HomeMy WebLinkAbout950301.tiffr
DISTRICT COURT, WELD COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO
CASE NO. 95 CV DIVISION NO.
SUMMONS - CIVIL
THE VILLA AT GREELEY, INC.,
Plaintiff(le)
VS.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO,
Defendant(X)
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO TO THE DEFENDANT(1) NAMED ABOVE:
You are summoned and required to file with the clerk of this court an
answer or other defense to the attached complaint within twenty (20)
days after this summons is served on you in the State of Colorado, or
within thirty (30) days after this summons is served on you outside the
State of Colorado, or by publication.
If you fail to file your answer or other defense to the complaint in
writing, as required by Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, within the
applicable time period, judgment by default may be entered against you
by the court for the relief demanded in the complaint, without any
further notice to you.
The following documents
Judgment)
Date
icth-u-/
are
also served with this summons: Complaint (Declaratory
HOUTCHENS, DANIEL & GREENFIELD
, 1995
DONNA J. POWELL
CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT
By
Deputy
(SEAL)
Signature of Attorney. If s2gned
by Attorney, type: Name, address,
tel. No., Req. No. below
Kim Robert Houtchens, #6379
1007 9th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
(303) 353-9195
This summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4, CRCP, as amended. A copy of
the complaint must be served with this summons. If served by Publication,
summons shall briefly state sum of money or other relief demanded.
7)/11. z 950301
t17inela.; Az_ ) A(OrLJ� UPDATE LEGAL
DC 1 1 S
DISTRICT COURT, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Case No. 95 CV , Division
COMPLAINT (DECLARATORY JUDGMENT)
THE VILLA AT GREELEY, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO,
Defendant.
COMES NOW The Villa at Greeley, Inc., through its undersigned
attorneys, Houtchens, Daniel & Greenfield, by Kim Robert Houtchens,
Esq., who states and alleges as follows:
1. This Complaint seeks declaratory judgment pursuant to the
Uniform Declaratory Judgments Law found at C.R.S. §13-51-101 and
pursuant to Rule 57, Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. Plaintiff The Villa at Greeley, Inc. ("The Villa") is a
Colorado corporation with a principal place of business located in
Greeley, Weld County, Colorado.
3 Defendant Board of County Commissioners, Weld County,
Colorado, ("County Board") is vested with the jurisdiction and authorof zoning matters, ty to administer the fmatters, pursuant to the Weld sWeld
County Rule Charter.
4. On May 8, 1989, the County Board approved a Planned Unit
Development ("PUD") pursuant to the Weld County zoning ordinance,
for a parcel of land which included the following described real
property ("the property"):
Part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 2
North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County,
Colorado.
The property is located in the 1st filing, Fort Junction PUD. A
copy of the County Board's resolution approving the PUD is attached
hereto as Exhibit "A".
5. The Villa obtained and possesses a contractual right
to purchase the property, and on September 2, 1993, it submitted a
Site Specific DevelopmentPlan Planned Development
v lopme t Plan
le release
D
Plan") for said PUD, proposing eb n d a
950301 '
center. The PUD Plan constituted a "site specific development
plan" pursuant to the requirements of C.R.S. §§ 24-68-101, et.
sew,., and it was expressly identified at the time of approval as
such.
6. After issuance of all required notices, and after a
public hearing, the County Board on December 8, 1993, unanimously
adopted a resolution approving the PUD Plan. A copy of the County
Board's resolution is attached as Exhibit "B".
7. The County Board then published a notice on December 16,
1993, in the Windsor Beacon advising the general public of its
approval of The PUD Plan and the creation of a vested property
right pursuant to Article 68 of Title 48, C.R.S. Such publication
was timely and otherwise in compliance with C.R.S. §24-68-103(1).
A copy of the County Board's notice is attached as Exhibit "C".
8. No referenda were filed to challenge the County Board's
approval of The Villa's PUD Plan within the time period provided by
law, although such action is subject to an appeal brought pursuant
to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) in Weld County District Court Case No. 94 CV
9. The County Board's action was affirmed by Weld County District
Court Judge John J. Althoff in all respects on June 13, 1994.
Judge Althoff's ruling is presently on appeal in the Colorado Court
of Appeals, Case No. 94 CA 1273.
9. Uncertainty now exists as to the status of The Villa's
"vested property right" with respect to the PUD Plan, which
uncertainty contributes to creating a situation wherein The Villa
finds itself unable to sell its required revenue bonds and utilize
the proceeds therefrom to proceed with the construction of its pre -
parole release facility.
10. The purpose of declaratory judgment is remedial, that is,
its purpose is to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and
insecurity with respect to rights, status and other legal
relations. The declaratory judgment statutes and rule are to be
liberally construed and administered to carry out their remedial
purposes. C.R.S. §13-51-102; C.R.C.P. 57(k).
