Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 24
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-101 (2026)

Short title

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This article shall be known and may be cited as the "Planned Unit Development Act of 1972".

Source: L. 72: p. 508, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 106-6-1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist., 221 P.3d 1063 (Colo. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist., 221 P.3d 1063 (Colo. 2009). · cites it 9× “The PUD Act grants counties and municipalities the power to authorize PUDs "[i]n order that the public health, safety, integrity, and general welfare may be furthered in an era of increasing urbanization and of growing demand for housing of all types and design," among other…”
Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. Colorado Arlberg Club, 762 P.2d 146 (Colo. 1988). · cites it 2× “See §§ 24-67-101 to -108, 10 C.R. S. (1982) (the Planned Unit Development Act of 1972).”
Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 205 P.3d 487 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “Amendment of PUD The County next contends, based on its interpretation of the Planned Unit Development Act of 1972, §§ 24-67-101 to -108, C.R.S.2008 (PUD Act), that the trial court erred in finding that the District did not have to amend the PUD to allow it to build a new fire…”
South Creek Assocs. v. Bixby & Assocs., Inc., 781 P.2d 1027 (Colo. 1989). · cites it 4× “Lastly, the dissent asserted that section 24-67-106(2) of the Planned Unit Development Act of 1972, §§ 24-67-101 to XX-XX-XXX, 10B C.R.S. (1988) (PUD Act), requires that PUD plan provisions be recorded in order to be enforceable.”
Beaver Meadows v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 709 P.2d 928 (Colo. 1985). · cites it 2× “Finally, the Planned Unit Development Act of 1972, sections 24-67-101 to -108, 10 C.R.S. (1982), provides for the adoption of standards and conditions by which a PUD shall be evaluated.”
Best v. La Plata Plan. Comm'n, 701 P.2d 91 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “In determining its recommendation as to the plan, the Commission is required by the Regulations to apply the facts relevant to the applicant's case to criteria set forth in the Regulations. We conclude that the zoning authority here was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity in…”
Wolf Creek Ski Corp. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 170 P.3d 821 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). “" And it pointed to a provision of the Planned Unit Development Act of 1972, sections 24-67-101 to -108, C.R.S.2007, that addressed approval "[tlo lessen the burden of traffic on streets and highways.”
C & M Sand & Gravel, Div. of C & M Ready Mix Concrete Co. of Boulder v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 673 P.2d 1013 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). “); § 24-67-101 et seq., C.R.S. 1973 (1982 Repl.”
Whatley v. Summit Cnty. Bd. of Cty. Com'rs, 77 P.3d 793 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “Similarly, here, to prove that a protected property interest existed and was violated without due process, the Whatleys rely on the Planned Unit Development Act of 1972 (PUD Act), §§ 24-67-101 through -108, C.R.S.2002; §§ 30-28-116 and 31-23-304, C.”
South Creek Assocs. v. Bixby & Assocs., Inc., 753 P.2d 785 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987). “Bixby also bases its claim of a right enforceable against South Creek on its interpretation of the provisions of § 24-67-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1982 Repl. Vol.”
Tiffany Kavanaugh in her Off. capacity as Telluride Town Clerk v. Telluride Locals Coalition Petitioners' Comm.; Matthew Hintermeister; Ian Wilson; Daniel Aurand; & Brighton Props., LLC, a Colorado Ltd. Liab. Co.., 2026 CO 47 (Colo. 2026). · cites it 3× “Facts and Procedural History ¶3 In 1995, pursuant to Colorado's Planned Unit Development Act ("PUD Act"), §§ 24-67-101 to -108, C.R.S. (2025), the Town approved Butcher Creek, a PUD proposed by Brighton.”
Tiffany Kavanaugh in her Off. capacity as Telluride Town Clerk v. Telluride Locals Coalition Petitioners' Comm.; Matthew Hintermeister; Ian Wilson; Daniel Aurand; & Brighton Props., LLC, a Colorado limitedliability Co.., 2026 CO 47 (Colo. 2026). · cites it 6× “Facts and Procedural History ¶3 In 1995, pursuant to Colorado's Planned Unit Development Act ("PUD Act"), §§ 24-67-101 to -108, C.R.S. (2025), the Town approved Butcher Creek, a PUD proposed by Brighton.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-101(3) — 1 case
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist., 221 P.3d 1063 (Colo. 2009). “The PUD Act grants counties and municipalities the power to authorize PUDs "[i]n order that the public health, safety, integrity, and general welfare may be furthered in an era of increasing urbanization and of growing demand for housing of all types and design," among other…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-101(8) — 1 case
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist., 221 P.3d 1063 (Colo. 2009). “The PUD Act grants counties and municipalities the power to authorize PUDs "[i]n order that the public health, safety, integrity, and general welfare may be furthered in an era of increasing urbanization and of growing demand for housing of all types and design," among other…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.