinions:
Councilmember Pignataro: “I do not see any issues with what the Hearing
officer did.” R, p 2068.
Councilmember Peel: the Application “follows the letter of the law of the
Subarea Plan and the Land Use Code,” the developer “designed a fit that
is the best possible fit,” and “the Hearing Officer followed the intent of the
Subarea Plan….[and] the Land Use Code.” R, p 2068.
Councilmember Canonico: “I do believe that the Hearing Officer complied
with [the] Land Use Code and that this was … there was nothing wrong
with the way the hearing was conducted, it was fair, and I will uphold the
application as well.” R, p 2069.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Judicial review under C.R.C.P. is “strictly ‘limited to a determination of whether
the [lower judicial] body or officer has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion,
based on the evidence in the record before the defendant body or officer.’” Friends of
the Black Forest Pres. Plan, Inc. v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 2016 COA 54, ¶ 12 (quoting
C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4)(1)). An abuse of discretion occurs when the government body’s
decision “is not reasonably supported by any competent evidence in the record or if the
governmental body … misconstrued or misapplied applicable law.” Id. “[A]ll reasonable
doubts as to the correctness of an administrative ruling must be resolved in favor of the
agency,” and the challenging party must overcome the presumption that “the agency’s
10
acts were proper.” City & Cty. of Denver v. Bd. of Adjustment, 55 P.3d 252, 254 (Colo.
App. 2002).
Sitting as the reviewing court, this Court “must uphold the decision of the
governmental body ‘unless there is no competent evidence in the record to support it.’”
Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. O’Dell, 920 P.2d 48, 50 (Colo. 1996) (quoting Sellon v. City of
Manitou Springs, 745 P.2d 229, 235 (Colo. 1987)). A governmental body’s decision is
not supported by competent evidence only when it is “so devoid of evidentiary support
that it can only be explained as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority.” Id. In
zoning proceedings the “court is not the factfinder and may not substitute its own
judgment for that of a zoning board where competent evidence exists to support the
zoning board’s findings.” Id.
When considering whether the governmental body misconstrued or misapplied
the law, the reviewing court should “defer to the governmental body’s construction of its
statute, and if there is a reasonable basis for the governmental body’s interpretation of
the law, the reviewing court may not set aside the governmental body’s decision.”
Friends of the Black Forest, 2016 COA 54, ¶ 16 (citing Giuliani v. Jefferson Cty. Bd. of
Cty. Comm’rs, 2012 COA 190, ¶ 40). Indeed, a governmental body’s interpretation of
the code it is charged with administering is entitled to deference. Alpenhof, LLC v. City
of Ouray, 2013 CO 9, ¶ 10.
REASONS WHY PLAINTIFFS’ TWO CHALLENGES FAIL
A. The Application Complies with the LUC.
Both the applicant, Sam Coutts of Ripley Design Inc., and listed owner of the
Property and development, Solitaire Fort Collins, have the required power, authority,
11
and ability to submit and carry out the development contemplated by the Application.
Moreover, the Application materials and Record demonstrate that Solitaire, the
identified Property owner on whose behalf Solitaire Fort Collins proceeds, has clear title.
The Director’s subsequent determination that the Application was complete and their
approval of the Application confirms that is the case. Indeed, the LUC requires only that
an application and accompanying materials contain sufficient information, for the
director in his discretion, “to … determine whether or not the applicant, developer, or
owner have the requisite power, authority, clear title, good standing, qualifications, and
ability” to proceed with an application and development—it does not, however, require
that the applicant be the actual landowner.
Moreover, ownership of the development, as well as the Property, is readily
apparent from the materials the City reviewed and that are contained in the Record.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ argument that the Hearing Officer and Council misconstrued the
LUC and abused their discretion when they approved PDP 210018—asserting the
Application did not list the two record property owners—ignores the plain language of
the LUC and what the Record demonstrates, and is therefore without merit.
1. An Applicant, Developer, or Owner With the Required Standing and
Authority May Apply for Development Review and Approval.
LUC Art. 2 provides an overview of the City’s project development plan review
process. Under Art. 2 div. 2.2.3(A), the Director is responsible for establishing the form
of all development review applications. Article 2 div. 2.2.3(C)(1) further clarifies that the
Director shall establish a “master list of development application submittal
requirements,” while giving the Director authority to use their discretion and be flexible:
12
The master list shall … include a list of all information, data, explanations,
analysis, testing, reports, tables, graphics, maps, documents, forms, or other
items reasonably necessary, desirable, or convenient to (1) determine
whether or not the applicant, developer and/or owner have the requisite power,
authority, clear title, good standing, qualifications and ability to submit and carry
out the development and/or activities requested in the development of the
application ….
Id. (bold added). The Director may, in their absolute discretion, “waive items on the
master list that are not applicable due to the particular conditions and circumstances of
that development proposal.” Id. div. 2.2.3(C)(2).
