Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018CV01 - SUTHERLAND V. CITY OF FORT COLLINS, ET AL - 006 - AMENDED COMPLAINTFORT COLLINS MUNICIPAL COURT 215 N. Mason Fort Collins, CO 80521 Phone (970) 221 6800 ▲ COURT USE ONLY ▲ Plaintiffs: Eric Sutherland, J & M Distributing, DBA Fort Collins Muffler and Automotive v. Defendant : THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, the governing body of a Colorado municipal corporation; and THE ADMINISTRATION BRANCH OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, by and through its City Manager, Darin Atteberry. Indispensable party: Craig Russell, Applicant Parties without attorney Eric Sutherland 3520 Golden Currant Fort Collins, CO 80521 (970) 224 4509 sutherix@yahoo.om J & M Distributing, DBA Fort Collins Muffler and Automotive Brian Dwyer, President 2001 S. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80525 (970) 484 0866 bdwyer1199@gmail.com Case Number: 2018civil01 AMENDED COMPLAINT BROUGHT UNDER C.R.C.P. RULE 106, REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT This Amended Complaint has been changed from the original in the following ways. 1) An indispensable party has been named in the Caption and this party will be subsequently served by summons once issued by the Municipal Court clerk. 2) The Title of the Complaint was amended by deleting “(a)(2)” following “106” 3) Paragraph #’s 61, 62, 63 and 64 were added. The paragraph previously numbered 61 was renumbered to 65. 2 Plaintiffs, Eric Sutherland and J & M Distributing, in this Complaint alleging abuse of discretion by the City Council of the City of Fort Collins and request for injunctive relief, hereby state and allege as follows: Introduction The City of Fort Collins (the City) is a home rule municipality in the state of Colorado. Pursuant to authority granted Article XX section 6 of the Colorado Constitution, the City of Fort Collins has adopted a City Charter. By adoption of a home rule City Charter (the Charter), the City has claimed authority over all planning and zoning issues in the City. All powers of the city and the determination of all matters of policy pertaining to planning and zoning are vested in the Defendant City Council. See Charter Article II section 5 (b) (8). The powers of the City in the field of planning and zoning include the exclusive authorization for the construction of improvements on real property within the corporate limits of the City and no improvements may be constructed without such authorization. The process of granting authorization for the construction of improvements, also referred to as vested rights, is generally known as development review and is defined and controlled by the laws of the City of Fort Collins as adopted by Ordinance of the Council and amended from time to time in the City Code, the Land Use Code and the zoning map. The development review process grants vested rights upon favorable findings in a public hearing held by a decision maker, who thereafter makes a determination as to whether or not the proposed development conforms with standards for development and use found in the Land Use Code and the zoning map. Such public hearing and resulting decision are quasi-judicial and may be appealed to the Council in accordance with procedure established in the City Code. The City Council’s review of a decision from a lower tribunal is also quasi-judicial in nature. As such, an abuse of discretion by the City Council is subject to appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction. This complaint is such an appeal. Article VII section 1 of the Charter states, in relevant part: There shall be a Municipal Court vested with original jurisdiction of all causes arising under the City's Charter and ordinances. … Rules of procedure, costs and fees shall be enacted by the Council upon recommendation of the Municipal Judge. The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado has ruled that language substantially similar to that of Article VII section 1 means precisely what it says. The Municipal Court of the City of Fort Collins has exclusive original jurisdiction over 3 this matter. See Town of Frisco v Baum, 90 P. 3d 845 (Colo 845). In response to the first ever civil suit filed in this court in 2017, 17civil01, defendant City Council did adopt procedures for adjudicating civil matters brought to the municipal court. See Ordinance 052, 2017 adopted on 2nd reading April 18th, 2017. The effect of Ord. 052 was to adopt the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure C.R.C.P. to govern the procedures in this court in all civil matters arising from Charter, Code and City Ordinances. The City of Fort Collins has, for a long period of time, conducted its administrative and quasi-judicial affairs in the arena of development review with a general disregard for rule of law. The legislative intent of the standards for development review and the very modest protections that such standards provide the citizens of Fort Collins are ill observed. The present case brought before the Municipal Court brings the bad faith and exploitation into view and exposes various deficiencies in process at the same time. The failure to refine and evolve process and the absence of fidelity to the purpose of the ordinances that control development review may be traced to an administrative paradigm that has lost sight of the public interest. Parties 1. The City of Fort Collins is a home rule municipality located in Larimer County, Colorado and organized by a City Charter adopted in accordance with Article XX section 6 of the Colorado constitution. 