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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-102 (2026)

Legislative declaration

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

(1) In 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, the powers set forth in this article are granted to all counties and municipalities for the following purposes: (a) To provide for necessary commercial, recreational, and educational facilities conveniently located to such housing; (b) To provide for well-located, clean, safe, and pleasant industrial sites involving a minimum of strain on transportation facilities; (c) To ensure that the provisions of the zoning laws which direct the uniform treatment of dwelling type, bulk, density, and open space within each zoning district will not be applied to the improvement of land by other than lot-by-lot development in a manner which would distort the objectives of the zoning laws; (d) To encourage innovations in residential, commercial, and industrial development and renewal so that the growing demands of the population may be met by greater variety in type, design, and layout of buildings and by the conservation and more efficient use of open space ancillary to said buildings; (e) To encourage a more efficient use of land and of public services, or private services in lieu thereof, and to reflect changes in the technology of land development so that resulting economies may enure to the benefit of those who need homes; (f) To lessen the burden of traffic on streets and highways; (g) To encourage the building of new towns incorporating the best features of modern design; (h) To conserve the value of the land; (i) To provide a procedure which can relate the type, design, and layout of residential, commercial, and industrial development to the particular site, thereby encouraging preservation of the site's natural characteristics; and (j) To encourage integrated planning in order to achieve the above purposes.

Source: L. 72: p. 508, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 106-6-2.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · 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× “§ 24-67-102(1); see generally §§ 24-67-102, -104. As defined by the General Assembly, a PUD is an area of land, controlled by one or more landowners, to be developed under unified control or unified plan of development for a number of dwelling units, commercial, educational,…”
Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 205 P.3d 487 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 8× “§ 24-67-102(1), C.R.S.2008. The general assembly has directed us to "liberally construe[]" the PUD Act to further its purposes.”
Beaver Meadows v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 709 P.2d 928 (Colo. 1985). · cites it 2× “are authorized to approve PUDs for the following purposes, among others: (e) To encourage a more efficient use of land and of public services, or private services in lieu thereof, and to reflect changes in the technology of land development so that resulting economies may enure…”
Cnty. Com'rs of Douglas v. Bainbridge, 929 P.2d 691 (Colo. 1997). · cites it 3× “" § 24-67-102(1)(a), 10B C.R.S. (1988). The PUD Act sets forth standards and conditions pursuant to which the planned unit development plans will be evaluated.”
Best v. La Plata Plan. Comm'n, 701 P.2d 91 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “See § 24-67-102, C.R.S. (1982 Repl.Vol. 10). The rigidity inherent in traditional zoning has led to its supplementation with the more flexible PUD zoning device.”
Wolf Creek Ski Corp. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 170 P.3d 821 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). “" § 24-67-102(1)(f), C.R.8.2007. Nevertheless, the court concluded that "none of these provisions specifically and expressly authorizes a county to condition approval of a PUD application upon the developer's improvement of the public roads providing access to the PUD.”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Bainbridge, Inc., 929 P.2d 691 (Colo. 1996). “” § 24-67-102(1)(a), 10B C.R.S. (1988). The PUD Act sets forth standards and conditions pursuant to which the planned unit development plans will be evaluated.”
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 2× “§ 24-67-102(1), C.R.S. (2025). Because this case concerns the Town, we focus on the Act as it concerns municipalities, though our reasoning here extends to counties as well.”
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 3× “§ 24-67-102 (1) , C.R.S. (2025) . Because this case concerns the Town, we focus on the Act as it concerns municipalities, though our reasoning here extends to counties as well.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-102(1): 5 cases
Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 205 P.3d 487 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). “§ 24-67-102(1), C.R.S.2008. The general assembly has directed us to "liberally construe[]" the PUD Act to further its purposes.”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist., 221 P.3d 1063 (Colo. 2009). “§ 24-67-102(1); see generally §§ 24-67-102, -104. As defined by the General Assembly, a PUD is an area of land, controlled by one or more landowners, to be developed under unified control or unified plan of development for a number of dwelling units, commercial, educational,…”
Beaver Meadows v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 709 P.2d 928 (Colo. 1985). “are authorized to approve PUDs for the following purposes, among others: (e) To encourage a more efficient use of land and of public services, or private services in lieu thereof, and to reflect changes in the technology of land development so that resulting economies may enure…”
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). “§ 24-67-102(1), C.R.S. (2025). Because this case concerns the Town, we focus on the Act as it concerns municipalities, though our reasoning here extends to counties as well.”
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). “§ 24-67-102 (1) , C.R.S. (2025) . Because this case concerns the Town, we focus on the Act as it concerns municipalities, though our reasoning here extends to counties as well.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-102(1)(a): 3 cases
Cnty. Com'rs of Douglas v. Bainbridge, 929 P.2d 691 (Colo. 1997). “" § 24-67-102(1)(a), 10B C.R.S. (1988). The PUD Act sets forth standards and conditions pursuant to which the planned unit development plans will be evaluated.”
Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 205 P.3d 487 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). “§ 24-67-102(1), C.R.S.2008. The general assembly has directed us to "liberally construe[]" the PUD Act to further its purposes.”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Bainbridge, Inc., 929 P.2d 691 (Colo. 1996). “” § 24-67-102(1)(a), 10B C.R.S. (1988). The PUD Act sets forth standards and conditions pursuant to which the planned unit development plans will be evaluated.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-102(1)(e): 1 case
Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 205 P.3d 487 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). “§ 24-67-102(1), C.R.S.2008. The general assembly has directed us to "liberally construe[]" the PUD Act to further its purposes.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-102(1)(f): 1 case
Wolf Creek Ski Corp. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 170 P.3d 821 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). “" § 24-67-102(1)(f), C.R.8.2007. Nevertheless, the court concluded that "none of these provisions specifically and expressly authorizes a county to condition approval of a PUD application upon the developer's improvement of the public roads providing access to the PUD.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-102(1)(i): 1 case
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist., 221 P.3d 1063 (Colo. 2009). “§ 24-67-102(1); see generally §§ 24-67-102, -104. As defined by the General Assembly, a PUD is an area of land, controlled by one or more landowners, to be developed under unified control or unified plan of development for a number of dwelling units, commercial, educational,…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-102(l)(a): 1 case
Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 205 P.3d 487 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). “§ 24-67-102(1), C.R.S.2008. The general assembly has directed us to "liberally construe[]" the PUD Act to further its purposes.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-102(l)(e): 1 case
Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 205 P.3d 487 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). “§ 24-67-102(1), C.R.S.2008. The general assembly has directed us to "liberally construe[]" the PUD Act to further its purposes.”
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.