The LUC makes clear that the Director’s focus is whether the applicant,
developer, or owner has the necessary power, authority, and title to the property to
carry out the proposed development. Thus, an applicant, developer, or owner may
proceed with an application and the contemplated development so long as one of them
satisfies LUC Art. 2 div. 2.2.3(C)(1) as the Director determines in their review. Id.
div. 2.4(A) (“the Director shall determine whether the application is complete and ready
for review.”). Contrary to Plaintiffs’ suggestion [Pls.’ Br. at 2, 8], the LUC does not
require that the applicant must be the land owner. Rather, the LUC requires only that
the applicant have the necessary standing and authority to proceed with the
contemplated development, and can show that the owner on whose behalf it is
proceeding has title.5
5 Emphasizing the applicant’s role as representative, the City’s Development
Application Complete Submittal Checklist defines applicant as “the designated contact
person who will receive correspondence from city staff and referral agencies.” [For
ease of reference, a true and correct copy of the City of Fort Collins Development
Application Complete Submittal Checklist, 1, is attached as Exhibit A].
13
2. Solitaire Fort Collins, the Owner, and Sam Coutts, the Applicant and
Land Planner, Have the Requisite Standing and Authority to Proceed
with the Development.
The Application lists Solitaire Fort Collins as the owner of the Property because it
is the entity charged with the management and oversight of the development project the
Application proposed to undertake. As the entity charged with managing the
development process, Solitaire Fort Collins undeniably has the requisite power,
authority, good standing, qualifications and ability to submit and carry out the
development of the Property. The Application and Record also demonstrate that
Solitaire, the landowning entities on whose behalf Solitaire Fort Collins proceeds, have
clear title. The Application therefore satisfies the requirements of LUC Art. 2
div. 2.2.3(C)(1).
The Application also lists Sam Coutts of Ripley Design Inc., as the applicant.
Solitaire Fort Collins designated Ripley Design and Sam Coutts as the lead land planner
for the project, and vested in them the necessary power and authority to oversee the
development of the Property and to be the designated contact for the City’s use.
The City, having reviewed the Application and determined the Application was
complete, proceeded with the development review process. In those different
circumstances where the Director determines an application is incomplete, the City puts
its review on hold until the Director receives the necessary information. LUC Art. 2 div.
2.4(B). Here, however, the City never put its review on hold. Rather, the City determined
the Application was complete, reviewed it and found it complied with LUC Art. 2 div. 2.2.
R, pp 1004, 1025, 1058.
14
3. The Record Disclosed the Ownership of the Property.
The Record clearly discloses Solitaire’s ownership of the Property and its clear
title.
The Hearing Officer’s Decision describes the 41.34 acre parcel of land to be
developed as parcel nos. 9709104001, 9709104002, and 9709103020—references to
the Larimer County property records. R, p 997. Those public records on which they and
the Council relied clearly identify Solitaire as the owner of the Property. Moreover, the
evidence considered by the hearing officer and Council included, among other things,
(1) the subdivision plat, and (2) the April 2022 letter from C. White, counsel for Solitaire,
both of which list Solitaire as the owner of the Property. R, 379, 505.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ argument that the Hearing Officer and Council abused
their discretion when they approved PDP 210018 because the Application did not list
the two record property owners ignores the totality of the facts in the Record and is
based on their misreading of the LUC.
B. Plaintiffs’ Arguments Asserting That the Hearing Officer and Council
Disregarded the NWSAP Mischaracterizes the Record of the Proceedings
Below, and Applicable Law.
Plaintiffs mischaracterize the record when they argue the Hearing Officer and
Council disregarded the NWSAP. What the Hearing Officer and Council did was
reconcile the LUC and the NWSAP by (1) applying the more specific of the two (the
LUC), promulgated by the City, the body the Legislature tasked with making zoning
regulations and decisions, and (2) observing the advisory NWSAP lacked sufficiently
specific guidelines to be enforceable as a zoning or land use regulation.
15
1. The Hearing Officer’s Findings
The Hearing Officer determined the Application complied with the LUC. R,
p 1004, ¶ C. He also found the NWSAP “lack[ed] sufficient guidance as to how to
alleviate negative effects caused by development which otherwise complies with [the
LUC].” Id. As a result, the Hearing Officer wrote, the NWSAP did not sufficiently provide
“all users and potential users of land with notice of the particular standards and
requirements imposed by the [City] for [development plan] approval.” Id. (citing Cherry
Hills Resort Dev. Co. v. City of Cherry Hills Village, 790 P.2d 827, 832 (Colo. 1990)).
The Council reached the same conclusion on appeal.
2. The LUC Controls Over the NWSAP
The Colorado Supreme Court holds that a master plan, such as the NWSAP, “is
only one source of comprehensive planning, and is generally held to be advisory only,”6
and is not necessarily binding upon the zoning discretion of the local government’s
zoning authority (or what it calls the “legislative body”). Theobald v. Bd. of Cty.
Comm’rs, 644 P.2d 942, 949 (Colo. 1982) (landowners not injured by purely advisory
master plan; noting they would be injured if county applied that master plan to restrict
development); accord Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. Conder, 927 P.2d 1339, 1346 (Colo.
1996) (“master plans are purely advisory documents, absent . . . formal inclusion of
sufficiently specific master plan provisions in a duly-adopted land use regulation”).