2. The Defendant Administrative Branch of the City of Fort Collins is under the supervision and control of the City Manager, Darin Atteberry, pursuant to Article III of the Charter. In particular, the administrative affairs of the Defendant Administrative Branch include the granting of final vested rights in development review proceedings including but not limited to the execution of a development agreement with the City, re-platting of land and the approval of a Final Development Plan (FDP) in accordance with Division 2.5 of the Land Use Code. 3. The Defendant City Council of the City of Fort Collins is the governing body of the City of Fort Collins pursuant to Article II of the charter. In particular, the Defendant City Council’s review of appeals from development review hearings conducted by the Planning and Zoning Board lies in mandamus and is quasi- judicial in nature. 4. Although individually named, both the Administrative Branch and City Council are components of the City of Fort Collins, an independent sub-division of the state of Colorado. Whether these two parties is named individually or collectively is of no consequence in this matter in terms of the relief requested. This court has jurisdiction over both. 4 5. Plaintiff Eric Sutherland is a citizen of Fort Collins. Sutherland was an interested party in the review of the application for vested rights by the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board by virtue of appearing at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing and providing public comment. Sutherland was one of two appellants who filed a joint appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board decision. 6. Plaintiff J & M Distributing (J & M) is an S-corporation with operations in Fort Collins doing business as Fort Collins Muffler and Auto. The President of J & M Distributing, Brian Dwyer, represented the company with comments to Council on the occasion of the appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board decision in PDP#170034. J & M Distributing was an interested party for purposes of appeal by virtue of property owned by the company within the notification area of for the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. Venue 7. The Municipal Court of the City of Fort Collins has original jurisdiction of all matters arising from the Charter and ordinances of the City of Fort Collins. (See Introduction and Article VII of the Charter). All matters complained of and all requests for injunctive relief here arise from the Charter and ordinances of the City. All actions of the Defendant City Council complained of herein are matters of exclusively local interest. All controlling laws in this matter are local laws that have been duly adopted in a field of exclusively local interest. All administrative actions of the Defendant Administrative Branch sought to be enjoined and restrained by the Plaintiffs are exclusively matters of local control. Venue is proper in this court. Jurisdiction 8. The Plaintiffs herein allege an abuse of discretion by the Defendant City Council in failing to ensure that the laws of the City of Fort Collins applicable to review of a proposed construction of improvements on property within the city limits were applied uniformly and fairly. Said laws create for the Plaintiffs a legally protected right to the use and enjoyment of the Fort Collins community whether on public or private property. The Plaintiffs further allege that this abuse of discretion will deprive Plaintiffs of property rights and rights under law. The Land Use Code of the City of Fort Collins creates legally protected rights for citizens. All citizens of Fort Collins have the legal expectation that the community they live in or own property in will develop in the manner agreed to by the adoption of the Land Use Code. Any development that proceeds in a manner inconsistent with the requirements of the Land Use Code creates an injury-in-fact 5 whether it be a tangible or intangible injury. The Muncipal Court of the City of Fort Collins has subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute. 9. The Defendant Administrative Branch of the City of Fort Collins is required by Article III section 2 (f) to enforce the laws and ordinances of the city. The award of vested development rights to a party for a proposed construction of improvements that is inconsistent and incompatible with the standards of the Land Use Code is a failure to enforce the laws and ordinances of the city. The Municipal Court of the City of Fort Collins has jurisdiction over the Defendant Administrative Branch in this dispute. 10. The decisions of the Defendant City Council of the City of Fort Collins, when acting in a quasi-judicial capacity for the purposes of reviewing matters of exclusively local interest is subject to further judicial review by a superior court. The Municipal Court of the city of Fort Collins is a superior court by virtue of Article VII of the Charter and the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court in Town of Frisco v. Baum, supra. The Municipal Court of the City of Fort Collins has jurisdiction over the Defendant City Council in this dispute. General allegations 11. On January 18th, 2018, the Planning and Zoning Board (the “Board”) reviewed and approved the Johnson Drive Apartments Project Development Plan PDP#170034 (the “PDP” or "Project"). 