11. District Courts have jurisdiction to enter declaratory
judgments. C.R.C.P. 57(a).
12. The Villa, as a party whose rights, status or other legal
relations are affected by a statute or ordinance, is entitled to
have any question of construction or validity arising under the
statute or ordinance determined and to obtain a declaration of
their rights, status and legal relations thereunder. C.R.S. §13-
51-106; C.R.C.P. 57(b). As a matter of law, The Villa is entitled
to declaratory judgment from this Court stating that subject only
to the existing appeal pending before the Colorado Court of Appeals
in Case No. 94 CA 1273, The Villa has a vested property right with
2
950301
respect to its above -referenced PUD Plan as defined in C.R.S. §24-
68-102(5), which vested property right was established upon
approval by the County Board of said PUD Plan on December 8, 1993.
13. As a matter of law, The Villa is further entitled to
declaratory judgment from this Court that its established vested
property right as described above precludes any zoning or land use
action by a local government or pursuant to any subsequent
initiated measure which would alter, impair, prevent, diminish or
otherwise delay The Villa's development or use of the property as
set forth in its PUD Plan. C.R.S. §24-68-105.
14. No portion of the declaratory judgment requested herein
by The Villa shall be deemed to exempt The PUD Plan from the
following:
a. Compliance with the conditions and standards of the
resolution of December 8, 1993;
b. The application of generally applicable ordinances
or regulations including the Weld County Building Code Ordinance
and the Mountain View Fire Protection District Fire Code;
c. Correction of natural or man-made hazards upon their
discovery or in the immediate vicinity of the subject property,
which hazards could not reasonably have been discovered at the time
of site specific development plan approval, and which hazards, if
uncorrected, would pose a serious threat to the public health,
safety and welfare.
WHEREFORE, The Villa respectfully requests that this Court
enter declaratory judgment herein and find and order that:
A. The PUD Plan for the construction of a pre -parole release
facility within the Fort Junction PUD submitted to the Weld County
Planning Office on September 2, 1993, constituted and was expressly
identified at the time of approval as a "site specific development
plan" pursuant to the requirements of C.R.S. §§ 24-68-101, et. seq.
B. The County Board approved The Villa's PUD Plan, following
notice and public hearing, on December 8, 1993.
C. The County Board published a notice advising the general
public of the County Board's approval of The Villa's site specific
development plan and the creation of a vested property right
pursuant to Article 68 of Title 24, C.R.S., in the Windsor Beacon
on December 16, 1993. Such publication was timely and otherwise in
compliance with C.R.S. §24-68-103(1) and Section 90.7 of the Weld
County Zoning Ordinance 89-Z.
D. No referenda were filed to challenge the County Board's
approval of The Villa's PUD Plan within the time period provided by
3
950301
law, although such action by the County Board is subject to an
appeal brought pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) in Weld County
District Court Case No. 94 CV 9. The County Board's action was
affirmed in Weld County District Court on June 13, 1994, and that
ruling is presently on appeal in the Colorado Court of Appeals,
Case No. 94 CA 1273.
E. Pursuant to C.R.S. §13-51-106 and C.R.C.P. 57(b), The
Villa is entitled to have the status of its "vested property right"
with respect to its PUD Plan resolved and determined by the Court
by declaratory judgment.
F. Subject only to the appeal in Colorado Court of Appeals
Case No. 94 CA 1273, The Villa therefore has a vested property
right with respect to its above -referenced site specific
development plan as defined in C.R.S. §24-68-102(5) and Weld County
Zoning Ordinance 89-Z, Section 90.2.5, which vested property right
was established upon approval by the County Board of said site
specific development plan on December 8, 1993.
G. The Villa's above -referenced established vested property
right therefore precludes any zoning or land use action by a local
government or pursuant to any subsequent initiated measure which
would alter, impair, prevent, diminish or otherwise delay The
Villa's development or use of the property as set forth in the site
specific development plan.
H. No portion of this Order shall be deemed to exempt The
Villa's PUD Plan from the following:
i) Compliance with the conditions and standards of the
resolution of December 8, 1993;
ii) The application of generally applicable ordinances
or regulations including the Weld County Building Code Ordinance
and the Mountain View Fire Protection District Fire Code;
iii) Correction of natural or man-made hazards upon their
discovery or in the immediate vicinity of the subject property,
which hazards could not reasonably have been discovered at the time
of site specific development plan approval, and which hazards, if
uncorrected, would pose a serious threat to the public health,
safety and welfare.
I. The Court enter such other and further orders, and grant
4
950301 I
such other and further relief, as it deems proper in the premises.
DATED: 4-cYy.a L4LI 7 , 1995.
HOUTCHENS, DANIEL & GREENFIELD
Kim Robert Houtchens, #6379
Attorney for Plaintiff
1007 9th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
(303) 353-9195
Denver metro: 571-0052
Address of Plaintiff:
1750 6th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
5
950301 I
Hello