The Colorado Supreme Court directs—contrary to the position Plaintiffs take
here—that the NWSAP master plan is advisory, and the fact that the LUC adopts those
6 “The master plan is the planning commission's recommendation of the most
desirable use of land. Conceptually, a master plan is a guide to development rather than
an instrument to control land use.” Theobald, 644 P.2d at 948 (citations omitted).
16
policy guidelines does not by itself make the NWSAP something with which an applicant
must comply. See Conder, 927 P.2d at 1348. For a master plan to provide enforceable
land use requirements, it must be sufficiently specific to (1) ensure that any action taken
is rational and consistent, and that judicial review of that action will be available and
effective, and (2) provide notice to potential land users of the particular standards and
requirements imposed. Id.
Plaintiffs’ argument that the mere adoption of the NWSAP provides requirements
that would bind Solitaire [Pls. Br. at 12-13], and their accompanying rejection of the
specificity requirement, would create exactly the “unnecessary and uncontrolled
exercise of discretionary power” the Colorado Supreme Court warned results from
efforts to use these advisory materials as regulatory standards. See Conder, at 1348 &
1350-51 (requiring “sufficient exactitude” in master plan provisions to meet due process
requirements). The mere fact that a government entity adopts the master plan does not,
standing alone, allow it to impose a requirement for compliance with that plan as part of
its review of development proposals. Id. at 1346; Theobald, 644 P.2d at 948-49. In
adopting these guidelines, LUC § 1.2.2 states only that its goal is that “all growth and
development which occurs is consistent with this Code, City Plan and its adopted
components,” the latter of which includes the NWSAP. The L-M-N designation applied
to the Property is not only consistent with the NWSAP, the NWSAP expressly
comments it will be applied to properties such as these.
The City is the “legislative body” vested with the Thoebald “zoning discretion”.
Indeed, in the Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act, the Legislature
expressly left control of land use to the local governmental bodies. C.R.S. §§ 29-20-101,
17
et seq. The NWSAP simply does not meet the statutory and due process standards
where it lacks the detail that would be required for it properly to be interpreted to replace
or be part of the specific requirements of the LUC. See C.R.S. § 29-20-105(2)(b) (“A
comprehensive development plan may contain master plans, zoning plans, subdivision
regulations, … and other land use standards, which, if set out in specific detail, may
be in lieu of such regulations or ordinances of the local governments.” (bold
added)).7
The Hearing Officer correctly found, and the Council properly affirmed, the
NWSAP did not contain the required detail to be applied as a zoning regulation / basis
to deny the Application.
3. The City’s Adoption of the NWSAP Did Not Include Anything That
Would Incorporate the NWSAP as a Regulatory Framework, Nor Did
the City Relinquish Its Broad Discretion to Make Zoning Decisions
The NWSAP provides an overall vision and guidance for new development within
its geographic area, but without the required regulatory standards. The LUC provides
the specific, objective and regulatory standards by which new development is and
should be assessed.
Here, the City clearly demonstrated its intent that the NWSAP remain advisory.
See Friends of the Black Forest, 2016 COA 54 ¶¶ 39-47. The Colorado Court of
Appeals counsels that the analysis should look to the local government’s language
referring to the master plan and statements showing an intent to retain broad discretion
7 “‘[T]he [master] plan embodies policy determination and guiding principles; the
zoning ordinances provide the detailed means of giving effect to those principles.’”
Theobald, 644 P.2d at 948 (quoting Fasano v. Board of Cty. Comm’rs, 264 Ore. 574,
507 P.2d 23, 27 (1973)).
18
in the local zoning authority. Id. Indeed, in Friends of the Black Forest,the court rejected
claims that language requiring the use under consideration be “consistent with the
applicable Master Plan” would somehow elevate the master plan to be the regulatory
standard. Id. at ¶ 47. Further, where the statute provides only that a master plan “may”
be made binding, “including a reference to a master plan in … land use regulations,”
does not necessarily make it binding. Id. Nowhere does the LUC state the NWSAP is
binding or that an applicant must comply with every component of the NWSAP. The
assessment of “consistency” with the master plan, by its very nature, reserves to the
City its discretion to implement the specifics though its zoning process under the LUC.
Because neither Larimer County nor the City made the NWSAP binding, but
stated only that development should be consistent with it, the question then becomes
whether the LUC adopts the NWSAP as a set of City zoning / land use regulations. It
does not.
The City adopted the NWSAP as part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. R,
p 2030. The LUC, in turn, notes that the purpose of the Code “is to … ensur[e] that all
growth and development … is consistent with the … City Plan and its adopted
components, including … associated sub-area plans. LUC Art. 1 div. 1.2.2(A). However,
as the City’s own interpretation of the LUC points out, section 1.2.2(A) “is not
reviewed as a specific regulation; rather, it lays out what the Code is trying to
achieve throughout the document in subsequent sections that establish
standards.” R, pp 23-24 (bold added). Moreover, the City views the NWSAP as
“guidance to land uses, activities, and density levels, but it is not regulatory.” R, p
1019 (bold added).