12. A Notice of Appeal of the Board's approval of the PDP was filed with the City Clerk on February 1, 2018, pursuant to Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code by Eric Sutherland and another citizen of Fort Collins. See exhibit 1. 13. Generally, the appeal noted in the preceding paragraph alleged that the Planning and Zoning Board had failed to apply relevant standards of the Land Use Code. See Grounds for the Appeal 1-4. A fifth Grounds alleged that standards appearing in the LUC were unconstitutionally vague and were also unenforceable and were therefore insufficient for the purposes of protecting the rights of the public set forth in the LUC. Also, the appeal alleged that the Board received and considered evidence that was substantially false or misleading. 14. On February 27, 2018, the defendant City Council, after notice given in accordance with Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, considered the Appeal. As is the custom of Defendant Administrative Branch, the staff of the City of Fort Collins planning department participated in the appeal process in a substantial capacity with an undisputable bias shown to the position of the opponent of the Appeal. 15. Defendant City Council, by motion and affirmative vote, found that the Appeal was without merit as to all allegations. The practical effect of that 6 decision was made official pursuant to City Code by the adoption, at its next regular meeting held on March 6, 2018, of RESOLUTION 2018-023 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD’S DECISION APPROVING THE JOHNSON DRIVE APARTMENTS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN PDP170034. See exhibit 2, the Resolution. First claim for relief 16. The Plaintiffs incorporate the General Allegations as if fully set forth herein. 17. The first of five grounds for the appeal generally alleged that deferring the sufficiency of any aspect of a development controlled by the Land Use Code runs counter to the legislative intent of the Code and alleged that a determination of the sufficiency of a design for a trash enclosure as controlled by LUC section 3.10.5(C) had been deferred. This allegation is unquestionably an allegation that the Board had failed to properly interpret and apply LUC section 2.4.2(H), Step 8. See Exhibit 1. 17. The materials presented to the Planning and Zoning Board did not include a design schematic or specifications of any kind that described the trash enclosure other than a plan view that indicated the location and approximate size of the footprint of a proposed trash enclosure. 18. As it applies specifically to this claim, the specifications for the sufficiency of a trash enclosure require compatibility with adjacent land uses. See Land Use Code section 3.10.5(C). 19. The adjacent land uses of the proposed trash enclosure are a well- traveled pedestrian and bicycle trail and a real gem of a public park. In particular, the trail passes right next to the proposed site of the trash enclosure as it makes a tight curve. The presence of a potential trash enclosure, if added to this location, will be the dominant feature proximate to any user of the trail. 20. The transcript of the January 18, 2018 Planning and Zoning Board hearing clearly indicates that the Board did not pass any judgment let alone a judgment on the compatibility of the proposed design with adjacent land uses. 21. Instead, the record of the hearing shows the Board deferring a decision on compatibility to others. 22. Under the Land Use Code, a determination of the compatibility of a trash enclosure lies exclusively in the sound discretion of the Board. 7 23. In considering the matter of the abdication of the Board to judge the sufficiency of a design for a trash enclosure as to its compatibility, defendant City Council abused its discretion by disregarding the preponderance of evidence that indicated that the Board had abdicated its exclusive discretion over compatibility to others in a manner that is inconsistent with the requirements of Land Use Code section 2.4.2(H) step 8. 24. It is without question that the record on appeal shows the defendant City Council misapprehending the allegation and relying upon fraudulent assurances and mistaken representations from city staff to conclude that somehow the Board, which had not seen a design for trash enclosure, had somehow judged the sufficiency of the trash enclosure as to its compatibility with adjacent land uses. In fact, city staff erroneously represented that the trash enclosure, which had never been documented with design specifications, met the requirements of the Land Use Code. 25. The First grounds for Appeal was a correct and accurate representation of the requirements of the Land Use Code and the failure of the Board to properly interpret and apply these requirements. Defendant City Council abused its discretion by disregarding matters of fact and law and finding that the First Grounds for Appeal was without merit. This matter must be remanded to defendant City Council with instructions to remand this matter back to the Board for a determination of the sufficiency of a design for a trash enclosure. Second claim for relief 26. The Plaintiffs incorporate the General Allegations and the First claim for relief as if fully set forth herein. 