19
4. The Hearing Officer Had, and Set Forth in His Opinion, Reasonable
Bases for His Decision
This Court should defer to the Hearing Officer’s Decision and Council’s
affirmance of it, where, as here, (1) there is a reasonable basis for the interpretation of
the LUC and NWSAP and determination that the NWSAP lacked the required specificity
that would allow it be an enforceable zoning requirement, and (2) the decisions are both
uniform and consistent with the manner in which the City has applied the NWSAP. See
Friends of the Black Forest Pres. Plan, 2016 COA 54 ¶ 16.
Confirming the consistency of the City’s approach, Staff reported that past
appeals have resulted in the Council concluding the LUC takes precedence over the
NWSAP. R, p 1019.8 Nonetheless, Staff commented extensively on how the City had
taken into account the goals, policies and strategies of the NWSAP, and how the L-M-N
zoning accorded with all of them. R, pp 1016-1022. The Hearing Officer correctly
determined the NWSAP provisions Plaintiffs sought to enforce against Solitaire lacked
the required specificity, and followed the more specific City zoning regulations in the
LUC.9
Plaintiffs argue, incorrectly, that because the Hearing Officer found “the Subject
Properties should be ‘protected from ‘incompatible development,’” he had “agree[d] with
the community that the Application is out of the neighborhood’s character and thus,
8 Staff also observed that because the NWSAP was “completed” with Larimer
County, the City had referred the Application to the County, but the County “elected not
to provide a formal review and responded with no comments.” R, p 1016.
9 Where, even if there were a conflict, the specific provisions of the City’s zoning
requirements prevail over the more general provisions of the advisory master plan. See
Friends of the Black Forest, 2016 COA 54 ¶ 17.
20
noncompliant with the NWSAP.” [Pls.’ Br. at 14-15]. That argument is simply wrong.
What the Hearing Officer actually found was
Although the [NWSAP] evidences an intent that the Northwest Subarea continue
to be a “low density residential area at the edge of Fort Collins with stable
neighborhoods” and that such neighborhoods be protected from “incompatible
development,” the [NWSAP] lacks sufficient guidance as to how to alleviate
negative effects caused by development which otherwise complies with City
zoning regulations . . . .
R, p 1004, ¶ C (fn omitted). The Hearing Officer (1) did not find the Subject Properties
were an incompatible development, (2) did not find the Subject Properties were in some
way not in compliance with the NWSAP, and (3) did not find there were some manner of
“negative effects” the Application was causing.10
Plaintiffs’ Opening Brief does not even attempt to show where the NWSAP would
provide the required specificity. [Pls. Br. at 12-14]. Instead, they merely argue:
The NWSAP has several expressly stated requirements for development in the
subject area: (i) to maintain the character of the current neighborhood; (ii) to involve
and respect the citizens of the area in development proposals; and (iii) to ensure
that all development proposals comply with the NWSAP’s stated goals.
[Pls. Br. at 14]. These supposed “requirements” do not provide the “necessary criteria”
to evaluate how the development would comply with these broad general concepts,
and, therefore, are on their face insufficiently specific. See Beaver Meadows v. Board of
Cty. Comm’rs, 709 P.2d 928, 937-38 (Colo. 1985) (Larimer County’s Policy Plan and
Action Policies and Programs were general guidelines that were inadequate as a matter
10 Indeed, viewed in proper context, the Hearing Officer’s reference to “negative
effects” was because he was drawing on the specific verbiage of the Cherry Hills
decision on which he relied. See Cherry Hills, 790 P.2d at 832 (where the court stated
“although the zoning regulations and the master plan evidence an intent that the City
Council consider the effect of development on traffic congestion and fire protection, the
regulations provide no guidance as to how any negative effects caused by the
development must be alleviated.”).
21
of law because they lacked of criteria to assess development proposals). These
broadly-phrased goals of the NWSAP fail to provide the required detail and criteria that
would provide proponents of new development the due process to which they are
entitled, would give the City impermissible, unfettered discretion, and would not provide
a clear basis for decision so as to permit reasoned judicial review.
As but one example, Plaintiffs seek to take the NWSAP’s policy goal of involving
and respecting citizen input, and essentially elevate it into a requirement that any
proposed development cannot be approved if there is citizen opposition. If that were the
standard—which it is not—every not-in-my-backyard plaintiff would prevail. Plaintiffs cite
to those parts of the Hearing Officer’s Decision finding the “vast majority of the public
comment received . . . is properly characterized as against the approval of the
[Application], for various reasons including noncompliance with certain provisions of the
[NWSAP],” Pls. Br. at 14 (citing R.R, p 1003, and R, pp 952-973, 1061-1062). They then
argue citizen views on the legal question of compliance with the NWSAP (improperly
opining on the legal issue of whether the NWSAP provides the required specificity to be
an enforceable development standard) and compatibility with the neighborhood must
control the City’s decisions. Plaintiffs offer zero evidence that the City failed to properly
consider these citizens’ contentions, and zero evidence that the Application did not
comply with the NWSAP and was not compatible with the character of the
neighborhood.
The Hearing Officer’s reliance on Cherry Hills Resort Dev. Co v. City of Cherry
Hills Village in finding the NWSAP lacked the required specificity is instructive. There,
paralleling the facts here, the City’s Municipal Code directed that the Council’s issuance
22
of building permits required “consideration of the compatibility of the proposed plans
with the City’s Master Plan,” that Code, and “existing structures and uses in the
neighboring area.” Id. at 831. In addressing those broad goals, the Court concluded: “If
a [development] plan meets all of the zoning requirements and authority to impose
additional conditions or criteria to guide such authority is lacking, the plan must be
unconditionally approved.” Id. at 832-33.11 Similarly, here the NWSAP’s lack of specifics
means that it cannot properly be used to impose additional conditions so as to be the
basis for denying the Application.
Thus, the City Staff’s statement—that “[i]n order to comply with the [NWSAP], the
development needs to meet the L-M-N zoning requirements and city standards” and
past appeals have resulted in Council concluding that the LUC takes precedence over
the NWSAP, R, p 1019—is consistent with the Colorado statutes and Supreme Court
precedent, as well as with the NWSAP’s comments applying the L-M-N zoning
requirements, and is the standard the City consistently applies.
Plaintiffs boldly, erroneously, and without reference to any supporting authority
assert: “Any development plan for property within the area subject to the NWSAP must
be compliant with the provisions of both the LUC and any applicable sub-area plan,
such as the NWSAP.” [Pls. Br. at 12]. The fact that Plaintiffs cannot point to (1) any
language in the LUC that would require “compliance” with the provisions of the NWSAP,
or (2) any specifics in the NWSAP with which the Application does not comply, is their
admission that the NWSAP lacks the required specificity to be a regulatory standard.
11 Citing Sherman v. Colorado Springs Planning Comm’n, 763 P.2d 292 (Colo.
1988); Bauer v. City of Wheat Ridge, 182 Colo. 324, 513 P.2d 203 (1973); Western
Paving Constr.Co. v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 181 Colo. 77, 506 P.2d 1230 (1973).
23
While Plaintiffs now refer to this as “vagueness” [Pls.’ Br. at 15-16], that is not the
appropriate reference. They admit Colorado courts recognize: “Statutes often contain
broad terms to allow their applicability to varied circumstances” and that such “generality
is not the equivalent of vagueness, and statutory terms used need not be defined with
mathematical precision.” Stamm v. City & Cty. of Denver, 856 P.2d 54, 56 (Colo. App.
1993) (citing Watso v. Colorado Dept. of Social Servs., 841 P.2d 299 (Colo. 1992)). That
is why vagueness is not the issue here; rather, the issue is the generality of the NWSAP
and the absence of specific enforceable directives in it that could properly supersede or
supplement the LUC.
In selecting the specifics of the LUC over the generalities of the NWSAP, the
Hearing Officer and Council adhered to the rules of statutory construction that Plaintiffs
espouse. The Hearing Officer did not declare the NWSAP void for vagueness, rather,
they found the lack of specificity did not allow it to be enforceable requirements when
compared to the specifics of the LUC. Plaintiffs note, and Solitaire agrees, “in the event
two provisions cannot be interpreted harmoniously, a specific provision controls over,
and creates an exception to, a conflicting general provision.” [Pls.’ Br. at 11]. That is why
the specific LUC controls over the general NWSAP. This hierarchy of how to interpret
overlapping controlling provisions confirms the Hearing Officer’s Decision is “a
reasonable and practical” interpretation that gives a “rational and cogent” meaning to
both the LUC and the NWSAP. See Stamm, 856 P.2d at 56. It does so both standing
alone, and when read in light of the governing statutes and Supreme Court decisions.
24
Plaintiffs err when they argue: “When faced with an irreconcilable conundrum
between the LUC and NWSAP, the Hearing Officer chose to throw out the NWSAP.” [Pls.
Br. at 11]. There was neither an irreconcilable conundrum nor a decision to throw out
the NWSAP. To the contrary, the LUC is the controlling document the Hearing Officer
applied, which the Council affirmed on appeal.
Plaintiffs challenge the Hearing Officer’s finding and Council’s affirmance that,
because the Application comports with the LUC’s L-M-N requirement, it necessarily
complies with the NWSAP. [Pls.’ Br. at 17 (citing R, p 2051, at ln 25-32)]. As set forth
above, that challenge has zero merit in the face of the NWSAP’s express statements
that the application of the L-M-N zoning designation would be applied to the property
(and all properties in the GMA). As a result, the Hearing Officer and Council’s decisions
comply with the LUC and the NWSAP.
CONCLUSION
Both of Plaintiffs’ challenges fail because they lack support in the Record and the
applicable law. Plaintiffs’ first assertion—that only owners can be applicants—is
contrary to the express provisions of the LUC, the facts the Director had before them,
and intrudes on the discretion the LUC grants the Director to review and approve the
completeness of applications. Plaintiffs’ second assertion—that the NWSAP is an
enforceable set of rules with which the applicant must comply—is contrary to the LUC
and the City’s established and consistently applied process under the LUC, as well as
Colorado statutes and Colorado Supreme Court authority.