27. The Second grounds for the appeal generally complained that the PDP was not in compliance with the requirements of the General Commerical Zone, Land Use Code section 4.21. Specifically, the Appeal noted the absence of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway from the subject property to the adjacent property to the South and points beyond including the MAX BRT station, (Spring Creek Station.) The suggested remedy for the deficiency brought forth in the Second grounds was, at a minimum, a dedication of public right of way. 28. Although suggested as a remedy, the failure to dedicate a right of way was the crux of the allegation in the Second grounds for the Appeal. 29. In addition to the requirements for the General Commercial Zone, the Land Use Code contains many requirements for connectivity of subject parcels to adjacent and proximate parcels and areas. Specifically, Land Use Code section 3.2.2 contains several requirements for connectivity that operate harmoniously and in support of the General Commercial Zone requirements. 8 30. Under modern rules of pleading, courts look to the "essence of a claim regardless of how it is denominated." Bainbridge, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty Co., 159 P.3d 748, 755 (Colo.App.2006); see also Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 149 Colo. 38, 41, 367 P.2d 594, 596 (1961) ("The substance of the claim rather than the appellation applied to the pleading by the litigant is what controls."); Sheffield Services Co. v. Trowbridge, 211 P.3d 714, 718 (Colo.App.2009) ("the claim's substance rather than [its] appellation ... controls"). Although specific citations of provisions of the Land Use Code such as 3.2.2 were not presented upon appeal, the essence of the claim was unquestionably clear. 31. The defendant City Council misapprehended the requirements of the Land Use Code in regards to the failure of the Board to require connectivity of the subject parcel with the area to the South including Spring Creek Station. Specifically, defendant City Council, at the urging of Councilman Gerry Horak, invented a theory that connectivity is only required when a sub-area plan has been developed that prescribes certain trails or other public rights of way. Reliance on this theory, as opposed to the actual requirements of the Land Use Code was misplaced and resulted in an abuse of discretion when finding the allegations of the Second grounds for the Appeal to be meritless. 32. Additionally, several members of Defendant City Council voiced support for improved connectivity in this area and the deficiencies of pedestrian and bicycle connections that presently exist. 33. The Second grounds for Appeal was a correct and accurate representation of the requirements of the Land Use Code and the failure of the Board to interpret and apply these requirements. Defendant City Council abused its discretion by disregarding matters of fact and law and finding that the First Grounds for the Appeal was without merit. This matter must be remanded to defendant City Council with instructions to remand this matter back to the Board for inclusion of proper design and right of way conveyance in keeping with the requirements of connectivity for bicyclists and pedestrians as specified in the Land Use Code. Third claim for relief 34. The Plaintiffs incorporate the General Allegations and the First and Second claims for relief as if fully set forth herein. 35. The Fifth grounds for the Appeal generally alleged that allowances that provide for a reduction of the number of parking spaces built into a residential housing project in the Transit Oriented Development (“TOD”) zone are unconstitutionally vague and unenforceable. Reliance upon unconstitutionally vague and unenforceable allowances, which are also referred to as mitigation strategies, subverts the legislative intent of the Land Use Cole and abridges the 9 rights of all citizens within the community in general and residents and business of neighboring properties in particular. 36. The PDP was not clear as to what mitigation strategies the applicant was claiming, however, it was assumed that 1.) Car sharing and 2.) transit passes were claimed and responsible for a reduction in the number of parking spaces that were otherwise required. The requirements for parking in the TOD and the mitigation strategies that may be employed to reduce the number of parking spaces are found in Land Use Code section 3.2.2 (K). 37. No operational understanding of what “Car Share” means or requires of the applicant was adduced by the Board during the hearing of the PDP. No expectation of what could be expected was defined or explained. No conditions for approval relating to this issue were imposed. 38. The mitigation strategy for “Car Share” in the TOD is unconstitutionally vague. As such, it is improper to rely upon any claim that the requirements for parking may be reduced as a result of compliance with this standard in the absence of definitions or operational understandings that are captured in the course of development review, most likely as the imposition of conditions. 