25
For all of these reasons, the Court should deny the appeal in its entirety, and
award Solitaire its attorneys’ fees and cost incurred under C.R.S. § 13-17-102(4) and
C.A.R. 38(d).
Dated: March 6, 2023.
Respectfully submitted,
Ballard Spahr LLP
/s/ Andrew J. Petrie
Andrew J. Petrie, #11416
Andrew Valencia, #54691
1225 17th St., Ste. 2300
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 292-2400
petriea@ballardspahr.com
valenciaa@ballardspahr.com
Attorneys for Solitaire Homes East, LLC
and Solitaire Homes, LLC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 6, 2023, the foregoing SOLITAIRE’S ANSWER
BRIEF was filed via the Courts electronic notification system, which will send notification
of same to all counsel of record.
/s/ Brandon Blessing
Exhibit A
Development Application
Complete Submittal Checklist
Development Review Center | 281 N College Ave | Fort Collins CO 80522 | 970.221.6689 | DRCoord@fcgov.com
Submittal Instructions
• A City Development Review Coordinator will be assigned to all projects - Your Development Review
Coordinator is available to assist you with the review process. If you do not have a review coordinator
assigned to your project, please contact us at 970-221-6689 or DRCoord@fcgov.com for assistance.
• Advanced notice of Submittal and resubmittals is appreciated - A completed copy of this checklist, all
submittal materials and fee payments are due at the time of project submittal. Please contact your
Development Review Coordinator at 970-221-6689 or DRCoord@fcgov.com for more submittal details
including turnaround times and next steps.
• Only complete submittals are accepted - The submittal may be returned to the applicant if any required
materials or application fees are missing or insufficient. Submittals received Monday morning through
Wednesday noon will be routed for review the same week and submittals received after Wednesday
noon will be held and routed the following week.
• This checklist shall be used in tandem with the Submittal Requirements Document. The applicant must
complete this checklist and acknowledgement of the Submittal Requirements Document.
• The applicant shall be the designated contact person who will receive correspondence from city staff
and referral agencies.
Additional Resources
• Development Review Guide and Flowchart:
https://www.fcgov.com/drg/
• Development Review Applications and Submittal Requirements Main Page:
https://www.fcgov.com/developmentreview/applications.php
• City Land Use Code:
https://library.municode.com/co/fort_collins/codes/land_use
• City Utilities:
Development Forms, Guidelines & Regulations
• City Engineering main page:
https://www.fcgov.com/engineering/
• The City’s Comprehensive Plans:
City Plan and Transportation Master Plan
• Online City Map Resources:
https://www.fcgov.com/gis/maps.php
• Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards:
https://www.larimer.org/engineering/standards-and-guides/urban-area-street-standards
5/13/2022 2 PDP/MJA Development Application Submittal Checklist
Project Type:_________________________________ Project Number (if assigned): ___________
New Submittal Revision -- Review Round:_____ Submittal Date:________________
Complete Submittal Checklist:
Project Development Plan (PDP) · Major Amendment (MJA)
Project Name:
Applicant Name:
Project Review Meeting Date: _______________
Development R eview Coordinator:_____________________________________________________
This checklist is for the Project Review phase for all development projects (see Step 5 of the process
flowchart). This checklist may be used for the pre-hearing review of Project Development Plans (PDP),
Major Amendments (MJA) Addition of Permitted Uses (APU), Basic Development Reviews (BDR) and Site
Plan Advisory Reviews (SPAR) as determined by staff.
All checklist items are required unless city staff indicates an item is (W)aived, (D)eferred, (N/A) Not
Applicable or already (R)eceived. If the staff code is blank, then the item is required.
This checklist must be reviewed, completed, and accepted by staff prior to project routing. Additional
information may be requested from the applicant during the review process, if necessary, to address
specific issues that arise. Please note that all application materials, once submitted, become a matter of
public record.
Checklist, Submittal Forms and Fees:
Staff
Code
Applicant
Validation Item Description Submittal Requirement
Resources
One copy of this checklist, completed and signed by applicant Development Review
Coordination
DRCoord@fcgov.com
970-221-6689One signed copy of Development Application Form
Payment for the above application form
Payments can be made by check or credit card.
Check: Make payable to City of Fort Collins. Mail to the Development
Review Center, 281 N College Ave, Fort Collins, CO 80524, OR place in
the blue drop box located at the west side of the building.
Credit Card: Would be processed over the phone. Credit card
payments include a convenience fee of 2% + $0.25 added to all
payments under $2,500.00, and 2.75% added to all payments over
$2,500.00.
Project Developmetn Plan (PDP)
SELECT
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
5/13/2022 3 PDP/MJA Development Application Submittal Checklist
Electronic Copies*
All copies must be provided per City file naming standards and submitted electronically. All copies must be
prepared per city PDF formatting standards.
See: Submittal Requirements Section M – File Naming Standards & PDF formatting standards
*Paper copies of plans and reports are not required during development review. See Submittal Requirements,
Section D for drawing format guidelines. All plan elements shall be clearly drawn and labelled. A scale bar must
be provided on all scaled drawings. Paper copies of plan sheets may be requested to complete a timely
review, including instances when the drawing scale is not accurately depicted.
1)General Information:
Staff
Code
Applicant
Validation Item Description Submittal Requirement
Resources
A comment response letter from the project's Conceptual
Review or Preliminary Development Review staff meeting;
or for resubmittals include a comment response letter from
the prior round of review. To receive a final copy of the
project review comment letter, contact your Development
Review Coordinator
Section C
Development Review
Coordination
DRCoord@fcgov.com
970-221-6689
Project Information and Design Narrative
2)Planning Submittal Package:
Staff
Code
Applicant
Validation Item Description Submittal Requirement
Resources
Title Block information on all plan sheets
Section D Cover Page, including:
Title Block
Land Use Table Section E
Sheet Index
Section D Signature Blocks
Site Plan Notes
Standard Notes
(also available in Word
format at the Submittal
Requirements web page)
Site Location Map
Section D Legal Description
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
5/13/2022 4 PDP/MJA Development Application Submittal Checklist
Site Plan Sheet(s) (and related hardscape design detail
sheets, See Section I for Requirements) Section F
Architectural Elevation Sheet(s), Materials and other detail
sheets (color elevations recommended)
Section G
Landscape Plan Sheet(s)
Standard city landscape notes, and related planting detail
sheets (See Section I for planting detail requirements)
Section H and I
Standard Notes
(also available in Word
format at the Submittal
Requirements web page)
Lighting Plan, Photometric Plan and Lighting Detail
Sheets
Section ITrash and Recycling Enclosure Details
(include these details with the site plan sheets or elevation
sheets)
Confirmation that all Sheets provided incorporate City
drafting and format standards Section D
Staff Comments:
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
5/13/2022 5 PDP/MJA Development Application Submittal Checklist
3) Subdivision Plat:
Staff
Code
Applicant
Validation Item Description Submittal Requirement
Resources
A subdivision plat of the site at an appropriate scale on one
or more sheets, with outer dimensions printable at 24" x
36" and appurtenant documents prepared according to the
requirements described in the submittal requirements.
The plat must conform to the subdivision requirements of the
City, except as waived by the approved project development
plan for the development. Final Plan review and subdivision
plat approval, and complete execution, together with all
necessary certifications, shall be required before filing of the
subdivision plat or issuance of building permits.
Each residential lot on the subdivision plat shall identify if
the garage door(s) is recessed behind the front face of the
building, located on one of the other sides of the building,
detached from the building or located to the front of the front
face of the building.
Section J
LUC Division 3.3 –
Engineering Standards
City Contact(s):
• Technical Services –
Jeff County,
JCounty@fgov.com
• Surveying –
John Von Nieda
JVonNieda@fcgov.com
Monument Records
Closure Report
4) Utility Plans (Civil Construction Plans):
Staff
Code
Applicant
Validation
Item Description Submittal Requirement
Resources
Existing Conditions and/or Demolition Plan (if required)
Utility Plans Checklist.pdf
City Contact: Engineering
Development Review
EngDevRev@fcgov.com
970-221-6605
Overall Grading Plan
Overall Utility Plan Sheet
Drainage Plan
Street Plan
Including horizontal alignment and centerline profiles for public
streets
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
5/13/2022 6 PDP/MJA Development Application Submittal Checklist
5) Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report:
Staff
Code
Applicant
Validation Item Description Submittal Requirement
Resources
Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report may
include the following:
Detention Requirements and Calculations
Offsite Flows (if required)
Floodplain Zone (if required) -- Contact Floodplain
Administration staff at 970-416-2632 for questions
Hydraulic Calculations
Detention Basin Calculations
Standard Water Quality and LID Calculations
Include Drainage Plan or Exhibit in the report
Note: All items shown above are components that may
be necessary with a drainage report analysis. Not all
components may be necessary. The drainage report
analysis must be prepared by a professional engineer.
Stormwater Criteria Manual
Resource Page
Stormwater Criteria Manual
Appendices:
A. Required Submittal
Content
B. Stormwater Facilities
Landscape Standards
C. LID Implementation
D. Erosion Control
Guidance
E. Erosion Control
Construction Measures
Fact Sheets
F. Erosion Control
Construction Measures
Standard Notes
City Utilities:
Development Forms,
Guidelines & Regulations
For Stormwater or
Floodplain questions,
contact:
waterutilitieseng@
fcgov.com
970-221-6689
Erosion Control Information:
www.fcgov.com/erosion
REQUIRED
5/13/2022 7 PDP/MJA Development Application Submittal Checklist
6) Reports and Supporting Documents:
Staff
Code
Applicant
Validation Item Description Submittal Requirement
Resources
Planning Services:
Perspective views of the Building Exterior
(Incorporated into the building elevation sheets) Section G
Building Material Sample Board
Neighborhood Context Plan
(Overall site plan diagram indicating surrounding
neighborhood features, to be incorporated into Site
Plan sheets or cover page)
Section C
Land Use Code Modification and Alternative Compliance
Requests; staff review, and approval required prior to
Development Review Completion
(if required)
LUC Division 2.8
City Contact: Planning
Services
planning@fcgov.com
970-416-4311
Parking Alternative Compliance Studies
Guidelines for these studies are held by the Director
Parking Impact Study Guidelines
(if required)
LUC Section 3.2.2(K)
City Contact: Planning
Services
planning@fcgov.com
970-416-4311
Building Services:
FOR INFORMATION: THIS MEETING IS REQUIRED FOR
COMMERCIAL PROJECTS PRIOR TO FINAL PLAN
SUBMITTAL, but generally not prior to hearing.