39. The Defendant City Council misapprehended the sufficiency of the mitigation strategy pertaining to “Car Share” while failing to note that the Board had taken no steps to assure compliance with the legislative intent of the parking requirements in the TOD in light of an unconstitutionally vague mitigation strategy and the absence of any attempt to define the necessary elements of the strategy. 40. The Fifth grounds for the Appeal was a correct and accurate representation of the vagueness of the mitigation strategy described only as “Car Share” and the failure of the Board to properly specify conditions to ensure that a reduction in required parking spaces did not compromise the legislative intent of the parking requirements for residential housing in the TOD. Defendant City Council abused its discretion by disregarding matters of fact and law and finding that the Fifth Grounds for the Appeal was without merit as it pertained to the vagueness of the “Car Share” allowance. This matter must be remanded to defendant City Council with instructions to remand this matter back to the Board for the specification of conditions for “Car Share” commensurate with the reduction of parking spaces associated with the claimed level of “Car Share” upon which the reduction was based. 41. The Plaintiffs respectfully request that this court issue a declaration that the mitigation strategy for “Car Share” is unconstitutionally vague and that without further clarification presented in codified ordinance of the City of Fort Collins do not represent an adequate means for effecting a reduction of parking spaces that would otherwise be required in the TOD. 10 Fourth claim for relief 42. The Plaintiffs incorporate the General Allegations and the first, second and third claims for relief as if fully set forth herein. 43. No operational understanding of what “Transit Passes” means or requires of the applicant was adduced by the Board during the hearing of the PDP. No expectation of what could be expected was defined or explained. No conditions for approval relating to this issue were imposed. 44. The mitigation strategy for “Transit Passes” in the TOD is unconstitutionally vague. As such, it is improper to rely upon any claim that the requirements for parking may be reduced as a result of compliance with this standard in the absence of the definitions or operational understandings that are captured in the course of development review, most likely as the imposition of conditions. 45. The Defendant City Council misapprehended the sufficiency of the mitigation strategy pertaining to “Transit Passes” while failing to note that the Board had taken no steps to assure compliance with the legislative intent of the parking requirements in the TOD in light of an unconstitutionally vague mitigation strategy and the absence of any attempt to define the necessary elements of the strategy. 46. The Fifth grounds for the Appeal was a correct and accurate representation of the vagueness of the mitigation strategy described only as “Transit Passes” and the failure of the Board to properly specify conditions to ensure that a reduction in required parking spaces did not compromise the legislative intent of the parking requirements for residential housing in the TOD. Defendant City Council abused its discretion by disregarding matters of fact and law and finding that the Fifth Grounds for the Appeal was without merit as it pertained to the vagueness of the “Transit Passes” allowance. This matter must be remanded to defendant City Council with instructions to remand this matter back to the Board for the specification of conditions for “Transit Passes” commensurate with the reduction of parking spaces associated with the claimed level of “Car Share” upon which the reduction was based. 47. The Plaintiffs respectfully request that this court issue a declaration that the mitigation strategy for “Transit Passes” is unconstitutionally vague and that without further clarification presented in codified ordinance of the City of Fort Collins do not represent an adequate means for effecting a reduction of parking spaces that would otherwise be required in the TOD. Fifth claim for relief 11 48. The Plaintiffs incorporate the General Allegations and the first, second third and fourth claims for relief as if fully set forth herein. 49. The adoption of a mitigation strategy for either “Car Share” or “Transit Passes” is meaningless in terms of effecting the legislative intent of the parking requirements in the TOD without a guaranty that these strategies will be employed. 50. With the exception of those requirements allowing and disallowing for specific uses of property in different zone districts that are found in Article 4 of the Land Use Code, all other standards of development are enforceable by the defendant City Administration by virtue of the ability to deny a certificate of occupancy to a development that has not complied with the standards. 51. Article 4 standards for use are enforceable under a paradigm of local and state laws for the maintenance of zone districts. 