Building Services Presubmittal Meeting:
Confirmation of completed Pre-Submittal Code Feasibility
Meeting with Building Services will be included with the Final
Plan (FDP) Checklist, but not with this checklist.
New Commercial Projects require a pre-submittal meeting for
building code feasibility. This typically takes place when
drawings are 50% complete and in the mid phases of the
Development Review Process, and prior to Building Permit
Submittal.
Applicants are encouraged to review building requirements as
early as possible in the process. For questions or to schedule
this meeting please reach out to your Development Review
Coordinator.
Please Note: Building
Permits will not be reviewed
until Development Plan
review process is completed
Building Codes and
Standards
Building Permit Fees
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
For FDP
5/13/2022 8 PDP/MJA Development Application Submittal Checklist
Staff
Code
Applicant
Validation Item Description Submittal Requirement
Resources
Development Review Engineering:
Soils Report
In conformance with the Larimer County Urban Area
Street Standards
Larimer County Urban Area
Street Standards
Subsurface Hydrologic Study
Signed letters of intent from impacted off-site
property owner(s) indicating generating agreements
and that all required off-site easement and off-site
rights-of-way can be finalized in conjunction with the
Final Development Plan Submittal
Required prior to scheduling hearing
City Contact: Engineering
Development Review
EngDevRev@fcgov.com
970-221-6605
Draft legal descriptions for accompanying deeds of
dedication by separate document
Easement and Right-of-Way
Dedication Process
Draft legal descriptions for accompanying easement
vacation request by separate document
Vacation of Easements
Process
Engineering or Utility Variance Requests
City review and approval required prior to scheduling
hearing
Larimer County Urban Area
Street Standards
Traffic Operations:
Transportation Impact Study (TIS) OR waiver
indicated from Traffic Operations staff
Waiver indication to be provided with initial submittal
Traffic Operations
Resource Page
City Contact:
Traffic Operations
970-221-6630
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
5/13/2022 9 PDP/MJA Development Application Submittal Checklist
Staff
Code
Applicant
Validation Item Description Submittal Requirement
Resources
Environmental Planning:
Ecological Characterization Study (ECS)
If an ECS is required, this must be submitted at
least ten days prior to the development review
application. A copy shall also be submitted at the
time of the application with this checklist.
Section J
Section H
LUC Section 3.4.1
City Contact:
Environmental Planning
970-416-4311
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment To be provided by qualified
third-party consultant
City Forestry:
Existing Tree Inventory Plan
Prior to the review submittal, the applicant must
schedule an on- site meeting with City Forestry to
obtain tree inventory information for all existing trees
within the development area. The meeting is also
intended to discuss any proposed tree removal.
PLEASE NOTE THAT EXISTING TREES SHOULD
NOT BE REMOVED OR DAMAGED PRIOR TO
SUBMITTAL, REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
See Submittal Requirements
Sections H and L for more
information regarding
documentation of existing and
proposed trees on landscape
plans
City Contact:
City Forestry
forestry@fcgov.com
970.221.6660
City Forestry Resources:
www.fcgov.com/forestry
Land Use Code Section:
3.2.1(F) Tree Protection and
Replacement
Existing Tree Removal Feasibility Request
Provide a letter to City Forestry outlining the justification
for the removal of any existing trees, if proposed.
Existing Tree Mitigation Plan
At your site meeting, City Forestry will determine the
characteristics and mitigation requirements for all
existing trees within the project's proposed Limits of
Disturbance.
(if required).
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
5/13/2022 10 PDP/MJA Development Application Submittal Checklist
Other information and data as required for the full
and complete consideration of the development (to
be completed by City staff):
Hazardous Materials Impact Analysis (if required).
Any special wildlife, wetland, natural habitats, and
features, ecological or environmental study or mapping
pursuant to Section 3.3 and 3.4 of the Land Use Code
as requested by the Director.
Other items required: City Contact: Development
Review Coordination
DRCoord@fcgov.com
970-221-6689
Applicant Acknowledgement:
I have reviewed the Development Application Submittal Requirements, Sections A – M. All documents submitted
are complete and the Development Application Submittal Requirements have been incorporated into the plans
(See Development Application Submittal Requirements for detailed description of requirements). All documents
submitted have been compared and consistent design information is shown on all plan sheets and reports.
I understand that submittal requirements not sufficiently addressed or deferred may result in added review time.
Applicant Signature: ______________________________________________________ Date: ______________________________
Phone: ______________________________________ Email: ________________________________________________________
(See Development Application Submittal Requirements for detailed description of requirements)
REQUIRED