52. “Car Share” and “Transit Passes” can not be construed to be a use in keeping with the uses defined and in Article 4. Furthermore, “Car Share” and “Transit Passes” are not specific to a zone district as they are only relevant in the context of parking standards in the TOD. “Car Share” and “Transit Passes” may not be enforced by the application of state and local laws in the event of a failure to comply with whatever “Car Share” and “Transit Passes” may be deemed to be. 53. No other means of enforcing “Car Share” or “Transit Passes” exists that may be relied upon for assurance that the mitigation presumed to compensate for a reduction in the number of parking spaces will fulfill the legislative intent of the parking standard for residential development in the TOD. 54. In the Appeal, city staff erroneously suggested that relief would be available by virtue of language added to a development agreement. This statement is only accurate to the extent that a court of law may order specific performance for a breach of contract. Such a remedy is unacceptable in that it relies upon state courts for enforcement, requires civil action on the part of the City of Fort Collins and provides for no disincentive or penalty for non-compliance. 55. As a Home Rule City, defendant City Council has the authority to legislate in the area of enforcement of terms of development agreements including the imposition of fines and/or imprisonment for violations of terms of development agreements. However, defendant City Council has not so legislated. 56. The Fifth grounds for the Appeal was a correct and accurate representation of the unenforceability of the mitigation strategies described only as “Car Share” and “Transit Passes”. Defendant City Council abused its discretion by disregarding matters of fact and law by finding that the Fifth Grounds for the Appeal was without merit as it pertained to the unenforceability of the “Car Share” and “Transit Passes” allowance. 12 57. The Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court issue a declaration that the unenforceability of “Car Share” and “Transit Passes” precludes any reduction in the number of parking spaces required of residential housing in the TOD as a mitigation strategy. Sixth claim for relief 58. The Plaintiffs incorporate the General Allegations and all previous claims for relief as if fully set forth herein. 59. The Plaintiffs are at risk of injury should the Defendant Administrative Branch execute a development agreement or grant approval of a Final Development Plan (FDP) on the basis of the deficient approval of the PDP by the Planning and Zoning Board and the abuse of discretion of the Defendant City Council complained of herein. 60. The Defendant Administrative Branch must be enjoined and ordered to refrain from any administrative action that would further the construction of improvements as have been unlawfully granted approval by the actions of the Defendant City Council during the pendency of the resolution of this complaint including any appeals to a higher court. 61. The probability of prevailing on the merits of our claims is extremely high. The Complaint and the record speak for itself. The unfavorable results of the Planning and Zoning Board’s review of the PDP application and City Council’s review of that decision are characterized accurately as a kangaroo court where the substantive allegations of deficiencies are disregarded the same as the black letters on the white pages of the Land Use Code. Regardless of whether or not this Municipal Court continues the tradition established by the other component units of the municipal corporation, it is extremely unlikely that a higher court will. For example, it is extremely unlikely that any Judge of the 8th District Court would look at the words “car sharing” and conclude that this “mitigation strategy” is not unconstitutionally vague. 62. There can absolutely no question that if this project is built, for example, without adequate and enforceable standards for parking demand mitigation strategies that a tangible economic injury will be incurred by Plaintiff J & M Distributing. Injunctive relief in this regard is absolutely essential to avoiding injury. 63. If there were any other relief of any sort available, it would have been pursued. Of course, the most rational and beneficial relief available to all parties would be for the extremely reasonable and justifiable relief requested in this complaint be granted with a minimum of delay. Unless and until that happens, the only means of preventing future injury is injunctive relief. 13 64. Should this court grant injunctive relief as requested here, the public interest will be significantly advanced. The public is deserving of the basic requirements of development found in the Land Use Code and the public will benefit to have these requirements met. It is not disputed that the imposition of injunctive relief as requested here has may have a detrimental effect on the interests, but not the legally protected rights, of one or more private parties. However, it must be concluded that these private parties have little or no affinity with the public interest as evidenced by the disregard of the Land Use Code and the cursory protections it offers to the public. 65. The Plaintiffs respectfully request that this court enjoin further administrative actions including the approval of a Final Design Plan as defined by Division 2.5 of the Land Use Code. Prayer for relief WHEREFOR, Plaintiffs pray that this Court issue the aforementioned declarations and injunction; enter judgment for Plaintiffs on each operable claim; and provide such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of April, 2018 Eric Sutherland Brian Dwyer ___Eric Sutherland____________ ___Brian Dwyer__________ Address of Lead Plaintiff 3520 Golden Currant Fort Collins, CO 80521